The GOP Purity Test: An Intellectual Failure

Realizing their party is in disarray and searching desperately for a way to offer value to voters, some members of the GOP are attempting to institute what pundits are calling a “purity test”. Hopeful Republican candidates will have to pass this purity test in order to receive support from the GOP. Were I a Republican, I would support this type of measure. The DNC certainly has its principles defined and is fighting hard for them. Granted, those principles are abhorrent as they stem from a collectivist ideology, but they are defined principles nonetheless (though, like all collectivists, Democrats rarely expound on the specifics of those principles). Unfortunately for Republicans, the GOP has not defined any principles whatsoever. The purity test is barely more than a cheap PR stunt. In addition to falling short of an improvement in the GOP’s strength, the purity test actually represents a step backwards. Let’s examine it further.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

Supporting “smaller government” and “lower taxes” makes no principled statement. “Smaller” and “lower” are merely relative measurements. “Smaller government” compared to the Soviet Union? We already have that (though, quite possibly, not for long). “Lower taxes” compared to Europe? Hardly an accomplishment. A statement of principles would have been “We support the smallest government and lowest taxes possible to provide for the protection of individual rights.” To make matters worse, the GOP mentions a specific politician (President Obama) and specific legislation (the stimulus bill). If someone asked me my name, I would not answer with “I am not Fred”. What does it matter what I am not? A person or idea is never defined as a negative, as a negative cannot be proved. To base one’s identity on a negative is intellectual suicide.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

This statement faces the same problems as the statement above. The GOP is defining itself through a negative and failing to define any core principles. “Market-based” is not enough. The market must be held completely sacrosanct and freedom must be the rule, not the exception.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Again, legislation is attacked rather than principles defended. This test will be outdated in a matter of months.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Much of the same, attacking specific issues rather than defining principles. This, however, falls far shorter of what is right than the second and third resolutions. The GOP should take a firm stance against unions and any other deadly obstacles to business. Why must corporations fear subjective anti-trust law while workers enjoy government-protected collusion in order to artificially raise labor prices, thereby destroying entire firms (GM and Chrysler being the primary examples)?

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

While I certainly support a liberal immigration policy and oppose amnesty for those who have broken our laws, Republicans frequently portray a high degree of ignorance in regards to this issue. Immigration policy should be liberalized, coupled with the dismantling of our welfare state. Furthermore, it should be recognized that immigration policy and border security are distinct issues.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

As noted above, it is a mistake to focus on specific issues. A coherent policy on national defense should be defined. Preferably, this policy would be non-interventionist in nature, while obligating the U.S. government to counter any threat to American citizens with extreme prejudice. It should also be made clear that U.S. soldiers are also U.S. citizens and are to be valued over civilians of other countries.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Not only is this wildly inconsistent with the first resolution, it is so out of line with the our founding principles that I consider it criminal. There is absolutely nothing within the bounds of reason that provide for government authority to decide who a person can marry. That this is even an issue in the United States is something to be ashamed of.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

Health care rationing would not be a problem in a completely private health care system. I would assume that “denial of health care” is referring to a host of “right to die” issues which are far too nuanced for this post. A private health care system would make the issue of government-funded abortions irrelevant.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

This is fairly simple and I can’t find much fault with it. But I would note that no reason is given as to why the 2nd Amendment  is to be so fiercely protected. True, it’s part of the U.S. Constitution – but so was the 3/5ths Compromise, and I don’t see anyone fighting to bring that back. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural consequence of an individual’s right to his/her life. The right to your life naturally includes the right to defend your life. As governments have historically been the most serious threat to human life, and governments keep and bear arms, it follows that individuals should keep and bear arms as well

The absence of principles in this purity test is a symptom of the intellectual void in the GOP. Until Republican candidates can offer voters a value, instead of simply being non-Democrat or anti-Obama, they will continue their slow descent into nothingness. I only hope that a third party will gain enough support to challenge the rampant collectivist ideology in today’s politics.

Milton Friedman on the free market solution to health care

 

Obesity and Health Care Spending

Economix has compiled two maps to show the relationship between obesity and health care spending.

The map below is from a report on obesity and diabetes released last week by The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It shows obesity rates around the country:

Age-adjusted percentages of persons aged ≥20 years with diabetes and obesity, by county. Data for United States, 2007.

The map below illustrates Medicare expenditures across the country (from the Dartmouth Atlas Project):

Data show average age-sex-race-adjusted Medicare spending per enrollee by state and by hospital referral regions for 2006.

I see a clear overlap here.

In a separate post by Economix, David Leonhardt discusses a conversation he had with several economists at the Rand Corporation. While reporting on his column on soda and obesity, he asked the economists to estimate how much money obesity costs the federal government:

They imagined that the American population was no more overweight than it had been in the 1980s and then analyzed how Medicare and Medicaid costs would be different in that situation. (They used a Rand economic model of theirs called the Future Elderly Model.)

The answer: $40 billion.

This is serious money that clearly justifies one of two changes.

On the one you hand, the government could provide the correct incentives that will lead to healthy lifestyles, thus reducing obesity and the financial strain on the federal government. These incentives almost always include taxes.

On the other hand, the government could respect (and accept) the choices people make. If people overeat to the point of obesity, they will personally pay the consequences . Their neighbors will not. In other words, the $40 billion will be paid only by those who spent it.

Of these two options, I pick the second.

Life Expectancy Improvements in the U.S.

HT: Carpe Diem

Politicization of Health Care Reform

Donald Boudreaux‘s letter to the Baltimore Sun on the politicization of health-care reform:

You are right to decry the increasing politicization of health-care (”Medicine trumps politics,” Nov. 24).

But you are also unreasonable to do so.  Yours is among the most strident voices in support of Obamacare.  To demand more government-enforced and financed health-care arrangements and to decry the inevitable politics that arises in response to this government intervention is like demanding government-enforced and financed free love and decrying the inevitable resulting increase in unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

This is what happens when you start handing out money

From the Lexington’s notebook:

Christian Scientists, who don’t believe in conventional medicine, are nonetheless keen to grab some of the cash the government will soon be splurging on health reform.

Church leaders want health insurers to reimburse “spiritual health” practitioners who pray for the sick, reports the Washington Post.

A proposal to that effect was stripped out of the House health bill, but the Church is lobbying to have it re-inserted into the Senate version.

Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, taught that sickness is a delusion. Rather than consulting a doctor when you are ill, you should pray, she advised. Her modern-day followers sometimes take this literally.

Their children occasionally die of preventable or treatable diseases. The Church would like taxpayers to subsidise this sort of nonsense. And Senators John Kerry and Orrin Hatch apparently agree.

The great thing about this sort of logic is that it can be applied to anything. If I “educate” my children by praying that they will one day get into Harvard, may I please have a subsidy from the Department of Education? And I understand that there’s a lot of money in the defence budget. If I pray for victory in Afghanistan, perhaps Congress will give me some of it.

Taxes Proposed to Pay for Health Care Reform

The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of proposed taxes to pay for health care reform. The list includes taxes in the bill already passed by the House of Representatives, the bill currently being debated in the Senate, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to finance health care reform. I’m sure more will come our way, don’t worry.

Does the Senate Finance Committee version of the health-care bill threaten to cripple evidence-based medicine?

Andrew Gelman has posted on an article by Harry Selker and Alastair Wood on the rules for evidence-based medicine in the House and Senate versions of the health-care bill. The main point is as follows:

The [Senate] Finance Committee bill also includes language requested by industry lobbyists (pages 1138-1139) that threatens to withdraw federal funding for 5 years from any investigator who publishes a report on research funded by the proposed institute that is not “within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence.” Determinations regarding such consistency would be made by the newly created research entity, which would have industry involvement both in its governance and in study design.

The authors continue:

To allow scientists — and their institutions, which receive the support for the conduct of research — to be punished for the publication of work that is not approved by this entity is essentially to cede authority over the dissemination of government-funded research to a body that is at least partially controlled by persons with a potential commercial interest in its outcome. This move would be a major retrograde step that would both inhibit the conduct of CER and call its integrity into question. In addition, because researchers and their institutions will seek to avoid such punishment, this provision is likely to result in prolonged arguments, taking place out of public view, regarding which data are acceptable to publish, thereby impeding and delaying publication.

Why Is It So Hard To Believe That More Testing Can Be Bad for Your Health?

From Slate:

The two separate recommendations this week that women shouldn’t undergo screening for breast and cervical cancer as frequently as previously recommended “have been met with anger and confusion from some corners, not to mention a measure of political posturing,” notes the New York Times. Boosters of the recommendations insist they’re just good science, but they’ve confounded patients who have been led to believe that when it comes to screening, more is better. As far as the mammogram recommendations go, there’s little question that they’re right on the money, writes John Crewdson in the Atlantic. It may have seemed like it came out of the blue, but the data have been available since March 2002. The truth is the media just aren’t very good at explaining what all the different numbers mean and how little absolute benefit there is from mammograms. In Sweden, for example, regular mammograms became available to nearly all Swedish women, yet the national breast cancer death rate fell by a mere 2 percent, “or less than one fewer death in every 100,000 women,” reports Crewdson. The outrage that develops when it is suggested that screening should be pared back is nothing new, writes Robert Aronowitz in an op-ed in the New York Times. Throughout the past 100 years, people have wanted to believe that screening has a much more net positive effect than it really does. The NYT talks to experts who say the uproar over this week’s studies shows how the public and politicians need to be educated to the fact that screening can be “a two-edged sword,” as one expert puts it. “Yes, it helps some people, but it harms others.”

Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine?

By Dr. Yaron Brook,
Executive Director, The Ayn Rand Institute

Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama’s “reforms” will only expand that intervention.

Prior to the government’s entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market–no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.

Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans’ rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn’t for food or clothing.

But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product–for which each individual must assume responsibility–had given way to a view of health care as a “right,” an unearned “entitlement,” to be provided at others’ expense.

This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).

The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the “burden” of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar’s worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.

Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.

As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the “right” to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.

The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.

You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services–no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.

Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.

Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.

©2009 The Ayn Rand Institute.

Author Bio
Dr. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

The Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization headquartered in Irvine, California, works to introduce young people to Ayn Rand’s novels, to support scholarship and research based on her ideas, and to promote the principles of reason, rational self-interest, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism to the widest possible audience. The Institute is named for novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982), who is best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. ARI has a distinguished Board of Directors and a staff of about 35 employees.

For more information about ARI, please visit
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index