HR 676

Monday, July 21, 2008

Surprise Meeting, Surprise Attack

You may not be aware of this, but in January 2007, John Conyers (D-MI) introduced legislation (HR 676) which will, for all practical purposes, nationalize the medical sector. Last Friday, after having attended a meeting I had heard nothing about until two nights before it was to occur, I was horrified and angered to learn not only that fact, but that a sizable contingent of Congressmen are working feverishly to build support for this bill among various pressure groups while deliberately keeping the voting public -- supporters and opponents alike -- in the dark about its nature.

According to the OpenCongress web site, the bill has 90 co-sponsors. (The Library of Congress lists 78.) Literature passed out on behalf of Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), further claims that HR 676 has the support of 14 "national/international" labor unions, 33 state AFL-CIO federations, 19 "national/state" organizations (ranging from the Hip Hop Caucus to the American Medical Students Association), and thousands of physicians and nurses.

Unofficial Meeting, Official Testimony?

This meeting started an hour and fifteen minutes late and ended after only one question from the audience. It was, in the words of Sheila Jackson-Lee, who ran it, an "unofficial hearing of the House Judiciary Committee". She even complained at the beginning of being "without a gavel" to call it to order. The proceedings were recorded, presumably for future use when the bill is debated in Congress.

Two sets of "witnesses" ("not panelists") were seated and offered their testimony as to why this bill should be passed. (On that, there was no dissent.) The atmosphere was somewhat informal, with lots of back-slapping ("Sheila Jackson-Lee [who was an official in the local Boy Scouts at one time] was a great Boy Scout.") and humor for show among the participants. At one point, Jackson-Lee demanded -- like an emcee at a variety show -- that the audience "give it up" more (i.e., applaud again, more loudly) for one of the witnesses after she finished speaking.

It was very quickly apparent that, contrary to its billing as an "examination" of the medical insurance crisis for all "healthcare stakeholders", this meeting was to be a selective gathering of endorsements for this bill from among prominent locals. All of these were involved in some way with medicine, group medical coverage, or egalitarian activism. The meeting was open to the public, but the lack of publicity and the small seating capacity of the venue indicated that there was no serious interest in obtaining feedback from the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation.

To my knowledge, there was absolutely no local media coverage of this event. (Contrast this to the nine results for Conyers and Jackson-Lee's other meeting here.) If this bill is such a great idea -- if we will all benefit so greatly from it -- would not two experienced professional politicians have managed to attract some publicity for this event? The media silence speaks volumes, all of it about why Conyers and Jackson-Lee would want to fly under the radar about their great plan. What possible harm could enormous gratitude and legions of adoring fans bring to a politician?

The secrecy will begin to make more sense when we consider the bill itself, and the meeting, in which Conyers (if I recall correctly) said he wanted to "frame" this legislation. Indeed it does, but not in the way he intended.

Warning Signs

Here are a few highlights taken from my notes on the meeting:

About 50-60 people attended, including about ten witnesses. In addition to Conyers and Jackson-Lee, Donna Christian-Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended. She served as a sort of opening act for Conyers and Jackson-Lee, speaking for a few minutes, starting just before they arrived.

Jackson-Lee indicated that we were "blessed" by Christensen's presence due to the fact that she is not just a female physician, but a black physician. Christensen stated one of the main themes of this meeting early on: She sees the medical insurance crisis as a racial issue. ("This system is discriminatory.") This idea, whether explicitly tied to race or implied by associating race with poverty, was frequently echoed during the remainder of the meeting.

(During the testimony, the audience was "blessed" with the sight of Christensen texting -- and not even pretending to try to be discreet about it. To her credit, however, she was awake. Conyers, self-appointed guardian of the public health, dozed off at one point.)

Christensen eventually brought up at least one of the two other bills (HR 6212 and HR 3014) touted as companions to HR 676. I have not yet looked into either of these in any detail, but I gather from various remarks that they are to include various measures to increase the number of minorities in the medical professions, start loan forgiveness programs, institute "health empowerment zones" (whatever that means), and train more American nurses. (Every time that came up, there were words to the Seinfeldian effect of "not that there's anything wrong with" immigration.) Christensen also expressed a desire for "culturally competent" care. I don't know about you, but when I'm sick, I want medically competent care.

Conyers, presiding over the meeting as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delivered some long-winded opening remarks to the effect that he is interested in "correcting disparities", and wants to "improve healthcare" on the way to its eventual government takeover. (If more government control equals "improvement", we have been doing this for decades already.)

Most notably to me, Conyers attempted to portray his proposal as noncontroversial and practical, saying that this effort is not "theoretical", "philosophical", "idealistic", or "ivory towerish". I disagree with all but the last. The idea that someone else can dictate to me and my physician the terms under which we can do business is the political application (collectivism) of an objectively wrong theory of morality (altruism) that can have very negative practical results when applied.

Conyers also noted that many labor unions, after having initially expressed satisfaction with their medical coverage, have begun defecting to his plan after encountering the prospect of having coverage reduced in the face of the souring economy. In addition, and most notably, I got the impression that he thinks that Hillary Clinton, who made the last serious effort to nationalize medicine, failed tactically in her efforts to take over the medical sector of the economy.

Straight out of Atlas Shrugged

The format of the rest of the meeting was that a panel of witnesses was seated, with each in turn being allowed nominally three minutes to speak. Conyers could then solicit additional remarks after all were finished. After both panels, I think there was to have been a public Q&A, but this was cut short after only one question since Conyers and Jackson-Lee were leaving. Below are some highlights from the rest of the meeting, not all necessarily in order. Some names may not be correct due to the fact that my eyeglasses had broken that morning and for some reason, I hadn't yet been handed a new pair by my state caretakers in time for the meeting.

  • One Dr. Hamilton noted that several physicians from his former practice who had specialized in internal medicine quit 5-10 years early. He cited this and the unprofitability of that practice as a good reason for passing HR 676. He was neither asked for nor volunteered whether he thought extensive state interference with the medical sector might have had anything to do with that.
  • A young, black, handsome pediatrician, Dr. Raphael, brought up another recurrent theme of the proceedings: the poor or ignorant as "gatekeepers" of medical care, in this case, for their children. (More on that later.) He claimed to "speak for all pediatricians" in wanting greater "access" for children to good medical care. He also claimed that 60% of physicians want a single-payer plan.
  • Local AFL-CIO President Dale Wortham, big, blustering, and wearing a Hawaiian shirt, expressed outrage at the medical insurance crisis. He seemed like the only person at the meeting with a clue about how much a national insurance plan would cost. Meaning that money for NASA to send men to the moon was wasteful and could be spent on medicine instead, he said, "We have the rocks." (Even a valid argument against government waste does not constitute a valid argument for the government taking over a sector of the economy.)
  • In the first Q&A, Conyers, yanking words out of context to manufacture unintended insults like the best of 'em, called Wortham on the carpet for using the phrase "worst of the worst" to describe some of the people both were allegedly there to help. It was plainly obvious that Wortham meant, "worst off of the worst off", and yet Conyers demanded and got an apology from Wortham.
  • Sheila Jackson-Lee again states that, "These are not panelists. They are witnesses." For whose benefit is she saying this?
  • The second panel includes (1) a activist who says she wants "equal opportunity for healthcare" (2) Dr. Jones, whom Jackson-Lee called "Mr. Disparities in Healthcare". He's part of the "Intercultural Cancer Caucus".
  • Jones related a story of how a rich, rural man faced a medical facility with its closed emergency room on "drive-by" status -- What might EMTALA have had to do with that? -- had to try to fly his kid to one. His kid died in flight. Jones' point is that "access" "disparities" don't just affect the poor. No mention is made of the state's possible role in causing this needless death or how an even greater state role will not cause other kinds of "access problems" to become much more common.
  • Dr. Bob (?) of Physicians for a National Health Program testifies that he is here to "debunk" the "myth" that state control of medicine will end health care as we know it. He is not an economist or a political philosopher, but a clinical psychologist.
  • Oddly enough, Dr. Bob sees coverage limits on outpatient visits as evidence that, "The system routinely discriminates against my patients." Even more oddly, although this bill is being called "Medicare for All", he seems not to realize that the government, as the single payer, will have to make similar calls. Even the nation's resources are not unlimited. He also claims that the free market is limited in achieving "socially desirable [by whom? --ed] goals".
  • Dr. Bob claims, contrary to Dr. Leonard Peikoff, that, "Health Care is a right."
  • Dr. Bob also calls single-payer the "gold standard of administrative efficiency". Much of the rhetoric was focused on the large amount of money being spent to administer payment for medical care, as if the much wiser government could redirect most or all of it towards medical care. It seems like nobody in this room regards money as private property.
  • A nurse from a Harris County hospital claims that the average age of a nurse has increased over her career from 32 to 50. This sounds plausible to me. It does not, however, follow that the state should take over the medical sector,.
  • She also puts the family as "gatekeeper" this way or something like it:"Do I pay my electric bill or medical?" She fails to notice that Conyers' plan will take this decision out of our hands and put it in the hands of the government. I, for one, do not often agree with how the government spends the money it is already taking from me!
  • She complains that only 5% of nurses are bilingual. Note that this bill intends to treat everyone in America. Mighty generous of us. And hell, we're not even going to ask our foreign "guests" to pick up a smattering of English, first!
  • Betty Lewis, immediate past president of National Black Nurses Association, is also fixated on training "American" nurses. If this plan can magically fix nurse's compensation, which I believe came up at one point, why not magically declare all of us millionaires and solve the whole "access" problem once and for all?
  • The token "capitalist" (TC) on the panel -- of witnesses -- runs a physician-owned facility that takes in a total of 80% of its revenue from Medicare and Medicaid, but that ends up writing off $20 million (per annum?) due to inability of its patients to pay. In my notes, I write, "This guy thinks he'll make out like a bandit."
  • TC cites agreement with Milton Friedman as if to establish that he's a capitalist and then says there exist private, as opposed to public goods. He sees medicine as a "public good". Memo to Conyers, who dozed off during this (and I can see why): There's your "theory".
  • One non-empaneled person (whose comment is obviously wanted) grovels for money to research various alleged "causes" of poor health among minorities. These generally sounded hokey to me.
So people, mostly poor, but sometimes including the rich, have to make sometimes painful decisions about how to spend their own money -- I mean, act as "gatekeepers". Sometimes, after hospitals (which also have bills to pay) close their emergency rooms to staunch the financial hemorrhaging of uninsured patients the government tells them they must treat if they show up, patients who could pay don't receive treatment and die -- I mean people don't have unlimited "access" to the time and resources of physicians. There remains a shred or two of freedom in the medical sector, so we have, in the words of some talking points that came with the bill, "had a market-run health care system for the last several decades". And, oh yeah, since the poor have the hardest time "accessing" adequate medical care and many of them are also members of minority groups, this whole state of affairs is not an object lesson on the evils of government interference in the economy, but a racist conspiracy! QED.

The Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act

As for the bill itself, just covering this meeting has already taken me far longer than I planned this morning. I urge you to read it, though. As just an example, consider that this bill will make it illegal for private insurers to duplicate coverage allegedly provided by the state. This will require patients to either pay for all of their own medical care (unless this is construed as "self-insurance") or accept whatever the government -- as the new "gatekeeper" -- decides you will get.

And, while Conyers et al. claim that single-payer will permit you to choose your physician, recall that he is going to set the rate your physician receives for services. What will free choice even mean when demand skyrockets for "free" medical care and the "gatekeeper" has to decide whether to cut services, raise taxes, or reduce physician compensation? And what if the government disagrees with your physician over whether treating you is "medically necessary"? What criteria will it use? What if you no longer contribute income to the public coffers? Just because the national budget is bigger than a family's budget does not mean that it is limitless. Sooner or later, choices based on money will have to be made. If you -- rather than a government bureaucrat -- want to be the one making such choices, you should fight this plan.

Just this provision -- and it is only the tip of the government-takeover iceberg -- illustrates what is wrong with government interference in the economy in general and this plan in particular: The personal judgement of physician and patient alike can be nullified by government regulation or trampled at the whim of any government functionary entrusted with enforcing those regulations.

Conyers and his supporters are busy telling each other that this proposal will accomplish what Hillary Clinton's set out to do. At the same time, they are getting ready to tell its potential opponents that it differs greatly from Clinton's plan in substantive ways. (It does not. Consider the question of choice more fully. See above.) They are clearly planning to use the worsening insurance crisis as "evidence" that the free market cannot work. I suspect that they want to spring this proposal on a confused public and attempt to pass it rapidly, before it can be examined critically. Notice that much of their focus involves "answering" objections to Clinton's old plan (e.g., physician choice, it won't "end healthcare as we know it", the market has allegedly been tried and failed).

The time is now to get up to speed on this bill, digest the arguments against state control of medicine, and apply those arguments to this new variant. And if you do not have time to do so, or to work against this bill, then I urge you to support the Foundation for Individual Rights in Medicine, the Americans for Free Choice in Medicine, and the Ayn Rand Institute (which recently put out an op-ed debunking the free market facade of Medicare.

-- CAV


: (1) Corrected an error. (2) Corrected typos.


LOG ME IN said...

Thanks for writing up such a detailed report. It's always mind-boggling what the socialists will attempt to get away with while no one is looking.

Gus Van Horn said...

Not to mention obscene, and on many levels at that.

C. August said...

I second Diana's thanks. This was a very good and horrifying report.

What I still can't get over is that it seems like the entire charade was concocted in order to be a set piece used during Congressional debate. I can just imagine this meeting will be referred to later by the bill's proponents.

"In a meeting of prominent members of the Houston health care community, there was unanimous support for this bill...." etc.

There really doesn't seem to be any other reason for the meeting, as far as I can tell. They weren't soliciting comments from the community, they weren't going to prepare a report and bring their findings to some standing board or what have you. It was a scripted play.

I guess we'll find out soon enough whether it was a script intended just to make everyone feel good (a la "Atlas Shrugged" and the attempts the "Washington boys" made at propaganda while the country collapsed) or whether it was done as part of a coordinated effort to win passage of the bill.

Either way, it needs to be fought. Thanks again.

Gus Van Horn said...

I think this was both a set piece (although probably more of this) and a way to increase support. Along with a copy of the legislation were a couple of lists of "ten reasons" the plan is so great and a print of a slide show in support. (It was from the last slide of this that I got the "fact" that we've had a free health care market "for decades".

Brian Phillips said...

I also attended this farce.

While we were waiting for the nobility to arrive, one of Lee’s assistants announced that she had been held up at a contentious press conference at City Hall. Lee, while making an attempt at an apology, later said that they had been delayed at Texas Southern University. They couldn’t even get their story straight. The union official was also apparently left out of the loop, because he apologized for his attire, saying that he thought he was attending a press conference.

At one point Conyers spoke about doctors making $1M a year being opposed to 676 because they would have their “goose that lays the golden eggs” taken away. He was almost gleeful as he said this.

As sick as this was, I’m glad I went. It showed me how mean and petty our enemies truly are.

Gus Van Horn said...


I briefly debated with myself -- after the apologies -- whether to include the lengthy delay and the Hawaiian shirt.

But as you indicate, the apologies didn't really make sense. Why couldn't or wouldn't Conyers et al. more effectively budget their time for something with life-and-death repercussions for hundreds of millions of people (counting only American citizens)? And why was a key witness as out of the loop as we were?

Such details may seem extraneous until they are considered in aggregate.

Our right to freely trade for medical care is being trifled with by petty, arrogant incompetents. This should anger anyone.

Anonymous said...

I am reminded of how the Pew Institute manufactured the campaign finance reform "grassroots movement".

Gus Van Horn said...

You are right to think of that. One comment at a related post pointed to an article explaining that the 60% of physicians who allegedly want single payer is likely attributable to a reworded question on a survey taken AFTER a majority had rejected the idea.

This is probably intended to complement the strategy of "addressing" past criticisms of HRC's plan -- by making it appear that "authorities" have changed their minds.

Even if most physicians DID want single-payer, that does not make it any mre economically viable or moral.

Matt said...

I'm glad you wrote up a detailed report. I sure as hell didn't feel like doing it (I have too much of a temper to do it with any levelheadedness right now).

Although your readership is several times my own, so me doing so probably would've been a waste.

Great job.

Gus Van Horn said...


As for your blogging this being a "waste of time", that's the wrong approach to blogging. If you'd written it up and contacted me or left a comment, my blog might have generated a backlink (like the three below) or I could have linked to it myself, introducing new readers to it.

Also, compared to a newspaper, my blog is diddly squat in terms of raw numbers of readers. But I do reach some people who appreciate the intellectual forces driving current events. A few of those do have a decent amount of influence and helping them in some way is definitely NOT a waste of time.

Anyway, now that I see you've recently started blogging, I'll stop by for a closer look when I have a little more time to do so. Welcome to the blogosphere!

Faulk For Congress said...

Did you read H.R. 676? Read this...Who is Eligible
"Every person living or visiting in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and ID number once they enroll at the appropriate location. Social Security numbers may not be used when assigning ID cards."
Does anyone else understand what this bill does? All residents (legal and illegal) and all VISITORS will be covered!!
Will the U S Taxpayer pay for the their airfare to come here before they destroy the best health care system in the world.
Sheila Jackson Lee has to be defeated this year.
John Faulk
Candidate TX 18 CD

Gus Van Horn said...

Thank you for stopping by, Mr. Faulk.

Not only does Sheila Jackson-Lee need to be defeated, but the whole idea that the state exists to do anything EXCEPT protect individual rights. Sadly, I see that you wish to misuse the apparatus of the state to enforce Christian morality. From your web site:

"As your Representative from the Texas 18th Congressional District, I would support an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception by prohibiting any state or federal law that ignores the personhood of an unborn child. However, since amending the Constitution is an extremely lengthy process, I would introduce and co-sponsor the Federal Right to Life Act. This act would define 'personhood' as the moment of conception. Therefore, all unborn children would be protected without the need of amending the U. S. Constitution."

There is no earthly basis for considering an embryo a human life, and imposing this belief on others through the power of the state violates individual rights just as much as socialized medicine does.

I will not choose between a socialist and a theocrat. Both place other considerations above protecting individual rights.

Joe said...

Thanks for the tip via HBL... this is another example of the roaches and how they despise the light of day all the while spreading disease and filth.

When evil presents itself openly (like Ms Clinton's plan) it can easily be defeated, but when it hides it gains more ground than people realize until it's too late.

Keep up the great work.


Gus Van Horn said...

Thank you, and keep spreading the word.

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Hi, Gus, and thanks for the detailed report. I had seen the link last week at the Objectivist Roundup, but had not had time to read it then. I linked this time through Rational Jenn's blog.

I have no influence at all, but as a citizen I am extremely concerned about this. I had cancer (successfully treated by competent physicians) about 10 years ago, and I know how important choice is when a person is confronted with a deadly disease. I was fortunate to be able to speak the medical lingo (I was a biologist) and I still had problems getting the treatment I knew I needed because of the limits placed on the doctors by the insurance company--which was mostly due to government interference. As you so ably pointed out, we do not have a free market for medicine today--and doctors are often frustratingly limited in what they are allowed to do because of it.

Another important point you made had to with the "culturally competent" care non-issue. Several people I know who survived the Nazi's have told me that this kind of language is eerily similar to the Nazi use of terms like "German science" v. "Jewish science" and etc. Does medically appropriate treatment change due to culture? I can see differences in risks and treatment due to genetic differences among populations,and between males and females, however, just as science is science, so is medical competence medical competence.

But then we know these people are socialists--just as the Nazi's were, and they seem to have similar pseudo-scientific arguments just as the Nazi's did.

BTW: I'm not equating the two, just pointing out the similarities. I hope this does not bring the wrath of Godwin's law down on my head!

Gus Van Horn said...

Thank you for your kind words and support!

As for Godwin's Law, I hereby state "Van Horn's Codicil to Godwin's Law":


"If the comparison to Nazis is warranted and supported, stating such a fact is not to the detriment of one's point."

Anonymous said...

I would like to get to the point in hand and not to debate the form or funtion of the meeting itself.

Is HR 676 a good idea?
I live in England which has universal free healthcare. I am treated in proportion to how sick I am and not how much money I have and how much money my insurace company decides to pay.
If this bill was passed and it turned into reality it would be the single greatest moment in American politics for a generation.

All the media reports of socialised heath care in Britain and Canada being slow wastful and under funded is a lie and a dangerous lie at that.

What I cant understand is if you can have a sociased fire department, schools, armed forces, coast guard, police force (the list is to long sorry) why cant you have sociased heath care. If you can fid money to bomb people and put out fires then you can find money to help people when they are sick.

To me a society is judged by how it treats its worsed off. America is a disgrace in this respect.

Gus Van Horn said...

"Is HR 676 a good idea?"

No. The state stealing private property, issuing orders to people regarding how they run their businesses or contract with clients, and making slaves of its citizens -- even if they're physicians! -- is never a good idea. It is immoral and impractical.

"I live in England which has universal free healthcare. I am treated in proportion to how sick I am and not how much money I have and how much money my insurace company decides to pay.

I guess you aren't overweight, then. Congratulations on that, at least.

"All the media reports of socialised heath care in Britain and Canada being slow wastful and under funded is a lie and a dangerous lie at that."

You left out several other countries where socialized medicine has been tried and failed. Are those reports also "lies", or is the vast media conspiracy confined to reporting only on those two?

Oh, and then there are parts of the United States where socialized medicine (or aspects of it) is being tried and is already failing.

"What I cant understand is if you can have a sociased fire department, schools, armed forces, coast guard, police force (the list is to long sorry) why cant you have sociased heath care. If you can fid money to bomb people and put out fires then you can find money to help people when they are sick."

The only proper purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. From your list, only the police and armed forced should be parts of the government.

But we do agree that America has a mostly socialized education system.

Good. I don't want our medical system to achieve that same level of "excellence, so I want the government not only to not get even further involved, but to get completely out.

"To me a society is judged by how it treats its worsed off. America is a disgrace in this respect."

It is evil to enslave people, and your assertion against countless media reports to the contrary, government control of medicine harms and kills patients, and hinders physicians from exercising their best judgement on behalf of patients.

Socialized medcine is a disgrace, and calling for it is foolishness at best.

To anyone with a serious interest in this matter, I highly recommend Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh's "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'", in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard."

Joe said...

Looks like Hawaii learned it's lesson quick on socializing their health care... they've already repealed the "free care" due to an amazing problem that even people who could afford private care were signing up for "free care". And who can blame them? Why pay for something through your taxes and then have to turn around and pay again?

Besides, they have to save as much as possible so that when they have a real health issue they can afford to fly to another state that has not yet decided to be so "caring".

Gus Van Horn said...

Joe, thanks for supplying your example, which points us to a major practical difficulty with socialized medicine: When something is "free", demand skyrockets.

This inevitably leads to rationing because the amount of available medical care cannot be made infinite by govenment decree or the wishes of altruists.

These facts will inevitably cause people to be denied care at some point regardless of their degree of need OR their ability to pay for it in a free society.

James C. Samans said...

Detailed, but enormously misleading. The bill itself is a matter of public record, not difficult to read, and only a few pages long. There are several issues deserving of debate, but this "socialist" stuff is just plain silly.

Are you really so blind that you imagine that, under existing private health insurance, decisions are made between you and your doctor, and not by the third-party payer actually footing the bill? There are literally millions of examples of people all across the U.S. you can use to demonstrate how untrue such claims are. Private insurance pays as little as possible, dictates the parameters of your care, and lets you die when you exhaust your coverage caps.

Get this, folks: we do not have a market-based healthcare system in the United States. All of your group plans, PPOs, and HMOs are already socialized medicine; that's what risk pools are. (If you want to see what true market healthcare looks like, research Singapore's system; it works very well.)

Similarly, doctors are already compensated based on what insurance providers agree to pay them; they accept it, or they charge cash-only, or they get out of the practice. No change.

The only difference between what H.R. 676 proposes and what you have now--if you have anything--is that the current system adds about 20% to the cost of everything so that shareholders can profit.

Gus Van Horn said...

You may choose to call my post "detailed, but enormously misleading," but you are wrong. Furthermore, in addition to your post being rude in tone it demonstrates that you did not bother even to skim the above comments.

Had you done so, you would have seen that most of the points you raise to the effect that our medical sector is already not free market have already been covered in one form or another, but I shall repeat, for the benefit of any concerned readers, the most relevant recommendation I have for learning more about this matter: "To anyone with a serious interest in this matter, I highly recommend Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh's 'Moral Health Care vs. Universal Health Care', in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of The Objective Standard."

I have not once said here that we have a fully free economy, particularly regarding medical care. We're at least half-way to socialized medicine already, and most of our problems are a direct result. (e.g., Some states force insurers to pay for expensive, elective fertility procedures.) The solution is MORE freedom, not even less.

If people like yourself expect people like me to believe you really are concerned about our welfare, then you would do well to start by at least considering the arguments we make. It's not that hard to read, and the fact that you did not calls into question both how interested you really are in fixing this problem and your competence to do so.

Good day.