Given the Obama administration’s efforts to nationalize the health care industry—and the Republicans’ rush to capitulate on the matter—The Objective Standard is making Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability“ (from the forthcoming issue of The Objective Standard) accessible on our website early and for free. Dr. Hsieh’s article shows that, contrary to proposals being put forth by Republicans, a genuinely free market in health insurance is not only moral, in that it respects the rights of producers and consumers, but also practical, in that it enables businessmen to solve problems for profit—which leads to more and better products and services at lower prices for consumers. Please forward the link to everyone you know who might be open to reason. Two other TOS articles pertaining directly to this national emergency are:

“Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America,” which identifies the theory behind the Massachusetts mandatory health insurance program, exposes the program as a fiasco, explains why the theory had to fail in practice, and sheds light on the only genuine, rights-respecting means to affordable, accessible health care for Americans—and . . .

“Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care,” which surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine in America, specifying the rights violations and economic problems caused thereby; enumerates the failed attempts to solve those economic problems by means of further government interference; and shows that the only viable solution to the debacle at hand is to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in these industries.

America is slipping into statism, and, if we do not reverse course soon, we are going to slip all the way. Please promote these articles—which provide clear, principled, moral arguments for a free market in health care—in whatever ways you can. Our freedom and health are at stake.

WASHINGTON, September 10, 2009--In a joint speech to Congress last night, President Obama laid out his plan for health care reform. The president, quoting the late Senator Ted Kennedy, said: “What we face is, above all, a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” 

“The President and the Senator are right about one thing: health care is above all a moral issue,” writes Alex Epstein, an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center. “Unfortunately, the ‘social justice’ morality behind universal health care is utterly un-American and destructive.

“A proper system of health care, based on America’s founding principle of individual rights, is one in which each individual has a right to pursue health care on a free market of medical professionals and insurance companies. Such a system recognizes each individual’s right to his own life, and responsibility for its preservation--as well as the right of doctors and others to assist the poorest Americans through private charity. The practical result would be the same as emerges in any truly free market: ever better, cheaper products and services for your (health care) dollar.

“Health care is a moral issue. And it should be dealt with via the American morality of individualism, individual responsibility, and individual rights.”

Arlington, Va.—What do Bill Clinton, Peggy Noonan, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Maureen Dowd and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth founder John O’Neil have in common?

All wrote books that could have been banned, just like “Hillary: The Movie,” the film at the heart of the campaign finance case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear new arguments in the case Wednesday, Sept. 9, in an unusual session ordered after justices appeared troubled by the government’s suggestion during the first oral argument that it could ban corporate-funded books.  Indeed, Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, a leading advocate of campaign finance regulations, admitted this week to The New York Times, “A campaign document in the form of a book can be banned.”

Today, the Institute for Justice released a “top ten” list of political advocacy books from the last four presidential election cycles and asked:  If the First Amendment doesn’t protect “Hillary: The Movie,” would it protect books like these?

1. Dude, Where’s My Country?, Michael Moore, 2003 (“There is probably no greater imperative facing the nation than the defeat of George W. Bush in the 2004 election.”)
2. Bush Must Go, Bill Press, 2004 (“If you need any ammunition for voting against George Bush, here they are:  the top ten reasons why George Bush must be denied a second term.”)
3. My Dad, John McCain, Meghan McCain, 2008 (“There are a few things you need to know about my dad, and one of them is that he would make a great president.”)
4. The Case Against Hillary, Peggy Noonan, 2000 (“And that is the great thing about democracy:  Before Hillary Clinton gets to decide your future, you get to decide hers.”); and The Case for Hillary, Susan Estrich, 2005 (“And when I say a woman president, it means Hillary.”)
5. Unfit for Command, John E. O’Neil and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., 2004 (“I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States.”)
6. A Call to Service, John Kerry, 2003 (“It is that determination I hope to bring to the election of 2004, to the presidency of the United States, and to the common challenges Americans face.”)
7. Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken, 2003 (“George W. Bush is the worst environmental president in our nation’s history.”)
8. Shrub, Molly Ivins & Lou Dubose, 2000 (“George W. Bush is promising to do for the rest of the country what he has done for Texas.”)
9. Bushworld, Maureen Dowd, 2004 (“So it’s understandable why, going into his reelection campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn’t want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there [in Iraq].”)
10. Between Hope and History, President Bill Clinton, 1996 (“Now, I believe with all my heart, this is another moment for Americans to decide.”)


“Every one of these books takes a position on a candidate’s qualifications for office, just like ‘Hillary: The Movie,’ and every one was published by a corporation,” said Steve Simpson, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice, which filed a friend-of-the court brief in Citizens Untied.  “Every election season, candidates and their backers and detractors flood stores with similar titles.  The question for the government and campaign finance ‘reformers’ is:  Why not ban these books, too?”

Under McCain-Feingold’s electioneering communications ban, the nonprofit corporation Citizens United was barred from airing “Hillary:  The Movie” on cable TV during the 2008 primary season.  A lower court ruled the film fell under McCain-Feingold because “it takes a position on [then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s] character, qualifications, and fitness for office.”  The Supreme Court is now revisiting the parts of McConnell v. FEC that upheld McCain-Feingold’s ban on corporate electioneering communications, as well as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld a ban on corporate express advocacy.

Although McCain-Feingold applies only to broadcast speech, if the Court okays the banning of Hillary: The Movie, there is no principled reason Congress could not extend the ban to books and other media, like newspapers and the Internet. 

“Speech is speech, no matter who is speaking, who funds it or in what form it comes,” continued Simpson.  “The same ideas do not become dangerous because they are funded by corporations or because they appear in an ad or film instead of a book or newspaper.  The Supreme Court must return to first principles and protect all speech, regardless of the speaker, and overturning Austin and McConnell is a critical first step.”
   
“Political ads, books and films, like ‘Hillary: The Movie’ or Michael Moore’s ‘Fahrenheit 9/11,’ contribute to a robust and healthy debate, and they all deserve the fullest protection of the First Amendment,” said IJ Senior Attorney Bert Gall.  “What’s at stake in Citizens United is whether the First Amendment protects this speech from censorship if Congress decides that it prefers silence over debate.  The Supreme Court should reject censorship and open the floodgates to all speakers—and then let citizens and voters decide for themselves.”

The Institute for Justice defends First Amendment rights and challenges campaign finance laws nationwide.  In May, the Institute secured a federal court ruling striking down Florida’s electioneering communications law, and IJ previously won a ruling in the Washington Supreme Court that stopped an attempt to regulate media commentary as “in-kind” political contributions.  IJ is currently challenging laws in Colorado that suppress speech about ballot issues by grassroots groups and nonprofit organizations, as well as Arizona’s “Clean Elections” law for funding political campaigns with taxpayer dollars.

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 25, 2009--In a Washington Post editorial yesterday, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele offered his principles for reforming health care. While he rightly condemned the Obama plan for expanding government control over health care, Mr. Steele vowed to preserve the existing government policies and programs that are responsible for today’s health care crisis, such as Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center, writes, “If the government guarantees health care to people, costs have to skyrocket. When someone else is footing the bill for health care costs, consumers demand medical services without having to consider their real price. The artificially inflated demand this creates sends expenditures soaring out of control. It is irrelevant whether the government finances this spending spree directly, as it does with traditional Medicare, or indirectly, as with Medicare Advantage. In the end, the results are the same.

“The only way to fix the problems caused by government interference in medicine is to eliminate government interference in medicine. By returning to a truly free system where each individual is responsible for his own health care costs, we would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry, leading ultimately to high quality, affordable medical care for Americans. Let’s start looking at ways to phase out government interference in medicine.”

Editor's Note: The conservatives are worse than the Liberals as they are supposed to be the alternative to the "progressivism" (i.e., socialism) of the Left; but, instead the conservatives merely respond with a watered down version of socialism (as they accept the principles of the Left), thus providing no real alternative. Conservatives do this because of their acceptance of altruism -- the doctrine of self-sacrifice -- over the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Three members of the TOS Speakers Bureau, John David Lewis, Richard M. Salsman, and Raymond C. Niles, will be interviewed at separate times in coming days on “The Big Biz Show” (www.bigbizshow.com). Alex Epstein, a TOS contributor and an analyst with the Ayn Rand Center, will be interviewed as well.

“The Big Biz Show,” with Bob “Sully” Sullivan & Russ “T” Nailz, is syndicated via Business Talk Radio Network on 150 AM stations and heard on Internet Sites via BTRN, CBS radio, Chat-About-It, AOL radio, and wsRadio. The show can be heard live online from 1 to 3 p.m. Pacific Time (10–1 EST) at www.businesstalkradio.net (click on “Listen Live”).

The interviews are scheduled as follows:

Thursday, August 13

2:10 PST: Alex Epstein—Defending the Oil Industry

2:40 PST: Richard M. Salsman—Health Care, the Economy, and the California’s Financial Crisis

 

Monday, August 17

2:10 PST: John David Lewis—How Obama Care will Destroy Private Health Insurance

 

Tuesday, August 18

2:10 PST: Raymond C. Niles—Property Rights and Crisis of the Electric Grid