After 2 weeks of sleepless nights, I have finished reading all 1,017 pages of the Health Care Bill and writing a Synopsis. Unlike our elected representatives, I have an entire copy of the bill and have provided page numbers and line numbers in my synopsis making it easy for anyone to look up what I am saying. It's scary and we will all soon be in the public health plan. Please send this to as many people as possible.
SYNOPSIS OF HR 3200 America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009
The bill is a 1,017 page document broken out in three Divisions:
1. Division A - Affordable Health Care Choices
2. Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements
3. Division C - Public Health and Workforce Development
Division A - Affordable Health Care Choices (pages 4-215)
This division creates a Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) with a public health insurance option along with private insurance plans.
The government will determine what is a qualifying plan (section (202 (d)(2)). You must be covered under a qualifying plan on January 1, 2013 or you will be automatically enrolled in the public plan (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There are NO new enrollees in private health plans after January 1, 2013 (Div. A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (a)(1)(A) page 16 lines 11-16).
There is an out for the government to deny all private plans from qualifying after 2018 (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (b)(1)(A) page 17 lines 13-19).
The government can disqualify any plan for not adhering to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 or any other reason the Commissioner sees fit ((Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 102 (b)(1)(B) page 18 lines 13-17).
There will be a Health Benefits Advisory Committee made up of 26 members and chaired by the Surgeon General. Of the 26 members, 17 are appointed by the President. There might not be one single Medical Doctor (Div.A Title I Subtitle A Section 123 (a)(3)(A-C) and (4) pages 31-32 lines 1-25 and 1-10).
There is a statement that the government has the right to conduct examinations and audits of Qualifying Health Benefit Plans (QHBP) and recoup the costs involved (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (b)(2)(B) page 43 lines 13-18). Nothing in the paragraph stipulates how infrequent these audits need to be. Therefore, the government could run private plans out of business. Once the government disqualifies a plan, you're in the public plan (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (d)(2)(B) page 44 lines 16-22) and (Div.A Title I Subtitle E Section 142 (d)(2)(D) page 45 lines 7-10).
Private Insurers are not allowed to make a profit (Div.A Title I Subtitle F Section 2714 (a) page 54 lines 1-13). This obviously will bankrupt private insurers. Each company must reinsure all retirees, their spouses and dependents (Div.A Title I Subtitle F Section 164 (a)(1) page 65 lines 14-22). This obviously will bankrupt companies.
The government will automatically enroll you in the public plan if you are not in a qualifying health plan (Div.A Title II Subtitle A Section 205 (b)(3)(A) pages 97-98 lines 22-25 and 1-2). [I thought this was all about choice.
If you have any sort of family change: marriage; divorce; new child; child completing college and now off of your insurance or move, you are automatically enrolled in the government plan (Div. A Title II Subtitle A Section 205 (b)(2)(B) pages 96-97 lines 24-25 and 1-11).
The public health plan has no dental coverage (Div.A Title II Subtitle B Section 221 (b)(3)(B) page 117 line 9). We're going to have "English Teeth"
There is a 2.5% tax on all individuals who do not get acceptable coverage (Div.A Title IV Subtitle A Section 59B (a) page 167 line 23). And Obama says there are no new taxes for this.
If your employer elects to not provide coverage, there is an 8% tax on wages (Div.A Title IV Subtitle A Section 412 (a) page 183 lines 17-20). If your current employer pays more than 8% now, what do you think they will do? You're going on the public plan.
There is a range of taxes (1%-5.4%) for people making over $350,000/year (Div.A Title IV Subtitle D Section 59C (a)(1-3) pages 197-198 lines 21-23 and 1-6). And Obama says there are no new taxes for this.
By 2012, there must be submitted, a study showing the savings, through 2019, generated as a result of the public health care (Div.A Title IV Subtitle D Section 59C (i)(4) page 201 lines 5-11). How could they possible predict this? The date is awfully close to Obama's next election day.
Division B - Medicare and Medicaid Improvements (pages 215-854)
This division discusses all of the changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
The public health plan will be reducing "Durable Medical Equipment" (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1131 (e)(1) page 267 lines 7-8). This means, folks, no more MRIs, CT Scans, etc. The government will arbitrarily adjust "utilization rates" on such equipment so less of them are required (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1147 (a)(1)(C) pages 273-274 lines 20-25 and 1-4).
No more specialty hospitals, like cancer treatment centers (Div. B Title I Subtitle B Part 2 Section 1145 (B) page 272 lines 8-25). If these specialty hospitals cannot charge a premium for their services, they will go bankrupt.
The government will ration the amount of time you are allowed in a hospital (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1151 (a)(1) page 280 lines 15-20). Good luck infirm and elderly.
Physicians can no longer have ownership interest in a hospital (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 (i)(1)(B) page 317 lines 13-20).
No new hospitals or expansion of existing hospitals (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 (i)(1)(C) page 317 lines 21-25). Obviously, this is of concern and needs no further comment.
If any increase in hospital facilities is allowed, through exception, it can only occur at the main campus (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(2)(D) page 323 lines 15-20). Main campuses are usually located in urban areas forcing money into cities and away from rural populations. There will be studies on how to get you to go back to the cities (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1157 (c)(1)(A) page 329 lines 7-9).
The only way a rural hospital will be allowed to increase their facilities will be after 5 years and only if they are located in a county showing a 150% population growth over the state aggregate population growth; admission rates for the hospital must be greater than other county hospitals; in a state that has less bed capacity than the national average; has a bed occupancy rate more than the state average and other conditions determined by the Secretary (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(2)(E)(i-v) pages 323-325). Seems pretty difficult to get new hospitals built, huh?
The public health plan fully admits there will be a lack of Physicians (Div. B Title I Subtitle C Section 1156 subsection (i)(4) page 326).
Pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit (Div. B Title I Subtitle D Section 1181 (b)(1) pages 361-362 and Div. B Title VII Subtitle E Section 1742 (a)(1)(C) pages 793-794 lines 5-25 and 1-8). Obviously, without profit, there is no further research.
The poor, in order to get benefits without paying for them, can self-report income (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1203 (a)(1) page 390 lines 12-25). No potential for fraud here!
ACORN will be getting grants under public health care (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1222 (a)(2)(B) page 407 lines 5-9). No potential for fraud here!
The elderly will be counseled every five years on end-of-life issues (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) pages 424-426). Good bye useless old people.
The state will limit the explanations needed to euthanize you (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) pages 426 lines 22-24).
A "practitioner" who will be given the authority to turn your life support off can be a Nurse Practitioner or a Physicians Assistants (Div. B Title II Subtitle C Section 1223 (a)(1) page 428 lines 9-10 and page 429 line 13). Good bye useless old people.
The capital gains on your primary residence will be used to compute your income to determine your Part B income-related premium (Div. B Title II Subtitle A Section 1235 (a) page 437 lines 17-24). Suddenly, you're rich!
Incentives will be given to health care providers who spend less on you than originally anticipated (Div. B Title III Section 1301 (c)(1)(A) page 447 lines 19-23). No potential to deny services here.
Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants are being elevated to the same status as Medical Doctors under the public health plan (Div. B Title III Section 1302 (a)(4)(A-B) page 461 lines 8-21 and Section 1303 (a)(3)(A)(i-ii) pages 480-481). The dumbing down of our health care.
Midwives get an increase in pay (Div. B Title III Section 1304 (a) page 482 lines 20-21). The dumbing down of our health care. The dumbing down of our health care.
There will be a commission to determine the most efficient method to provide health care and to ration care (Div. B Title IV Subtitle A Section 1401 (a)(1) pages 501-502 lines 20-21) and (Div. B Title IV Section 1304 (e)(2) page 522 lines 9-10).
Of the 15 members on the commission only 1 needs to be a Medical Doctor (Div. B Title IV Section 1304 (b)(3)(A-C) pages 507-509 lines 20-24; 1-25 and 1-19, inclusive).
The "Sunshine Provision" regarding payment for services suddenly doesn't include Nurse Practitioners or Physicians Assistants (Div. B Title IV Subtitle D Section 1128H pages 646-647 lines 15-25 and 1-12). Dissuading Medical Doctors and persuading Nurse Practitioners or Physicians Assistants. There will be fewer Medical Doctors overall (Div. B Title V Section 1501 (a) pages 659-665). How will this improve health care?
There will be fewer medical specialists (Div. B Title V Section 1501 pages 666-670) and (Div. B Title V Section 1501 page 674 lines 9-11). How will this improve health care?
There is addition funding and special emphasis on Hospice (Div. B Title V Sections 1614; 1819A and 2114 pages 691-696). Why is Hospice elevated in Obama's plan? Is the government planning on denying you advanced cancer treatments?
There will be a reduction in home health aides as Physicians will be required to meet with each patient face-to-face before your equipment is scripted (Div. B Title V Section 1639 pages 721-724). You know Physicians don't have this kind of time.
Family planning services are left to the states (Div. B Title VII Subtitle B Section 1714 page 769).
There is another per capita tax on self-insured health plans (Div. B Title VIII Subtitle B Section 4376 page 830 lines 2-25).
Division C - Public Health and Workforce Development (pages 855-1017)
This division is about training of future health care professionals.
Future doctors and/or nurses can no longer pick their specialties. The Secretary will pick their areas of interest based upon "needs" (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 340H page 869 lines 21-24).
Primary Care Physicians and "Other Healthcare Professionals" will make up 90% of the healthcare workforce (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 340K pages 874-875 lines 22-24 and 1-2 and Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 2213 pages 877-880 lines 14-25 and 1-23, inclusive).
Quotas are in full effect throughout the bill (Div. C Title II Part 2 Section 2213 (c-d)(1-3)(pages 880- 881 lines 4-23 and 1-7 and page 884 lines 4-10 and page 939 lines 16-19 and page 946 lines 3-5).
There will be funding for "additional health services" at schools (Div. C Title V Subtitle A Section 2501 page 994 lines 11-13). What are the "additional health services"?
Only unionized healthcare entities can train future nurses (Div. C Title V Subtitle D section 2531 page 1008 lines 13-16 and page 1010 lines 4-5).
All state, county and municipal workers are under the public health plan (Div. C Title V Subtitle E section 2541 page 1017 lines 6-19).
if this is for all americans--then ALL Federal Employees must be included--which means congressmen, senators, president, cabinet---EVERYONE----No person left behind! HA
Lt. Erin Watada and a Standing Army by Jacob G. Hornberger
The case of Lt. Erin Watada provides a good example of why our American ancestors opposed a standing army. You'll recall that Watada is the U.S. military officer who refused orders to deploy to Iraq on the ground that to do so would constitute the war crime of waging a war of aggression. The U.S. Army prosecuted him for refusing to obey such orders but then screwed up by agreeing to the granting of a mistrial after Watada's trial had already begun. Since another trial would have violated the constitutional provision on double jeopardy, U.S. military officials have recently decided to drop the charges. Still pending are charges relating to Watada's criticism of President Bush.
Why did Watada incur the wrath of his superiors? One reason and one reason alone: Making an independent judgment that President Bush's war on Iraq violated both the U.S. Constitution and international law, he refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq. It's that simple. In the eyes of the Pentagon, that's not what a soldier, especially an officer, is supposed to do. A soldier loyally and obediently follows the orders of his commander in chief, no questions asked.
Look at the national torture debate. The CIA is saying, "Don't prosecute us. We were just following orders." And look at all the people who are sympathetic to their position. The idea is, "Hey, they're the patriots. They were just doing their job by following orders. If anyone is at fault, it's got to be the people who ordered them to violate the law, not those people who loyally and obediently obeyed the orders." (Of course, never mind that many of those same people are saying that those who issued the orders shouldn't be prosecuted either.)
But the point is that the military mindset is such that everyone, especially the officers, is expected to loyally and obediently obey the orders of his commander in chief. That's what most of them define as fulfilling their oath to "support and defend the Constitution." When they loyally and obediently follow the orders of their commander in chief, in their mind they are defending our freedoms, fighting for our country, keeping us safe, and supporting and defending the Constitution. And people like Watada, who follow their conscience and the law, are considered bad people who deserve to be prosecuted and punished as common criminals.
What happens if the president issues orders that violate the Constitution or statutory law? Theoretically, the soldier, especially the officer, is supposed to refuse to obey such orders. But as a practical matter, that's not what happens. In the real world, the soldier is not supposed to make that type of determination. He is simply expected to loyally and obediently follow the orders of his commander in chief.
What better proof of this phenomenon than the Watada case? It is undisputed that Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. It is also undisputed that President Bush never secured the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war against Iraq. It would be difficult to find a better example of an illegal and unconstitutional war, which is precisely why Watada refused to obey orders to participate in it.
But the U.S. military considers him to be the bad guy, which is why they prosecuted him as a criminal. In the eyes of the military, the good guys are the officers who loyally and obediently obeyed the president's orders to invade and occupy Iraq, just as the good guys are those CIA agents who loyally violated the laws against torture.
The upshot of all this is that the president essentially has an enormous personal army at his disposal, one that is prepared to loyally and obediently carry out whatever orders he issues. That's not a good thing when it comes to a free society. The Founding Fathers understood that principle, which is precisely why they opposed a standing army for the United States.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Its over 50 years since my army boot camp days and I have little memory of those 8 weeks.
One thing I do remember clearly "lawful orders", it was stated simply, No person can be ordered to to commit a criminal act, "just following orders" is no excuse for crimonal activity.
Failure to obey any order would lead to courts marshal if the order was found to be lawful you would be found guilty, He who gave the order would be held to answer.
It was a soldiers duty to know the difference.
Lt. Erin Watada was right, that is why a mistrial was used as a coverup.
Failure to obey any order would lead to courts marshal if the order was found to be lawful you would be found guilty, if found to be unlawful he who gave the order would be held to answer.
The World, Nations, and the Dangers/Threats have changed since 1776.
Anyone that thinks that the United States does not need a Standing Army is off their rocker, and a few fry's short of a happy meal.
Yes the American people were mislead about Iraq having or attempting to get WMD's.
Iraq/Saddam had a choice for 12 years following the Justified 1991 Desert Sheild/Storm that repelled/removed Saddams invading/murdering/occupying Army from Kuwait.
Saddam repeatedly refused/denied UN and it's Nuclear Inspectors from access to sites throughout Iraq in accordence with the cease fire aggrements at the end of the 1991 war of aggression by Saddam/Iraq.
The UN Security Council issued the authorization for the use of force if Iraq did not comply. Saddam/Iraq still had a choice up until the very moment the first bombs dropped.
If this war was Truely Illegal, where are the lawsuits against any of the Generals on down for carrying out these War Crimes ?
In times of national security, a soldier must obey his orders, or no soldier will. The issue at stake here is whether or not a soldier at the fellows level make a call as to the Constitutional Legality of his orders to deploy.
It would be a clear call of a soldier to refuse to shoot, say a bunch of unarmed civilians laying in a ditch, but this is a totally different animal.
This fellow should be really glad he lives in America at this place and time and not Nazi Germany circa 1933/1945, he would have been shot no questions asked.
I do respect his questioning the Constitutional legality of the war, yet his method was incorrect, he should have filed a lawsuit, and then deployed and carried out any orders given, the lawsuit would have been his protection against any improbably war crimes he would have been charged with.
Remember, there was only a single Senator that opposed the war on record, the rest, Democrats and Republicans all signed off on the use of force, they and they alone are responsible for not investigating and uncovering the mistruth's and outright lies from the Bush Administration.
Are Iraq and it's nieghbors better off with Saddam gone and no longer a threat to their citizens and countries ?
Yes ! During Iraq's most recent elections there were over 14 thousnad citizens that applied to run for office. Sounds like freedom and democracy to me, as opposed to tyranny and the fear of being taken from your house in the middle of the nite never to be heard from again, ........... untill your mass grave was uncovered and your body possibly identified.
Amen brother! If this were 1941 and the 'two oceans' defense posture of the U.S. was in play, then the need for a large, highly trained standing army would be nil. Those days are long gone and while I support our troops (I've taught many kids-turned-soldiers) I question the need for 700 bases around the world. To dissolve the military, in these days, means the sure demise of the United States.
Sadly, GGarrison is incorrect. It is precisely that we have 735 claimed bases worldwide that this country, because of a criminal over through of government will fall. The destruction of the Dollar by those who control it's issuance with no review and thereby control the white House and everyone in it, are to blame for bringing this about.
This former soilder has a differrent view of Watada's actions.
I as a former soilder know the difference between being a civi and the rights of a civilian, which are way different when a person is in the military.
A standing army, was feared by our founder's, because of the possibility of a leader using the military against the people, and or the new experiment known as America.
The belief that a modern military can be raised to defend against an enemy that does keep, train, and maintain a modern military is not a very competent belief, more fantasy and wishful thinking than anything.
The war in Iraq was and will always be a missuse of a presidents war powers.
Watada made a choice, and he almost had to pay for that choice, good for him, the charges are dropped.
At the very least, Watada is a person which followed his beliefs, ( I think ), no one really knows if his real motive may have been cowardice, and just came up with this argument to stop his deployement.
Don't assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn't have supported it if their votes had been needed. The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.
Knowing that the bill will likely be political suicide for any red-state Democratic congressman, particularly if he or she is a freshman, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most. That there would be 38 Democrats who would oppose the bill was pre-ordained. Who they would be was the subject of negotiations right up to the wire.
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
document.context='YjoyOTAzfA==';
// -->
Any real chance that the bill could have been defeated ended with the approval of the anti-abortion amendment. But there remained the question of how to keep the marginal Democrats in Congress and the party in power.
The chicanery and deception that led up to the vote underscore the myth of the moderate Democrat. The entire Democratic Caucus - with pitifully few exceptions - was committed to passing the healthcare bill. Had it needed all 258 Democrats to vote yes, the bill would have come awfully close.
But the Democratic margin in the House meant that the leaders did not need 258 Democrats, they only needed 219. So they let the most marginal among them off the hook and allowed them to vote against the bill, preserving their chances at reelection.
The real question facing the voters is whether they will be deceived by this sleight of hand in which moderate Democrats pretend that the bill was passed over their objections. Will the voters buy their claims that it became law despite their best efforts?
Once, the voters might have fallen for this trickery. But not now. The electorate is far too well-informed to believe that any Democratic congressman really opposed this bill.
The days of the Democrats who live in red states and who let this bill pass, whether they nominally voted for it or not, are numbered. They could not and would not read the handwriting on the walls of New Jersey and Virginia and are about to suffer the fate of their ancestors in 1994 who disregarded similar warnings. Their political careers are about to come to an end.
In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed, there can be no such shell games. All Democrats must report for duty for this bill to pass. So Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) have a serious decision to make. They have no place to hide.
And should Harry Reid invoke the reconciliation option, he would face other defections from Democrats who realize that they, too, might one day be in the minority and need the filibuster to maintain their relevance in the future.
For now, all Democrats should compare the results in Virginia and New Jersey in 1993 and in 2009.
In Virginia, in both years, an incumbent Democrat sat in the statehouse but was not permitted to run again. In both years, the Republican won the governorship by identical 58-41 margins.
In New Jersey, in both years, the incumbent Democratic governor sought another term and lost: in 1993 by 49-48 and in 2009 by 49-45.
If any Democratic congressman is naïve enough to believe that a debacle in 2010 will not follow the forecasts of 2009 as surely as the deluge of 1994 followed the precursor of 1993, he doesn't deserve to be in Congress. And he won't be.
Morris, a former adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Outrage and Fleeced. To get all of his and Eileen McGann's columns for free by e-mail or to order a signed copy of their new best-selling book, Catastrophe, go to dickmorris.com. In August, Morris became a strategist for the League of American Voters, which is running ads opposing the president's healthcare reforms.
Health-Care "Reform": It's All About Power by Sheldon Richman, November 13, 2009
If the politicians who are bent on redesigning the medical and medical-insurance industries really wanted only to curb rising prices and help the uninsured get coverage, they would have zeroed in on the previous government interventions that created those problems. Instead, they are pushing grand schemes to turn our medical decision-making over to bureaucrats. That indicates that the so-called reform campaign is about power.
Medical care is too expensive. Prices for services rise faster than other prices, and there's reason to believe much of the money is wasted. Expensive medical care equates to expensive insurance, which prices some people out of the market.
This has been called a failure of the free market, but that can't be: There is no free market. I defy the advocates of government control to name one aspect of medicine or insurance that government doesn't dominate.
The anti-market system politicians have put in place - as pleasing as it is for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and organized medicine - harms the public. Yet it would be easy for them remove the harmful interventions.
For example, they could end the adverse tax treatment of people who buy their own insurance. If your employer buys insurance for you, it's paid for with pretax dollars. If you buy your own, you pay with after-tax dollars. That's a hefty penalty. But the price of avoiding that penalty is high: You must cede control over thousands of dollars in cash wages as well as your medical coverage to your employer. You can't tailor coverage to your own needs. To get a better plan you have to change jobs. That's just stupid.
The system creates the incentive to overspend on medical services. Since insurance premiums appear to be paid by your employer and since the policy covers routine elective services and tests, you have no reason to shop wisely in the medical marketplace. That's one reason for the price inflation. Why ask about the price or the necessity of a test if someone else seems to be footing the bill? Doctors know that and will err on the side of more rather than fewer services.
If the politicians really cared about high prices and lack of choice, they would remove the tax penalty. Do those in power even talk about it? No.
State governments make a bad system worse by mandating that "basic" policies cover many services for which most people would not buy insurance if they were explicitly paying the bill, such as acupuncture, hair transplants, contraceptives, and more. These mandates are state-granted privileges for the providers, who would rather lobby for their profits than have to attract willing customers. Every mandate raises the price of insurance and pushes young and low-income people out of the market. Without those mandates, many people would buy low-priced, high-deductible catastrophic insurance. Government creates many of those uninsured the politicians cry their crocodile tears over.
If politicians really cared about high costs and lack of choice, they would neutralize coverage mandates by removing the federal ban on interstate insurance sales. Then a resident of a high-mandate state, such as California, could buy a policy offered in a low-mandate, such as Arizona.
The government forces prices higher in many other ways. Medicare, for example, gives a virtual blank check to its beneficiaries, who have no reason to be cost-conscious about the services they buy. Retirees have gotten far more in benefits than they ever paid in taxes while working. As long as Medicare exists, everyone's medical services will be artificially expensive. Medicare is doubly offensive: The money is taken from current workers, and when it is spent it bids up the price of medical services for those workers. Considering its $37 trillion unfunded liability, Medicare is the disaster some people predicted when it was set up in 1965. As long as it exists the medical system will be awry and government will exert control.
Government also raises medical prices by sponsoring a protectionist medical guild in each state, keeping the number of doctors low and prices and incomes high. Occupational licensing is a conspiracy against the public masquerading as consumer protection.
Yes, we suffer from monopoly and high prices. Government is the reason.
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation, author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog "Free Association" at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.
Yesterday, I was involved in a lively debate on Afghanistan on Alan Colmes' Internet show. Among the questions Alan asked me whether I was "justifying" what the Ft. Hood killer did and what the terrorists did on 9/11.
What he was referring to was my contention that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been - and continues to be - the root cause of the anger and rage that motivates people to retaliate against the United States.
I responded to Colmes by stating that motivation is different from justification.
Let's assume that you learn that a man is trying to kill you. You think to yourself, "I haven't done anything to justify being killed by this man."
I say to you, "Maybe you ought to learn what the man's motive is. Motive is different from justification."
You telephone the guy and ask, "Why are you trying to kill me?"
The man says, "Because I happen to own the ranch adjacent to yours. Every week, you trespass onto my land and kill snakes on my property."
You respond, "But I'm doing it for your benefit. Why are you trying to kill me for that?"
He responds, "I'm a naturalist. I don't want any animals killed on my ranch. And you're killing snakes on my land without my permission or consent."
Now, clearly your actions don't justify that man's attempts to kill you. Human life trumps environmental concerns. He has alternative remedies, such as going to court and seeking injunctive relief.
Nonetheless, while the man isn't justified in trying to kill you, understanding his motive might cause you to change your behavior. You think to yourself, "I'm in the wrong here. Even though I meant well, I was breaking the law and violating his property rights by trespassing onto his land and killing the snakes. It's not worth my life. I'm going to stop doing it."
At that point, it's likely that the man will stop trying to kill you. Sure, it's possible that he might still try to kill you for previous trespasses and snake killings, but since you've stopped doing it, the man's anger and rage is likely to dissipate because the source of continued anger and rage has been removed.
Thus, once we understand the motive of people who are intent on doing harm to the United States, the solution becomes obvious: Stop the sanctions and embargoes. Stop the invasions and occupations. Stop the killings, maiming, torture, and abuse. Stop the bombings. Stop the drone attacks. Stop the destruction. Immediately withdraw all troops and bring them home. Terminate all foreign aid, not only to Israel, Egypt, Saud Arabia, and Jordan but also to every other regime in the world. Stop the U.S. government from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
Sure, it's theoretically possible that people might still want to retaliate for what the U.S. government has done in the past, but the likelihood is that once the U.S. government leaves people over there alone, people over there will return to their normal lives of making a living, raising a family, and so forth.
Why don't U.S. officials favor examination into motive and instead do their best to confuse it with justification? Because they're afraid that once Americans understand why foreigners are trying to kill them, Americans might demand an end to the U.S. government's imperial overseas empire and its omnipotent power to sanction, embargo, invade, occupy, kill, maim, torture, and imprison people all over the world.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
Interim State Coordinator
RSS feed
