The Senate seat formerly occupied by Ted Kennedy, a crusader for health care interventionism, has just been won by an opponent of President Obama’s wildly interventionist health care plan, in an election in which the Senate Democrats’ ability to override a filibuster was on the line, in the ONE state in which voters have already had to endure something approximating Obama’s plan.
And this, from the Wall Street Journal, is interesting:
Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown’s surge in Massachusetts comes as a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found increasing voter unease over the federal government’s expanding role in the private sector.
For the first time, a majority of Americans–53%–disapprove of the government’s increased role in the economy since the financial crisis, up from 44% in March. And 48% said Washington was doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals, a plurality seen in polling since September.
Poll respondents lumped Democrats’ proposed overhaul of the nation’s health-care system into their basket of worries about expanded government. A majority, 53%, thought the proposed legislation went too far and would hurt the quality of health care.
{ 29 comments }
Brown is no libertarian, but all friends of liberty can be happy that he’s there to protest the obtrusive and unconstitutional Obama agenda.
This was hardly about Brown, but about Obama.
This election may very well mark the end of Obamacare.
I’m more surprised at the 53% figure. Though the pessimist in me can’t help but wonder how many of those are actually interested in liberty and how many are just “conservatives.”
Didn’t Brown support serious health care intervention in Massachusetts? Doesn’t he support Obama as far as Afghanistan?
I guess as a protest vote this is good, but is Brown really someone who will work to put a dent in the size of the government? I wonder if protest votes work if all people do is elect one statist for another.
Matt,
In my post I outlined the implications for Obamacare. That’s it. “Failure” to forthrightly denounce the man as an evil statist is not the same thing as an endorsement.
I can understand the strategic value of having Brown as a member of Congress. Although he is from the Romney wing of the GOP, his election will likely hold off the Democrats until November. In November, we will likely witness a Republican landslide. Then, we will have the all-important 2012 Republican primary. If we can nominate a candidate who is mostly libertarian (such as Ron Paul), he will likely be elected (Obama will probably be the 2nd coming of Herbert Hoover by that point). Republicans have a tendency to fall in line with Republican presidents, so there is a possibility that Ron Paul could be FDR in reverse. If a President Paul had an FDR-sized mandate and a congressional majority of a proportion unseen since the days of FDR, he would have plenty of political capital to fundamentally transform this country.
Of course, it would likely help Ron Paul’s chances in 2012 if we had a clarifying event in late 2011. Maybe the inflationary time bomb that the Fed has created could suddenly blow up. The Ron Paul Revolution has already done a great job associating the Federal Reserve with inflation and turning up the heat on the Fed. Back in the days of the 1st Depression, the public only accepted FDR’s policies because they believed the Big Lie about the evils of laissez-faire (which was associated with Herbert Hoover by the left-liberals in a typical display of their intellectual dishonesty).
However, if a typical Republican wins the nomination in 2012, that will be a disaster for the country, as usual. Even if the possibility of this Depression resulting in the rise of an anti-FDR is fairly small, that is still what we should hope for and seek to bring about.
Yes, the whole issue creates a tension in many of us. My first thought was that Mr. Torture won over Mr. Looter. And yet: it is always a thrill to see a protest and any kind of upheaval in politics given the current situation.
I agree. While Scott Brown is hardly perfect, Martha Coakley was much much worse. The people in Massachussetts already have something like ObamaCare and its not working so good. They already seem to have doctor shortages and people end up in ER’s for things they shouldn’t, because they can’t get a doctor.
Plus they would be paying double for what they already have, and that is likely a big reason Brown won. I wouldn’t quite put Brown into the “conservative” category though.
I know the guy’s a statist and all, but I couldn’t help but be excited about how many left-liberals must be utterly pissed off by this. That makes me happy.
The NeoCon Scott Brown winning in Uber Liberal Mass was more of a message to Washington of being fed up with the way things are rather than for any actual 180 degree change.People want quick results from Government,which of course they cannot provide.Libertarian candidate Joseph Kennedy got 1% of the votes.If people believed in genuine change, guess who should have won.
Scott Brown does not understand actual free Markets.For goodness sake,he supports the criminal Romeny-care that is currently in Ma.
This is more of the same served in a different package.
Healthcare is around 17% of GDP in the US and the country ranks 37th healthiest population right after Slovenia and way after Cuba, that communist rat hole 90 miles off the Florida coast.
France at 10.5% of GDP is wildly expensive, but then they are no.1 in the world for being healthy.
It seems that 17% is badly spent on HMO’s and drug companies that have established de-facto cartels and oligopoly like structures.
So it is not clear to me why some people in the US love their health system. It sucks, big time. I watched Sicko, the Michael Moore movie last night and was horrified. Economics cannot cater for all circumstances that involve people. The lottery of life; and the myriad deseases lurking to get you, mean ultimately that healthcare should be socialised. A country can be judged by the way its weak are treated; and on this measure the US is sorely wanting.
If there were no examples of socialized systems delivering better outcomes than the US, people on this site; and the author of the article, may have a point. The fact is that it is the other way round. Socialized healthcare delivers far better results in several other countries (including all the other highly developed countries) than the sorry mess the US system provides.
@SailDog
Michael Moore propaganda aside, this other post on Mises today is just for Ponzi-scheme supporters like you: http://blog.mises.org/archives/011493.asp
SailDog,
Do you know anything about healthcare in Cuba? It’s trash. People are only required to have 2 years of highschool to be considered physicians. The metrics for quality of healthcare by those surveys is just utter trash.
@SailDog,
When people want the best health care in the world do they go to places like France and Cuba, or do they choose the U.S.?
It doesn’t take too much thought to see through the myths of Michael Moore.
“Mass-es-choose-its” Is A Sign Of Ideological Change!
It looks like the “Mass-es-choose-its” tradition of liberty over that of socialism. This seems to indicate that their is an ideological change stirring.
Although far from perfect, at least it gives Americans a chance to take a breath before they rise up to expel the economic terrorists who are in charge of the unConstitutional coup.
SailDog,
You appear to be under the popular delusion that the United States healthcare system is a free market system that follows the laws of economics.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Please see the following for your further education: http://mises.org/daily/3737
Correction: “there’ not “their.”
SailDog,
Please do read the link Mike provided. This monster we have for health care, improperly labeled “free market” is a direct result of government intervention in and control and regulation of health care.
Please review the history of how we got here–there’s a direct correlation between more government and increased costs, lower quality of care and the total divorce of the consumer and the true costs of their care; not to mention the destruction of the doctor/patient relationship.
A couple of historical biggies: wage and price controls under FDR caused businesses to offer perks such as health care to attract employees. That was the origin of tying health care to employment which is absurd in the first place. Ponder the unseen consequences of having health care tied to employment (read Bastiat’s That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen).
The HMO act in the 70s created the Big Health companies we currently experience. Ask your own doctor how many rules and regs he has to play by. Then ask how much he would charge for an office visit if he didn’t have to deal with the overhead caused by Big Health, Medicare and Medicaid. One of the unseen consequences of Big Health is that it effectively suppresses wages; part of wages are given over to health insurance costs rather than put in an employee’s pocket (and few employees recognize this fact).
Add in our tort system…and I could go on and on.
When I was growing up, I experienced health care when government didn’t interfere so much. My family had a hospitalization policy and all other expenses were paid out of pocket. It was inexpensive and very good. Our pediatrician sometimes made house calls and my mother called him directly if we kids were ill (try even getting a doc on the phone these days). Doctors actually diagnosed without zillions of expensive tests (just to keep them from getting sued) and the relationship between doctor and patient was what it should be–just that, no third party to intervene.
Incidentally, my kids and I have been without insurance for several years and I have successfully negotiated far reduced prices for services–roughly one-third of what is charged to insurance companies. My doctor would LOVE to see a return to the “old days”. So would I.
The free market would repair this health care mess in short order. All we need is for the government to get the hell out of the way.
In my post I outlined the implications for Obamacare. That’s it. “Failure” to forthrightly denounce the man as an evil statist is not the same thing as an endorsement.
Here is specifically what he says on the healthcare, off of his issues page:
“I believe that all Americans deserve health care coverage, but I am opposed to the health care legislation that is under consideration in Congress and will vote against it. It will raise taxes, increase government spending and lower the quality of care, especially for elders on Medicare. I support strengthening the existing private market system with policies that will drive down costs and make it easier for people to purchase affordable insurance. In Massachusetts, I support the 2006 healthcare law that was successful in expanding coverage, but I also recognize that the state must now turn its attention to controlling costs.”
My guess is he is as opposed to healthcare as Obama is to war. That is, he’s against Democratic health care reform, but not health care reform that can be prefixed with the word Republican. In this sense, he is eminently more trouble, as his views can be perceived as some how okay because he’s a Republican. Just like war can some how be perceived as okay when it’s a Democrat as president.
In the end more politicians like Scott Brown will only make it easier to “reform” health care. That is the implications. If your post was merely point out concern over this, then I agree with you, I am concerned.
If you check out my blog, I briefly explored what Scott Brown has to say on some other issues.
Brown is basically one giant gimmick created by the republican machine. He is pro welfare/warfare state, doesn’t understand basic economic analysis, and makes empty promises which can’t possibly come to fruition. Kennedy was the obvious free-market choice but was entirely ignored.
The Democrats have become full blown Marxists and the Republicans are the progressives of yesteryear (the “middle way”). It seems that the American public is not yet ready for communism so they fall back to soft socialism. The point is that free-market liberalism remains entirely alien to them.
Dear Anonymous,
True liberals like Henry Hazlitt were opposed to Hoover precisely because they recognised him for the Big Government man he was.
Hoover was so much an interventionist, in fact, that back in the day, he was referred to as the Undersecretary of Everything.
I suspect that the thing that virtually killed liberalism was that people thought of themselves as Democrats first and liberals second. So, when the Democrat FDR won and started acting like a Big Government maniac, the Democrats ignored their underlying ideology and decided to support their man. It was “okay” for FDR to do the things that old-school Democrats would have opposed because, “hey, it’s our guy.” Had FDR been elected as a Republican, these same people would have been generally opposed to it, methinks. They would have described the policies (correctly) as fascism; a few, who cared little for the Party and had remained dedicated to liberalism, did precisely this.
Dear SailDog,
Cuba’s healthcare result are not very accurate. They do not count humans that die within the first few ours of birth, while Americans do.
Also, I have heard that Americans count those who die from completely non-health-related things, such as those who die in war. This gives us no accurate preception of our health situation.
As to our healthcare in America, it is absolutely horrible, precisely because government is so heavily involved. Here’s how I would improve healthcare, ni no particular order:
(1) Abolish all corporate welfare, including all subsidies, tariffs, and excise taxes
(2) Abolish the patent system, so that companies have to actually compete with one another
(3) Abolish Medicare and Medicaid–they’re bankrupt, anyway
(4) Abolish the FDA, an organisation responsible for killing millions upon millions of people, far more than it could ever have conceivably saved; allow private cirtification for the testing of drugs and whatnot
(5) Abolish licensing, which does nothing but create a medical cartel
(6) Abolish taxation, so that poor families would have more money to spend on healthcare needs
(7) Abolish central banking, so that inflation would no longer threaten to steal the value of what little money poor families do have
(8) Abolish the DEA and the war on drugs so that people can be free to use whatever medicines help them, including marijuana or heroin
(9) Abolish the state, so that these evils cannot return
In short, I would separate healthcare (and everything else) from state.
Should healthcare be “socialised,” as you claim? That depends upon what you mean by “socialised.” Some, such as Mr. Brad Spangler, who advocates the same nine proposals I have listed above, would call my proposal “socialised healthcare.” If this is what you mean by “socialised,” then I agree; if it is not, then I urge you to reconsider.
You write, “If there were no examples of socialized systems delivering better outcomes than the US, people on this site; and the author of the article, may have a point. The fact is that it is the other way round. Socialized healthcare delivers far better results in several other countries (including all the other highly developed countries) than the sorry mess the US system provides.”
You’re ignoring the fact that America has the most government-regulated healthcare system in the world. You’re also ignoring that American healthcare was far better back before the government got heavily involved. Finally, you’re ignoring that healthcare in the other countries you describe as “socialised” is not very good. Considre Canada, for example, where animals get better healthcare than humans. (Why do they get better healthcare than humans? Because government healthcare “benefits” do not extend to animals there.)
Best regards,
Alex Peak
“In the end more politicians like Scott Brown will only make it easier to “reform” health care. That is the implications. If your post was merely point out concern over this, then I agree with you, I am concerned.”
Matt, again, I didn’t endorse anyone in the post. Nor did I make some broader statement about the long-term good or bad of this development. Nor did I point out any “concern” or worry over any thing. I simply outlined the implications of this development for Obamacare in particular and noted an interesting, relevant new opinion survey. Must every thought expressed about political developments be laced with ideological rhetoric to pass muster with you?
In response to JG Lilburne:
I didn’t endorse anyone in the post. Nor did I make some broader statement about the long-term good or bad of this development. Nor did I point out any “concern” or worry over any thing. I simply outlined the implications of this development for Obamacare in particular and noted an interesting, relevant new opinion survey.
And then I simply commented on it. You then suggested I was taking you to task because I’d expressed a negative opinion about Scott Brown’s victory. So I amplified.
Must every thought expressed about political developments be laced with ideological rhetoric to pass muster with you?
Huh? This would turn the discussion towards *me* as an individual and away from the specific topic. People can say whatever they want, thank you for bringing the topic up so I could comment on it with my opinion. I did presume you might be mildly pleased about the victory as so many are, if that’s not the case, I’m genuinely sorry for the error.
please enjoy the footage that michael moore left on the cutting room floor. sicko.
http://bit.ly/mNq6w
My husband died at the hands of this for profit healthcare system. It is real, it happens daily and as for SiCKO,-Michael Moore gets the facts, they are real, true and to the point. I should know I was in SiCKO and my husband is dead!
The most we can hope for is slowing down the damage the Congress does. Three cheers for gridlock!
Julie Pierce,
I don’t mean to be insensitive, but your comment is the most grotesque appeal to emotion I’ve ever seen. Also, no one cares about the opinions of ignorant film makers who’ve never even bothered to investigate the inner-workings of the market system. People like Moore and his union buddies are why Michigan is in the shape that it’s in, and why so many suffer every day.
Julie Pierce,
I also have to take exception to your appeal to emotion. The cruel fact of the matter is, people get sick and die. The problem is that people don’t want to face this, and are willing to to take other peoples’ money, violate their rights, or do anything they have to in a vain effort to save their loved ones from the inevitable. This ruins things for everybody.
I say this as an individual who’s father is suffering from mid/late stage Alzheimer’s. My mother and father’s life savings may be decimated by nursing care costs before Medicare, which was originally sold as taking care of our elderly’s medical costs, ever kicks in.
If Americans are too naive to notice that the rest of the world is laughing at them because of their health-care system, then keep your head in the sand because it embarrassing. The government run systems cost taxpayers half the amount and we get four times the care. It comes down to a right to live!
Yeah, sure, David. Government run health care will be 8 times more efficient than the free market variety, because government is so efficient at running everything. That’s why the post office and the departments of motor vehicles are such paragons of efficiency.
A friend of mine had a co-worker who commuted from Canada (we both live in the Detroit area). She always sang the praises of the Canadian health care system, too. But when her child got an ear infection, she brought him here for care, even though she had to pay for it out of pocket. She was afraid that by the time she got her boy to a doctor in Canada, it would have been too late. Yet she never saw the disconnect between this and her continued “preference” for Canadian health care.
Another anecdote I like is about a former Bulgarian, who said, “The great thing about Bulgarian health care is that it’s free. The terrible thing about Bulgarian health care is that you can’t get any.”
Also, you do have a right to live, in the sense that others shouldn’t be allowed to kill you. But that’s it. You do not have the right to a free lunch, or free health care.
Oh, BTW, we Americans are not so naive. You may not like to admit this to yourself, but we Americans just don’t care if you are laughing at us. We don’t really care what Canadians, Europeans, etc., think. After all, when the shit hits the fan, who do you call? (And I ain’t talkin’ about the Ghostbusters, buddy boy.)
Comments on this entry are closed.