Mediaboss Marketing

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks on the proposed American Health Care Act.

On Monday, congressional Republicans rolled out their new health care plan, which is supposed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Donald Trump hailed our wonderful new Healthcare Bill. But his enthusiasm for the proposed American Health Care Act is not widely shared. In addition to the expected critiques from the left, the bill has been forcefully condemned by a wide range of conservative and libertarian health care experts. These leading critics of Obamacare argue that the GOP proposal is just as bad, and possibly even worse.

Michael Cannon, well-known health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a particularly harsh appraisal, denouncing the new bill as Obamacare lite or worse:

This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen The Obamacare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse.

Republicans dont seem to have any concept of the quagmire they are about to enter with this bill.

If this is the choice, it would be better if Congress simply did nothing.

As Cannon explains,the new GOP plan has a similar structure to Obamacare, fails to address most of its flaws, and may well make some of them worse. Republicans should take note: If one of Obamacares leading critics concludes that your repeal and replace bill is even worse than Obamacare, and worse than doing nothing, thats a pretty damning indictment.

Other right of center economists and health care experts have offered similarly damning assessments, including Megan McArdle, Peter Suderman, Scott Sumner, and Avik Roy. Roy argues that the proposal includes some valuable reforms for Medicaid, but concludes that this benefit is outweighed by the many harmful aspects of the plan. Sudermans bottom line is even more negative: In general, its not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

I am no fan of Obamacare myself, and was involved in helping develop the constitutional case against it that led to the Supreme Courts controversial ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. But I find it sobering that even many of the ACAs toughest critics fear that the GOP alternative is likely to be worse.

A crucial point emphasized by many of these critics is that the GOP plan does little or nothing to constrain health care costs or open up the insurance industry to wider market competition. As Cannon puts it, Congress needs to enact reforms that make health care more affordable, rather than just subsidize unaffordable care. The GOP plan, he explains, does mostly the latter, often even more inefficiently and coercively than Obamacare.

McArdle points out that the new plan is as much a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption as Obamacare is. She also notes that the GOP hopes to use many of the same procedural tricks to disguise its flaws as Democrats did with those of the ACA. It is far from clear they will manage to get away with it.

Because the plan is so enormously complicated and has so many moving parts, it could easily unravel in a wide range of unexpected ways, as the different components fail to interact as expected. For reasons F.A. Hayek famously explained, even the wisest of bureaucratic central planners lack the knowledge to foresee and offset such problems. And todays Republican Party is not exactly overflowing with wisdom and competence.

If the GOP plan falters like Obamacare has, its flaws will be exacerbated by another feature the two policies have in common: lack of bipartisan support. If it gets through Congress at all, the AHCA is likely to pass on a strict party-line vote or close to it, just like the ACA. From the standpoint of the opposition party, the optimal political strategy will be sit back, watch the trainwreck happen, and saddle the party that passed the plan with the blame.

Just as Republicans had no incentive to help Obama fix the flaws in the ACA, so Democrats will have no incentive to help fix problems with the new GOP plan. Partisan bias is a powerful and increasingly pernicious force, and it could potentially undermine the GOPs health care policy. Admittedly, Democratic opposition may not matter much if the Republicans expand their congressional majorities in 2018 and 2020. But recent history suggests that neither party can count on controlling Congress for long. And in the Senate, many bills are subject to filibuster, effectively requiring 60 votes to pass.

This entire sorry state of affairs is even more the fault of congressional Republicans than Donald nobody knew health care could be so complicated Trump. These had seven years to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and so far their work product is far from impressive. Sad! Nonetheless, Trumps ignorance, reckless statements, and disdain for free market ideas have also contributed to the problem.

Despite GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a very real chance that the new bill will not pass. It has already come under fire from both conservative and moderate wings of the party. Given the narrowness of the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate and the unyielding opposition of Democrats, the plan will be defeated if even as few as three Republicans defect.

In fairness, given the divisions within the party, it is not an easy task to cobble together a bill that is both an improvement over Obamacare and acceptable to all the key factions within the GOP. Whether Republicans can overcome these problems and come up with something better than this initial effort remains to be seen. At this point, it is hard to be optimistic.

Read the rest here:
Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP's Obamacare lite plan - Washington Post

President Trump issued a new executive order this week that revises, rescinds, and replaces his prior order banning immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. The new order, which is scheduled to taked effect on March 16, is supposed to bolster the White Houses case in court, resolving legal defects that prevented the ban from prevailing the first time around.

In some ways, it accomplishes its goal, but in other ways, the new order undermines several legal arguments that the administration has been making.

While defending the president against a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington, the administrations attorneys justified his list of seven majority-Muslim countries by stating that they were previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch. In fact, they said, Congress itself identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern.

This argument was always weak because, although Congress did single out these countries for additional vetting, it still specifically provided for the ability of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to come to America so long as they had a visa. But now the president has excluded Iraq from the list, which means its justification that this list was something Congress put together is gone.

The whole point of the ban, as the administration put it, was to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. In other words, because the vetting process is inadequate, and these nationalities are (in the eyes of the administration) inherently dangerous, people from the selected countries cannot be allowed in.

The new order exempts current visa holders from these countries. But this change totally undermines the argument that these nationals are dangerous even if they are screened. By fixing one problem, the administration creates another one for itself. If these nationals are dangerous, why would it concede to allow any of them in?

Heres a more immediate concern for the administration. When the original order was challenged, the administration argued in court that any delay in implementation immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment. It is likely that they will argue the same when this one is challenged.

President Trump signed a new executive order on immigration Monday that revised his first one halted by the courts. Here's a look at what is different about this new order and whether it will face the same legal issues. Photo: Getty

Yet the new order delays the effective date for more than a week. It does so to resolve a potential legal concern tied to banning people without notice. But the delay effectively eviscerates the argument from the presidents legal team that a judges decision to suspend enforcement of it would impose irreparable harm. A judge could respond, If thats true, did the presidents delay also harm the United States?

The administration also claimed that this was not a ban intended to reduce admissions of immigrants from these majority Muslim countries. Instead, it was just a temporary 90-day pause on entries from these places to allow the government to review vetting procedures. But now the new order restarts this timeline.

Why would the clock on reviewing procedures stop ticking just because the old order wasnt blocking entries? This provides evidence that these timelines were in fact arbitrary and that the goal wasnt about giving the administration time to review, but rather about cutting legal immigration of peoplemainly Muslim immigrantsthat the administration simply does not like.

Despite all of the changes, the fundamental problems persist. The order still references 1952 law providing that the president can exclude any class of alien if he finds them detrimental. But this justification ignores a later-enacted 1965 law that bans discrimination against immigrant visa applicants based on nationality. While the 1965 law provides a list of exceptions, the 1952 law was specifically not included among them.

Congress did not want to allow the president this authority. In fact, it specifically debated the question of whether difficult-to-screen countries should be included under the 1965 non-discrimination rule and decided that they should be.

This means that the executive order re-boot is still legally suspect. Indeed, in some ways, because it undermines so many of the governments arguments, the order has become even more suspect than it was before, and the courts should tell the president to go back to the drawing board once again.

David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Excerpt from:
A libertarian explains why Trump's new travel ban is still legally ... - MarketWatch

Now that we have a new regime in place (at the top of our political atmosphere), and the turmoil between angered voters has been put on a soft mute (for now), you cant help but take in the freshness of it all. Or can you?

Weve seen an about-face trend in the stock market from what was predicted but where is all this money? People are still living in a constant state of financial alertness, for good reason. We have seen this playout too many times in the past generation. Regime change equals economic redirection. Which side of the fence you are on depends how you are projected to fare over the next few years, if you follow trends.

Lets turn back the clock to 2000. Bush is in, and the conservatives are celebrating their national championship. Liberals are cringing at the prospect of reigning in the expansion of government entitlements and the influx of a new idea of tolerance. The glut of big money investment is about to roll out into corporate take-overs and incessant greed of the, soon to be feared, one percent.

We all know how the Bush administration went; ugh, debt, debt and some more debt. That deficit rose quicker than the technology of those futuristic new smart phones that were coming out. We wanted change we needed change. But, all we did was change the side of the celebration.

We pumped more and more into government expansion and entitlements for those street-destroying celebrators of change. The held-out hand seemed not to drop a thing, as the ones that were used to holding on to their investments and portfolios found new interests in storm shelters and 30-round magazines. Those same people probably thought at the time, that the Arkansas dress destroyer was a saint compared to what was coming out of Kenya.

The eight year reign of the liberal agenda helped the hopeless aspire to receive far more than they contributed: citing free phones, healthcare and questionable bathroom preferences. Our national debt continues to climb, right along with a manifested racial divide and sprinkled in terrorist attacks , as well as those killer cops.

Still, the winners of 08 claimed that progress was the right track for the equality of all. You were deemed a racist, intolerant, or a bigot if you thought otherwise.

2016: The year of what just happened? Well, it happened again. The swing back to conservative-ism or, as the newly found losers called it, not my America.

Here we are, primed for the run. As I alluded to previously, the so-far surprise market is a base moniker of how we are doing, right? First quarter projections are now rolling in and American manufacturing as a whole is taking a woodshed beating. We are seeing it in non-technical manufacturing very hard, reminding those who have been around long enough to boast those comments, remember 01, or 09? We took a beating those years. Head scratcher, huh?

If you were to make a prediction of the outlook for 2017, it looks like a safe bet for the status quo. The only thing different is that the winners gloated a little more, and the losers well, are they done yet? It is merely a continuation of the same things we have dealt with our entire adult lives. So, it might be a good idea to keep conserving your money, play wisely with retirements, and for heavens sake get on that highway of progress; that fabled economic growth that every politician ever has spouted about.

We are all meant to be winners in this game of big ol gubmint, or so they say. The nation may veer to the left or to the right and back again, but we continue in the same basic direction, paying our forced tithes to the downward spiral. To be happy about it you simply need to jump onto a different bandwagon every four or eight years. My hope is for the bandwagon of Enough Already. But dont look to jump on it anytime soon.

* Wes Fischer self supporting libertarian focused on shrinking our government one action at a time.

Like Loading...

Visit link:
I'm with the Band(wagon) - Being Libertarian

(Screenshot)

Being a libertarian in college can feel like youre a Jedi surrounded by a droid army. Youre constantly under attack with only a few friends. Well, this is the way Tom Ciccotta portrayed it in a New York Times op-ed on February 28th.

Leftists, in an effort to make campuses welcoming ostensibly, for everyone end up frequently silencing conservative and libertarian students, Ciccotta, a senior at Bucknell University, wrote. They paint any argument that isnt progressive as immoral, so conservative students can find themselves branded as such. Needless to say, this can be socially isolating.

Ciccotta is completely sincere in his analysis about life as a libertarian on campus. But is his experience the norm or the exception?

Christina Herrin attended The University of Iowa, one of the most liberal colleges in the state. She was regularly involved in the Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) and as well as Rand Pauls presidential campaign in 2015 and 2016. She told Red Alert Politics that there were many instances in which she felt the administration and other students were against her. On one occasion, pro-life chalking they etched was washed away because it was offensive. In another instance, Iowas YAL chapter was kicked off campus while trying to demonstrate against the war on drugs.

I agree 100 percent with [Ciccottas] article and institutions that promote free speech zones and safe spaces and dont encourage diversity of thought are doing a great disservice to my generation, Herrin said. It is sad to me because even though I dont agree, the amount I have learned while debating with others has taught me so much about my own argument, and has actually pushed me to be more conservative/liberty minded.

It was frustrating and difficult for me, as a student, to have friends who were unwilling to even come listen to Rand Paul speak when we brought him to campus because he was whatever liberal sound bite youd like to insert, she continued. It is hard to have people that are so guarded by their walls to even look at another opinion.

Conner Dunleavy, who attends the University atAlbany, also felt that college campuses were biased against libertarian positions. He said that he was lucky because libertarian-leaning organizations like YAL were growing rapidly. However, outside of that, there were very few people willing to be open to his politics.

Outside of our clubs, however, universities are often political deserts where only the perceived majority opinion is tolerated, Conner Dunleavy said to RAP. Naturally it seems conservative students were our allies, outnumbered together and facing the sometimes violent liberal students who tend to try shouting down minority opinions.

Yet, Ciccotta, Dunleavy, and Herrins experiences werent universal among prominent libertarians when they were in college.

I do not feel like my views get silenced as much, but there is a lack of political diversity in most of the liberal arts majors, said Vamsi Krishna Pappusetti, a student at Arizona State University. My YAL chapter does not get protested nor do the faculty keep us from tabling or holding meetings. We try to table out as much as we can and I never really dealt with many hecklers. I cannot say the same for other students though from either TP USA or College Republicans.

So while most libertarians did feel isolated in a political desert, there were exceptions to the rule. Not every student felt surrounded waiting for Yoda to save them.

See the original post here:
Is it lonely being a libertarian in college? - Red Alert Politics

President Trump's recent executive order, titled "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Cost," speaks the language of the principled libertarians, but its beneficiaries are likely to be the thugs.

The order prohibits any agency from issuing any new regulation unless it also repeals two regulations that cost as much as the new one. "Costs" mean the cost of complying with the regulation. The harms that were the reason for the regulation don't count at all.

David Dana and Michael Barsa observe the implications of Trump's order. The Department of Interior created a set of new regulations in response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, in which BP spilled nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It was the largest marine oil spill in history, and, Dana and Barsa wrote, it cost "nearly $9 billion for lost fisheries and $23 billion for lost tourism, not to mention the catastrophic effects on marine life and birds. Yet under the president's order, the only costs that matter are those to the oil companies. Costs to the public and to the environment are completely ignored." The regulations aren't cheap; the cost to the industry has been estimated at hundreds of millions. But that's peanuts compared to the costs of another spill.

Trump is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Like her fictional hero John Galt in "Atlas Shrugged," he wants to free business from the heavy hand of government. But this is an oddly distorted libertarianism, in which Rand's villains masquerade as her heroes: those who talk most of liberty are the looters and moochers.

Conservatives worry about "regulatory capture": the danger that regulators will abandon the public interest at the behest of regulated industries, keeping prices high and stifling competition. The solution is to get rid of regulation: the state should butt out and let the market operate. There's no doubt that capture has sometimes happened. A notorious example is the Civil Aeronautics Board: after it was abolished in 1985, airline competition intensified and prices plunged.

There is, however, another way in which unworthy special interests can seize control of government. They can work to cripple regulation, so that they can hurt and defraud people. Libertarian rhetoric has turned out to be a rich resource for them.

Barack Obama is actually a better libertarian than Trump. He spent years teaching at the University of Chicago, where the idea of regulatory capture was developed. That had an impact: when he was President, he demanded (following a principle laid down by Ronald Reagan!) that any new regulations survive rigorous cost-benefit analysis. That immunizes regulations from capture, and makes sure that regulators take account of just what worries Trump, the cost to businesses. The overall net value -- benefits minus costs -- of Obama's regulations was upward of $100 billion.

Trump, on the other hand, has replaced cost-benefit analysis with cost analysis. Benefits are ignored. This isn't even business-friendly. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill destroyed hundreds of well-functioning businesses. On the other hand, the businesses that were crushed were small and had nothing like BP's political connections.

There's room for reasonable disagreement with Obama's regulations. The calculation of both costs and benefits inevitably involves some guesswork. The cumulative effect of regulation can hamper businesses. The big difference between Trump and the standard conservatives' critique of Obama is that Trump's executive order holds, as a matter of principle, that benefits don't matter. Consumer fraud, tainted food, pollution, unsafe airplanes and trains, epidemic disease all have to be put up with, if stopping them would increase the costs of regulation.

Trump's new "regulatory reforms" show a persistent pattern. One targets a rule that requires retirement advisers to put clients' interests ahead of their own. Conflicts of interest in retirement advice, for example steering clients into products with higher fees and lower returns, costs American families an estimated $17 billion a year. You can understand why some parts of the financial industry hated the rule. That $17 billion was going into someone's pocket, and that someone finds libertarian rhetoric right handy.

The Libertarian Party, which got more than 4 million votes in the last presidential election, is enthusiastic about the order. It shouldn't be. The order is a deep betrayal of libertarianism, which holds that people should do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

Freeing businesses to hurt people is not libertarian. The libertarians -- at least, the ones who don't see through Trump -- are being played. If the crippling of the state allows economic behemoths to do whatever they like to others, then what libertarianism licenses, in the garb of liberty, is the creation of a new aristocracy, entitled to hurt the commoners. This is just a different kind of mooching and looting.

It is a new road to serfdom. It reinforces the prejudices of those on the left who repudiate capitalism. The libertarians who embrace it, thinking that they are thereby promoting freedom, are useful idiots, like the idealistic leftists of the 1930s whose hatred of poverty and racism led them to embrace Stalin. John Galt is a sap.

The rest is here:
Trump's 'libertarianism' endangers the public - CNN