Being Libertarian | The French Conundrum Being Libertarian Hollande is a member of the Socialist Party, and from a libertarian point of view, he's a candidate we wouldn't even think of voting for. Islamic terrorism coupled with economic stagnation has made Hollande extremely unpopular amongst French voters. |
LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:
By Paul Meekin
One man can be a crucial ingredient on a team, but one man cannot make a team. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Mark Cuban tends to be my kind of Billionaire. Hes a tech pioneer, sports fan, intelligent, has a jaw-line you can set you watch too, and tends to advocate for some of the libertarian agenda.
Also Shark Tank is pretty awesome.
But is Mark Cubana libertarian? Well, no. In recent comments made at a South By Southwest Festival Panel, Cuban stated hes a libertarian at heart, but believes some healthcare should be federally provided, and there are some protections the government should provide its citizens.
At heart Im a libertarian, he said. In 2015 he elaborated on the thought Id like to be libertarian, The Business Insider reported. When I think libertarian, its as small of a government as we can get, right now you just cut right through it and you make it [smaller] right now.
Thats not real. Theres got to be a process. Theres got to be a transition. As a country, we make decisions. We make decisions that were going to provide healthcare, right? We dont just let people die on the street. You can go into any hospital and they have to treat you.The Business Insiderreported.
He continued: You cant cure every ill with a government program. I literally would rather write a check: Takewhatever money is in a given department in the government, take 25% off the top, put it back in the taxpayers pockets, and then just give cash to people, right? Because itll be more effective in how its used and help the economy at the same time,
I can get behind that. I am of the mind that providing people healthcare, only to rip it away a few years later is cruel and unusual. But I also understand the Obamacare system is topsy turvey and unsustainable.
Based on his comments about healthcare, you might say Mark Cuban is a fauxlibertarian, and thats fine. I say hes an ally. He wants what libertarianswant, but has serious questions and serious concerns about how to get there. Concerns which should not be mocked, they shouldbe addressed.
Keep in mind it is the methodology of the regressive left to exclude and shame you if youre not lock-step with their platform.
I would hope Libertarians are a bit moreevolved, or open minded. Or at least happy to take the mans money if we get the right presidential candidate.The last thing libertariansneeds is an insular ideology. We should accept help and support from anywhere we can. Cuban disagrees with most libertarians on healthcare? Thats fine. Libertarians disagree with Bernie Sanders on everything, but I would hope wed be willing to work with him regarding lowering the cost of prescription medication.
Libertarians have their feet in two worlds and thus have a hard time making friends and an easier time making enemies. Ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans isnt a fun topic at lefty parties. The libertarian ideal of letting any two people get marriage benefits (or having them at all) probably isnt a fun discussion to have at CPAC.Hell get 7 libertarians in a room and ask them about abortion and see what happens.
My point is- just because someone isnt totally onboard with the beliefs of your party, doesnt make them a fake or a phony or somehow an enemy. Will Mark Cuban ever wear a taxation is theft t-shirt? Probably not.
Will Mark Cuban vote for a man or woman who wears one? Based on his history? Stranger things have happened.
cpacHealthcarelibertarianmark cubanObamacareSXSW
Read more:
In Support Of Mark Cuban's Libertarian Leanings. - The Libertarian Republic
The Republican House proposed healthcare legislationis a substantially more free-market approach to health care than exists in any industrialized nation. It would greatly reduce regulation of health care in America, and also considerably increase the choices that consumers would have in their health care.
Another way of putting this is: it would considerably decrease the requirements that are placed upon health care insurers and providers. It would be as close to extreme free-market health care as can be achieved except for a system in which anyone can legally sell anything and call it health insurance or call it medical care. In other words, it would be more like anarchy in these fields.
(3)PLAN PARTICIPATION.A State shall not restrict or otherwise limit the ability of a healthinsurance plan to participate in, and offer health insurance coverage through, the State Exchange, so long asthe health insurance issuers involved are duly licensed under State insurance laws applicable to all healthinsurance issuers in the State and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title.
(4)PREMIUMS.[That means that theres nothing there; that anything goes, as regardsPREMIUMS.]
(A)AMOUNT.A State shall not determine premium or cost sharing amounts for healthinsurance coverage offered through the State Exchange.
(B)COLLECTION METHOD.A State shall ensure the existence of an effective and efficientmethod for the collection of premiums for health insurance coverage offered through the StateExchange.
In other words: Whatever any state has duly licensed under State insurance laws applicable to all health insurance issuers and otherwise comply with the requirements of this title will be allowed to be sold in that state. This appears in TITLE IISTATE-BASED HEALTH CARE EXCHANGES of the bill. In that title, appears one major requirement:
(4)LIMITATION ON PRE-EXISTING CONDITION EXCLUSIONS.The State Exchange shall ensure thathealth insurance coverage offered through the Exchange meets the requirements of section 9801 of the InternalRevenue Code of 1986 in the same manner as if such coverage was a group health plan.
Section 9801 of the IRS Code is shownhere. Its section-title is 26 U.S. Code 9801 Increased portability throughlimitation on preexisting condition exclusions. That, in turn, is part of SUBTITLE K Group Health Plan Requirements ( 9801 to 9834). It places minimal requirements, in order for an insurance company to qualify to be taxed as supplying a Group Health Plan. Its a tax-requirement not a healthcare requirement.
In other words: the Republican bill adds nothing there, on top of what the IRS has already required since 1986. That means its bare-minimum regulation, very stripped-down, to totally a taxation-matter for insurance companies.
The degree of freedom that the Republican bill would provide to suppliers is enormous especially in states that already are anti-regulation. The only regulation in this matter, that goes beyond the U.S. tax code, would be whatever regulations the state itself imposes.
Consequently, there also would be vastly wider choices for consumers to make. However, in true free-market, or unregulated, fashion, suppliers would also be far freer than they now are, to hide, not disclose to consumers, details of insurance policies that would need to be considered by an individual consumer in order for that person to be able intelligently to compare competing policies except on the basis of cost (and a few other fundamentals).
In that situation, the fine print differences between competing insurance policies can be gamed by suppliers so as to achieve a competitive edge while at the same time reducing its own cost of providing a given policy. There would then be a great boost in business for services to consumers, that would for a fee professionally assist consumers to compare apples versus oranges versus grapes versus chicken versus beef etc., to use a foods-analogy. But these comparisons, if theyre to be done correctly, will need to be deeply informed about the relevant laws, and case-laws or courtroom outcomes (and thats lots more complex than is the basic literature on nutrition). Reading the fine print without knowing what itreallymeans, is virtually like not reading it at all.
Consequently, for example, Jon Reid at Morning Consult headlined on March 14th,GOP Bill Would Make Comparing HealthPlan Prices More Difficultand reported that,
The GOP bill, dubbed the American Health Care Act, would repeal the AffordableCare Actsactuarial value requirements, which let consumers know what percentageof health costs an insurer should cover. Under the ACA, individual health care plans generally fit into four tiers, starting at 60percent insurer coverage for bronze plans and going as high as 90 percent forplatinum plans. Repealing the AV requirements while retaining Obamacares essentialbenefits would make it harder for consumers to make educated decisions about whichhealth plan to pick.
The GOP bill consequently would intensify the game thats played between shoppers and sellers, between consumers and producers, between individuals and corporations, and so enable corporations that are selling insurance, to hide the details that they are planning to be the key drivers behind the profits theyll be earning from any given policy they market.
This is the libertarian objective: to increase choice and to decrease the consumers information, so as to maximize profits. There can be consumer-advisors for a fee, of course but the more choices and less standardization there is, the more that consumers (except the very rich who wont be so much bothered by hiring professional advisors in order to make a purchasing decision) will virtually be required to rely more on gut guesses and less on adequately informed calculations, when choosing what policy to buy.
And these are some of the reasons why the United States, which already has a more free-market healthcare system than any other OECD nation, has (by about a factor of two as compared to the average) by far the highest cost (in absolute terms and also as a percentage of GDP) health care, and also near the bottom health care in terms of life-expectancy. We already have the costliest and nearly the worst, but the Republican proposal would drive it even farther into that direction.
The fundamental marketing-idea for Republican policies is the free market, which is the idea that its good, and so the total lack of it, or communism, is bad; so that, the more free-market a system is, the better it necessarily will be.
However, this is like saying that if the lack of vitamins can kill a person, then the more vitamins a person takes, the healthier hell become. Its not really true. (If vitamins are good, a person still can kill himself by taking too much.) But the U.S. public believes (or feels) that its true, and thats why there are more Republicans than Democrats in Congress. But even Democrats in America are more libertarian than most Europeans are about health care. Its a matter of faith, and one might even say that the free market is the biggest faith there is in America.
Its so big that even some Democrats believe wholeheartedly in it: its the American way. And so challenging it has a stench to American nostrils. Whereas in Europe and many countries elsewhere, socialism is taken for granted as a democratic reality there, the U.S. isnt like that, and socialism here is automatically equated more with its dictatorial form, communism, like a holdover from the Cold War that just will not stop, because its a very profitable myth, for those who sell it. So those sellers keep selling it. But its false. Its taken only on faith. There is no other basis for it, than that. Libertarianism is faith-based. Pure and simple. But so was communism. Even a faith can end. But if its just replaced by another faith (not by truth), then thats like going from one frying-pan into another no real change at all.
But the Republican health plan would be a change, toward increased faith.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, ofTheyre Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010,and ofCHRISTS VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Visit link:
The Republican Healthcare Bill Is Very Free-Market, Libertarian - Center for Research on Globalization
SUNDAY, MARCH 12, 2017, 2:42 P.M.
Mark Wicks, standing, addresses Montana Libertarians gathering for their party's nominating convention in Helena, Mont., on Saturday, March 11, 2017. Wicks will represent the Libertarian Party in the May 25 special election to fill the state's vacant congressional seat. (Bobby Caina Calvan / AP)
HELENA Montanas Libertarian Party picked Mark Wicks to be its candidate in the May 25 special election, finalizing the slate to fill the states vacant congressional seat.
The 46-year-old cattle rancher and writer from Inverness will be up against Democrat Rob Quist, a political newcomer, and Republican Greg Gianforte, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last fall.
The Libertarian Party selected Wicks during a nominating convention Saturday in Helena attended by about three dozen people.
Wicks acknowledged the long odds against him.
I know its an uphill battle, he said. I can see where I have a lot of advantages. My party is not fighting with anybody. The other parties are fighting back and forth. Im going to stand up and show that Montana can send somebody back to Washington who can stand up for Montana.
After being nominated, Wicks brushed off questions about his ability to mount a serious campaign. He said he would travel the state to convince voters that his candidacy represents an opportunity to set aside the hyper-partisanship in Washington.
With just $1,000 in the bank, Wicks has little chance of getting the necessary attention from voters across the expansive state.
He said he would draw votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, but rejected that he would act as a spoiler.
He took a jab at Gianforte, a wealthy Bozeman entrepreneur, who Wicks noted has the ability to self-finance his congressional campaign as he did in his bid for governor. And Wicks asserted Quist as out of touch with the philosophical and political convictions of most Montanans.
A tight race between Gianforte and Quist could put Wicks in a position to influence the outcome of the race.
In the 2016 gubernatorial campaign, the Libertarian ticket drew 3 percent of the vote just below the 4 percent margin separating Gianforte and Gov. Steve Bullock, who was re-elected with slightly more than half of all votes cast.
Each candidate has their own ideas about the direction we should take for our country, but Gregs running for Congress to be on Montanas side, said the Republicans spokesman, Shane Scanlon.
Quist said he welcomed Wicks in the race.
Its good for Montanans to have choices in this election and we are confident that Rob Quist will earn Montanans vote as an independent voice for Montana, said Quists spokeswoman, Tina Olechowski.
Quist, a well-known entertainer, stumped for votes in Helena and Butte on Saturday and was scheduled to hold a rally in Polson later in the evening. He was expected to meet with supporters in Whitefish on Monday.
Read this article:
Libertarians pick Inverness rancher for congressional race - The Spokesman-Review
The Liberty Conservative | HL Mecken: Pro-German Rather Than Libertarian The Liberty Conservative Conservatives today claim him for his libertarian opposition to the New Deal, his fierce commitment to civil liberties, and his denouncement of collectivism in all forms. Liberals adopt him for his attacks on Christian fundamentalism, his faith in ... |
Read more from the original source:
HL Mecken: Pro-German Rather Than Libertarian - The Liberty Conservative