New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
About Tony Rubolotta
Tony Rubolotta works in the technology industry.
Recent Articles
Baiting the Debate
Another View of Outsourcing
America's Great Utopian Success Story
Unholy Trinity
Foreign Policy by Personality Disorder
Transparent in Audacity Only II
Transparent in Audacity Only
Moral Confusion As a Tactic
Two Golden Rules
A Different View on Tort Reform
Far-Fetched But Not Crazy
My No Thank You Note to Obama
Economic Responsibility is Health Care Reform
Party of Irrelevance
Mending the Conservative Split
Attacking Liberty One Puff at a Time
The Illinois GOP: Monkey See, Monkey Do
When Liberty is the Minority View
Obama, Frank & Dodd, LLP
Urgently Needed: A Republican Revival
Socialism, Failure & Harsh Reality
From Fear to Despair to Hope
No Peace at Any Price
Affordable Righteous Indignation
Centrist by Definition
Critical Thinking in the Box
Liberal Economics for Dummies
Repealing the Law of Gravity

Tony Rubolotta

Baiting the Debate
October 31, 2009

I recently received an email from my Congressman asking my opinion concerning an issue that has arisen from the debate over ObamaCare. That question was "Should Congress cut Medicare funding by $400 billion to fund the Democrats’ health care bill?” Those are the exact words and check boxes are provided for an answer of yes, no or don’t know. No matter how I answer the question, it can be interpreted that I support one big government program over another. The question begs another question, that being is there a right amount of funding to strip from Medicare and push to ObamaCare? This type of question baits the debate to distract the debaters from a more fundamental question that is never asked. It is not untypical of how the debate is being directed.

Recently, a proposed change to the ObamaCare bill was offered that would allow employers to charge fifty percent more in health insurance premiums to employees who smoke or are overweight. A hot debate ensued on a conservative web site between those who argued this was fair and those who thought it unfairly targeted certain health risks and not others. One constant complaint from these "conservatives” was why they should pay higher premiums than those who engage in risky behavior. Consequently, in their opinion, it made sense to allow these increased premiums. This debate had been baited and so-called conservatives swallowed it hook, line and sinker. They debated a faux issue.

Whether or not ObamaCare should pay for abortions raises another baited debate. Opponents of an amendment prohibiting abortion say it isn’t needed because it isn’t mentioned in the proposed legislation. Proponents of the amendment say it is needed because abortion isn’t specifically prohibited. While the lines drawn in this debate between the pro-life and pro-abortion supporters are clear, it is still bait to create the wrong debate.

Yet another example of baiting the debate is the infamous public option. The essence of that debate is will the public option spur competition to lower health insurance costs or lead to unfair practices by government to monopolize health insurance.

While we are chumming, let’s throw in the biggest piece of bait of all, the cost of ObamaCare versus its claimed and highly nebulous "savings”. This has become a debate of magnitude and not of principle.

Every one of these issues and many others have been framed as if ObamaCare can be hammered into something acceptable if we merely dispose of these points of contention through debate. The purpose of baiting the debate is to draw fish into the net of nationalized, socialized medicine. Many fish are chasing the bait while ignoring the greater threat that is surrounding them.

If we agree that health care and its component parts are too expensive, then we have one of only two choices to follow. We must either accept that the free market can offer solutions, or that government must dictate solutions. These choices are mutually exclusive in that you can have one or the other, but not both. The moment government dictates anything you do not have a free market. That is not to say government doesn’t have a role because indeed it does and that is to make sure the market is free. Our Constitution has already decided this issue in favor of the free market.

The most distinctive characteristic of a free market is the transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. It is the freedom of choice to buy or sell that enhances competition which enhances efficiency, variety, quality and innovation, and these together ultimately produce lower costs. The free market has given us a higher and rising standard of living. Government’s role in a free market is to protect the integrity of the transaction against deception or coercion by either party and to protect the market from domination by an individual or small number of entities.

When government interferes in the free market, there is no way that market can be considered free. Government mandates and subsidies reduce competition. The more competition is reduced, the less important are efficiency, variety, quality and innovation. When you as a buyer have to compete for a doctor’s time against a government mandated and subsidized program, you lose. When you as a seller are compelled by government and not your conscience, ethics or business sense as to what services you must or must not provide, to whom you must or must not provide them, and at what price, you lose. What buyer and seller lose is not only the freedom of choice, but all the advantages of the free market. When government dictates, buyer and seller are both coerced.

Government interference and intrusion in the free market has given us more bankrupt and failed programs than I could possibly enumerate in this limited space. Social Security, Medicare, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Post Office, Amtrak, ethanol, GM, some state governments and the federal government itself, all failing and headed toward bankruptcy. ObamaCare will be no different. It is unconstitutional and will fall to the same bureaucratic morass and political corruption that characterizes everything the federal government does.

If we look at all of the little and baited debates about ObamaCare and see through them to the bigger picture, each becomes an argument in the larger mosaic of why our founders limited the power of government. They did it for reasons that are as valid today as they were then. How much more evidence is needed that big government makes big screw-ups? Should we discard the wisdom of Jefferson, Madison and Adams that has served us well for over 200 years in favor of the follies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid that have failed us massively in record short time? Have the founding fires of rebellion against tyranny and the risks of liberty been quenched by elitist despots promising the security they would afford a caged pet?

Yes, we should debate the points raised about ObamaCare, baited or otherwise. However, we should never lose sight of the bigger picture that it is none of governments business and never should be unless the Constitution is amended. If we foolishly agree to do that, we will get what we deserve. What we are getting now is undeserved.

Social Bookmarking

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review