Posts

A serious problem within the “liberty movement”


What does it mean to be in the “liberty movement?” Well, I guess, it means you want to move society toward liberty. So what is liberty?

I suggest there is no better authority than Thomas Jefferson. He said that “no man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.”

There ya go. Can anyone who owns a Gadsden flag disagree with Mr. Jefferson? I think not.

So, according to the father of the American liberty movement, liberty means man should be free to do anything that does not infringe upon the natural rights of another.

Once we start making exceptions to this rule, we have forfeited all moral highground. Once we say, “well, doing X doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another, but it is still such a bad idea, the law ought to restrain people from doing it,” we have opened the entire debate to what justifies exceptions to Jefferson’s definition.

Who would argue such a thing? Well, we all know professed believers in liberty who say they absolutely believe in Jefferson’s vision, but marijuana is an exception because smoking weed is too important an issue to leave up to individuals. The state must take control. That is why they oppose Colorado’s proposed Amendment 64.

These people no longer have any moral ground upon which to claim liberty as a reason to keep the state out of healthcare. The “progressive” merely has to point out he believes in liberty, too, but that health care is just too important to leave it up to individuals. The state must take control. That is why they favor Obamacare.

So, how can one distinguish between the person in the liberty movement and the person in the progressive movement in such an instance?

One can not.

This, my friends, is why freedom is dangerous. Live dangerously. Don’t be scared of it. Embrace it. Without exception. Can you imagine a truly free society? How great it would be? If achieving that goal means we – GASP! – have to let people smoke marijuana, is that really that high a cost? I say it is a pittance.


A. Well, first of all, Doctor, I think it's a terrific question, and it's something that touches us all personally, especially when you start talking about end-of-life care.  Some of you know my grandmother recently passed away, which was a very painful thing for me.  She's somebody who helped raise me.  But she's somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer; there was unanimity about that.  They expected that she'd have six to nine months to life.  She fell and broke her hip.  And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren't sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery.

And the President continued...

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

And this sums it up. Read that last part again: "...at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn't going to help, maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

And you know who decides that you are better off taking the painkiller and not getting the surgery? 

Well, it ain't you.

BlueCarp

<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4099162-5909219706007405615?l=www.bluecarp.com' alt='' [...] '>

In his own words, Obama’s thoughts on healthcare decisions.


Barack Obama, from a Town Hall meeting, June 24, 2009. From the official White House transcript

Q: … President Obama, if your wife or your daughter became seriously ill and things were not going well, and the plan physicians told you they were doing everything that reasonably could be done, and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders in major centers and they said there’s another option that you should pursue, but it was not covered in the plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions, or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family? 

A. Well, first of all, Doctor, I think it’s a terrific question, and it’s something that touches us all personally, especially when you start talking about end-of-life care.  Some of you know my grandmother recently passed away, which was a very painful thing for me.  She’s somebody who helped raise me.  But she’s somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer; there was unanimity about that.  They expected that she’d have six to nine months to life.  She fell and broke her hip.  And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery.

And the President continued…

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

And this sums it up. Read that last part again: “…at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help, maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

And you know who decides that you are better off taking the painkiller and not getting the surgery? 

Well, it ain’t you.

A response to “Why Obamacare is good for America”


The executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, my friend Dede de Percin, does her best to sell us on the benefits of Obamacare in the “Perspective” section of today’s Denver Post. (See “Why Obamacare is good for America.)

I quote some of her statements, then respond underneath:

“Over the past few decades, America’s health care system has been hurtling toward a crisis. Almost one-third of Coloradans — 1.5 million — either have health care coverage that is inadequate or have none at all. The primary reason is skyrocketing costs, which have priced out businesses and individuals alike.”

Why the skyrocketing costs? Because of government mandated coverage, government regulation, and the inability to sell insurance across state lines, among other things.

“Decisions about our health care are too personal and important to be left to insurance companies.”

But not too personal and important to be left to the United States Congress and state run exchange boards, apparently.

“Obamacare is starting to hold insurance companies accountable, controlling the runaway costs that prevent Coloradans from access to health care. For example, insurers must now justify premium rate hikes.”

These rate rikes must be justified to a government board. I hope the inherent downside to government approval of prices is self-evident. Alas, I know it is not. See “The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” entry on “Price Controls” for an in depth discussion.

“Essential preventive care is now considered a basic benefit for those with insurance and is available without co-pays or other cost-sharing because it keeps people healthier.”

Keeping everyone healthier is a great goal. Pretending it can be done for free is a fantasy. The preventative care may not cost the consumer anything directly out of pocket, but the cost exists and it is paid by everyone. It is the ultimate in cost-sharing. Further, when a service has no marginal cost to the consumer, the demand for the service is virtually unlimited. With higher demand, prices necessarily rise for someone if not to the consumer directly. Costs exist. No legislation can abolish them.

“A major cost-containment initiative of Obamacare is the exchange. In 2014, Coloradans will be able to purchase affordable insurance in the Colorado Health Benefits Exchange, a statewide nonprofit organization. Intended to be a competitive, online marketplace similar to Travelocity…”

Wait… Travelocity was formed by government mandate? No? It was done by a private company in the free market? How is that possible? I thought only the government could make this happen. Perhaps not.

And this nonprofit state exchange plans on paying four executives $165,000 a year or more. It is amazing how political appointees always end up doing well in these state created nonprofits. It is pure corporatism. Nonprofit corporatism, but nonetheless corporatism. Some prefer to call it crony-capitalism (which, of course, is not capitalism at all).

“Since decisions about health care are too important to leave to others, the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and consumer-focused organizations are helping Coloradans make their voices heard by exchange board members.”

Wait… health care decisions are too important to leave to others, so the exchange board members will make those decisions? Aren’t they “others?” I am afraid I just do not follow that reasoning. (Not an uncommon occurrence for me, I realize).

I know de Percin means well. She wants to help those without health insurance coverage. She wants everyone to get the medical services they need.

But another layer of government bureaucracy will not achieve that admirable goal. Government, indeed, has a role, a very important one: policing fraud and enforcing benefits contractually promised to insureds in exchange for premiums. When government starts doing much beyond that, costs go up and coverage goes down.

It's foolish to stall federal aid."

I will tell what is really foolish: A system of federal government that takes money from individuals throughout the country, takes a cut off the top (you know, for "expenses"), then dangles some of that money in front of states that must agree to jump through whatever ridiculous hoops the policy makers in the District of Columbia have deemed necessary in order for the state to get back a small portion of the money taken from it when the process began.

Lewis Carroll would have had a hard time imagining such absurdity.

"Federal aid" is Newspeak. It is no "aid" to get back your own money. "Federal aid" is simply extortion. The feds say they'll return some of the state's money if the state does what it is "asked" to do. Organized crime figures say they will let you keep your business and your knee caps if you do what you are "asked" to do.

It's an offer we can't refuse.

Luckily, legislators like Rep. Jim Kerr, who is quoted in the Post editorial, are at least mulling it over before accepting the offer.

The Post goes on to say that state legislators are entitled to their opinion about Obamacare but "they also need to accept the reality that it's the law of the land."

Applying that misguided logic, the Post would tell a battered spouse that she should just accept the reality that she is in an abusive relationship. You will only make it worse if you resist, right? Accept the abuse. It is the reality.

No. No more.

It is time for Colorado, and other states that are tired of submissively accepting unlawful federal expansion of power, to stand up to the unlawful usurpation of power exercised by the federal government. It is time to assert the Tenth Amendment. It is time to resurrect these dead letters:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no constitutional authority for the feds to tell any state that it must implement a system to facilitate the mandatory purchase of a private product. If the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, that there is such authority within the commerce clause, they might as well say that the sun is the moon and that black is white. It will be just as true.

It is time to listen to Thomas Jefferson, who, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, wrote:

... where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [to it by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits

Nullify now.

BlueCarp

<img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/4099162-4181516547382130484?l=www.bluecarp.com' alt='' [...] '>

It’s time to refuse federal demands.

The editorial in today’s Denver Post  laments some state legislators’ hesitation to submit to federal requirements in order to obtain money to implement the Affordable Care Act. The Post headline declares “It’s foolish to stall federal aid.”

I will tell what is really foolish: A system of federal government that takes money from individuals throughout the country, takes a cut off the top (you know, for “expenses”), then dangles some of that money in front of states that must agree to jump through whatever ridiculous hoops the policy makers in the District of Columbia have deemed necessary in order for the state to get back a small portion of the money taken from it when the process began.

Lewis Carroll would have had a hard time imagining such absurdity.

“Federal aid” is Newspeak. It is no “aid” to get back your own money. “Federal aid” is simply extortion. The feds say they’ll return some of the state’s money if the state does what it is “asked” to do. Organized crime figures say they will let you keep your business and your knee caps if you do what you are “asked” to do.

It’s an offer we can’t refuse.

Luckily, legislators like Rep. Jim Kerr, who is quoted in the Post editorial, are at least mulling it over before accepting the offer.

The Post goes on to say that state legislators are entitled to their opinion about Obamacare but “they also need to accept the reality that it’s the law of the land.”

Applying that misguided logic, the Post would tell a battered spouse that she should just accept the reality that she is in an abusive relationship. You will only make it worse if you resist, right? Accept the abuse. It is the reality.

No. No more.

It is time for Colorado, and other states that are tired of submissively accepting unlawful federal expansion of power, to stand up to the unlawful usurpation of power exercised by the federal government. It is time to assert the Tenth Amendment. It is time to resurrect these dead letters:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no constitutional authority for the feds to tell any state that it must implement a system to facilitate the mandatory purchase of a private product. If the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, that there is such authority within the commerce clause, they might as well say that the sun is the moon and that black is white. It will be just as true.

It is time to listen to Thomas Jefferson, who, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, wrote:

… where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [to it by the Constitution], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits

Nullify now.

8/1 Meetup Will Be Streamed Live!

Visiting from inside the (DC) beltway, William Owens, publisher of Tea Party Review Magazine, is planning to visit with us to LIVE STREAM metro-Denver’s hottest politico rooftop gathering tomorrow.  Mr. Owens streamed the Western Conservative Summit this weekend, and also introduced today’s straw poll winner, presidential candidate Herman Cain.

We expect a great “Liberty” crowd for what should be a lively discussion about a) education, with Jeffco BOE director Laura Boggs (how timely, the Lobato case starts tomorrow!) and 2) Obamacare with Dr. Jill Q. Vecchio of Docs 4 Patient Care – wear your LOTR t-shirts and lapel pins for this special meetup; maybe our legislators will be tuning in to get the pulse from the grassroots, and begin to feel the heat from the Mile High City!

Join us as we put our country on alert, that among our goals are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happy hour :)

Aug 1st Meetup — A Prescription for Obamacare

Dr. Jill Q. Vecchio – Up On The Roof!

Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks) Happy Hour — August 1, 2011

August belongs to our fascinating lady leaders. We’re kicking the month off with a happy hour “two-for” – Laura Boggs, Jeffco school board director, for a quick education update, followed by Dr. Jill Vecchio, a national director with Docs 4 Patient Care (yes, they actually have read the bill and know what is in it). Time to get fired up again and shake off the summer heat doldrums.

Director Boggs is our initial “education mini-series” guest, leading up to the 2011 school board elections. She and other pro-student, pro-reform, pro-performance minded individuals will brief us periodically on education issues (a sector which consumes almost 50% of the state budget, plus additional direct property tax levies).

Our featured guest is Dr. Jill Q. Vecchio, the National Director for State Chapter Development with Docs 4 Patient Care. Dr. Vecchio is a practicing diagnostic radiologist, and is a prominent speaker on the impacts of Obamacare (we’ll pick her brains about “Amycare,” too). Docs 4 Patient Care is an organization of concerned physicians committed to the establishment of a health care system that preserves the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, promotes quality of care, supports affordable access to all Americans, and protects patients’ freedom of choice. (My wish is that the good doctor could make a “House” call and give the President an Rx for what seems to be a general healthcare malaise coming out of D.C. – just saying…)

If you have some time prior to the meeting, I would suggest you review this great powerpoint presentation that I found by Dr. Vecchio at http://docs4patientcare.org/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=82703, for a primer.

Also, if you missed Independence Institute’s Dr. Paul Prentice’s presentations on the Fed, and on the Moral Basis of Capitalism, you can download them here at the “More Resources” tab, above.

Upcoming Events

July 29 – 31 Centennial Institute

Western Conservative Summit 2011

Marriott City Center, Denver

Details at http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/events/wcsummit.asp

*I would highly recommend this event to all since it exceeded my expectations last year but especially to those 25 an under due to the content and great price incentive

August 15, 2011
Liberty on the Rocks (Red Rocks) Happy Hour
Jessica Peck Cory

August 29, 2011 Bonus Monday!!!
Liberty on the Rocks (Red Rocks) Happy Hour
TBA

Dr. Jill Q. Vecchio Event Details

August 1, 2011
Old Chicago’s rooftop
145 Union Blvd.
Lakewood, CO
Happy hour from 5 – 7 p.m. (Speakers generally begin between 5:45 – 6:00)
FB group: Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks)

Disclaimer: Speakers/Guests/Articles do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks).

Free Market Medicine Talk and Social

Think Obamacare is the wrong solution? Think it is the right solution? Come learn about what can happen when doctors and patients get together in the marketplace.

Our guest speaker is Ralph Weber, he has contributed health reform policy for politicians including Rudy Giuliani and Mike Villines. He has personal experience with the Canadian Healthcare system and some great ideas.

Learn more about Mr. Weber here.

When: Thursday, June 9
Where: Logan’s Roadhouse | 1007 Village Green Crossing in Gallatin
What: Happy Hour, Great Discussion & Fabulous Food & Drinks!


“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Consider Jesus' answer the Cliff's Notes on all of Christianity. In sum, Jesus said to be Christian is to "love God" and "love your neighbor."

This is where progressives get lost. They mistake Jesus' command for us to "love our neighbor" with a command to make OTHERS love their neighbor. See, progressives want to take other peoples' money - via forcible taxation - and give it to their neighbor. That's not what Jesus said.

In short, Christianity is about helping others voluntarily. It is about charity. Jesus said you should help others - and if you do not, you have to live with it and the consequences.

Progressivism is the opposite. Progressivism - indeed, all statism - is brute force, nothing else. Progressivism says that, by government dictate, some of us must help others - or go to jail.

The two could not be more different.

I'll make a final comparison: Walking next door and giving your neighbor in need some of your bread is Christian. Walking across the street, taking bread out of the window, and then giving it to your neighbor in need is progressivism. They are opposites. One is love. The other theft.

B.

Can a case be made that Christians are not voluntarily loving their neighbor, as Jesus commanded? Absolutely. The answer, however, is not to abandon Christianity and institute force to make Christians love their neighbor.

How absurd is that notion? You will love your neighbor or we will MAKE you! It is nonsense.

George Washington was right when he said, "government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force." One might add that "government is not charity; it is not love; it is force."

The progressives, therefore, make a fundamental, and crucial error: They equate love with force. They equate compassion with force. They equate charity with force.

They might as well equate war with peace, day with night or lies with truth.

In fact, they do.

God is love. Government is force. Using one in the name of the other is not only futile, it is destructive.

Progressivism is not Christian.

by David K. Williams, Jr.
A.

One of my adamantly “progressive” Facebook friends recently said opposing universal health care is “unchristian.” It is not an uncommon charge.

The accusation, however, shows both a fundamental misunderstanding of economics and Christianity. The economic fallacy is that universal health care will result in universally better health care. This assumption is belied by recorded history. That, however, has been widely explained. This post is not about the economics.
This post is about Christianity. Jesus’ summed up his teachings in Matthew 22:36 – 40. He was asked by a Pharisee “what is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus replied:

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Consider Jesus’ answer the Cliff’s Notes on all of Christianity. In sum, Jesus said to be Christian is to “love God” and “love your neighbor.”
This is where progressives get lost. They mistake Jesus’ command for us to “love our neighbor” with a command to make OTHERS love their neighbor. See, progressives want to take other peoples’ money – via forcible taxation – and give it to their neighbor. That’s not what Jesus said.
In short, Christianity is about helping others voluntarily. It is about charity. Jesus said you should help others – and if you do not, you have to live with it and the consequences.
Progressivism is the opposite. Progressivism – indeed, all statism – is brute force, nothing else. Progressivism says that, by government dictate, some of us must help others – or go to jail.
The two could not be more different.
I’ll make a final comparison: Walking next door and giving your neighbor in need some of your bread is Christian. Walking across the street, taking bread out of the window, and then giving it to your neighbor in need is progressivism. They are opposites. One is love. The other theft.
B.
Can a case be made that Christians are not voluntarily loving their neighbor, as Jesus commanded? Absolutely. The answer, however, is not to abandon Christianity and institute force to make Christians love their neighbor.
How absurd is that notion? You will love your neighbor or we will MAKE you! It is nonsense.
George Washington was right when he said, “government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.” One might add that “government is not charity; it is not love; it is force.”
The progressives, therefore, make a fundamental, and crucial error: They equate love with force. They equate compassion with force. They equate charity with force.
They might as well equate war with peace, day with night or lies with truth.
In fact, they do.
God is love. Government is force. Using one in the name of the other is not only futile, it is destructive.



Another example of the complete disconnect between the “progressive” search for utopia and reality.

The State of Colorado spent $223 million in 2004 on a computer system to streamline the Medicaid and foodstamp programs in the state. It did not work.

So the State of Colorado spent another $44 million with Deloitte to consult on how to fix it. It still does not work. (See the Denver Post article “Feds target delays in aid.“)
So the feds are coming in to audit. According to the Post:

In announcing the review to state officials, federal Medicaid managers said one point of focus would be pharmacy-based systems that tell dispensaries whether a client seeking drugs qualifies for aid. In the summer of 2009, 9-year-old Zumante Lucero died after a pharmacy allegedly wouldn’t fill his asthma prescription despite proof the family qualified for Medicaid help.

And yet compassionate, statist, “progressives” think it is benevolent to force a similar, government run system on all of us via Obamacare.

Debate: The 14th & ObamaCare… unconstitutional ?

Please join us as we gather in the name of Liberty on February 8th, 5:30pm – 7:30pm at the Dublin House (1850 Dominion Way, Colo Spgs.) enjoying Tavern Style Politics and Activism in the Tradition of our Founding Fathers.

Join us in an open debate / discussion  on the 14th Amendment, specifically the movement by several states to alter the citizenship clause thereby eliminating birthright citizenship.  Plus we will discuss and debate the new Federal Judge ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. After the debate, let’s socialize and enjoy the company of fellow liberty lovers.

Upcoming Events:

Feb. 22, 2011: Celebrate George Washington’s Birthday ! An honest discussion about one of our nation’s most famous founders.  Plus cake, contests, trivia and more…!

March 8th, 2011TBD… Wine tasting?

Liberty on the Rocks is today’s gathering place where you can become acquainted with others who believe in freedom and where we can share our thoughts and ideas on ways to restore liberty in America. We are a non-partisan, non-profit, social organization that seeks to unite individuals, regardless of political affiliation, who desire liberty. With the goal of facilitating networks, friendships and intelligent conversation.

Liberty on the Rocks seeks to initiate the energy and dialogue necessary to move America from the grassroots up, toward the constitutional principles of freedom used to found this nation.

For more info, contact: David Kelly: david@libertyontherocks.org 719.237.4598

Visit: http://www.libertyontherocks.com/

Disclaimer: Speakers/Guests/Articles do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Colorado Springs Liberty On The Rocks, and Colorado Springs LOTR does not endorse or support any candidate in any election.