The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
ObamaCare Exchanges Are Losing Money

The reason 35 states chose not to build a local ObamaCare exchange – even though the federal government made billions of dollars available to do so – is pretty simple: After an initial burst of funding the a state must foot the bill to maintain it.

That’s turning out to be a very costly proposition.

Consider Oregon.

“The case of Oregon is the most extreme,” explains an editorial in the Washington Examiner. “After spending $200 million to develop its own health insurance exchange, the Beaver State was forced to abandon it altogether because of pervasive and intractable technical problems.”

It gets worse.

“Tiny Vermont spent roughly $4,000 for every uninsured Vermonter to develop its exchange – more than enough to buy a pre-ObamaCare policy for everyone for an…[more]

May 04, 2015 • 07:59 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Romney, Gingrich Flunk Poli-Philosophy Print
By Quin Hillyer
Tuesday, May 17 2011
[Gingrich's and Romney's] arguments completely miss the simple, underlying, philosophical principle inherent in the mandate question. The principle is this: No government, at any level, ought to be able to compel any individual to buy any good or service. Period.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both have serious problems that have nothing to do with their presidential campaigns: At least on health care, both of them are statists, and philosophically incoherent ones at that.

The former House Speaker and former Massachusetts governor both defend the idea of an “individual mandate” to buy health insurance – Gingrich even on the national level, and Romney at least on the state level (and, by clear inference in the past, on the national level too).  Their arguments completely miss the simple, underlying, philosophical principle inherent in the mandate question. The principle is this: No government, at any level, ought to be able to compel any individual to buy any good or service. Period.

Romney argued last week that the health-care plan he pushed through in Massachusetts (henceforth “RomneyCare”) was not just defensible, but a good idea. He hailed it as an excellent example of federalism at work. He said that what might be good for Massachusetts might not be good for other states, but insisted that RomneyCare as a whole was good for Massachusetts.

Setting aside the plain fact that Romneycare has been a massive failure in practical terms, Romney misses the point entirely. Even apart from constitutional questions, the mandate that is RomneyCare’s central feature is obnoxious. As U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of Florida wrote in his decision striking down ObamaCare’s individual mandate, “It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Despite Romney’s weak rationalizing, the issue here isn’t utility, but liberty. Mussolini “made the trains run on time,” but that should never have justified his authoritarianism. Essential liberty must never be sacrificed on some central planner’s altar of efficiency.

It also would be disingenuous for Romney to suggest the mandate was some unfortunate compromise he had to make in order to enact the rest of RomneyCare. The truth is, Romney spent years arguing that the mandate was an essential feature of his law. Again and again, he cited it as a selling point. To anybody who believes that government should be limited not just in size but by function or powers – anybody who agrees with Jefferson that government should “leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” – this sort of raw government coercion is anathema.

Then there’s Gingrich, who has pushed some form of individual health-insurance mandate at the federal level since 1993. He spent much of Monday backtracking, but he can’t erase the simple fact that his endorsement Sunday of a “variation” of the mandate was a continuation of his 18-year embrace of statism on the same subject. As he was endorsing a mandate variation, he denounced Paul Ryan’s proposed “premium support” plan for Medicare as “radical… right-wing social engineering.” The philosophical derangement is breathtaking.

How, pray tell, is it radical social engineering for the government merely to provide a sort of voucher to an individual and let the individual make his own choices? On the other hand, the mandate Gingrich supports is the very definition of social engineering, and radical at that. How is it not social engineering for the government to force somebody to buy health insurance or an equivalent, in order to make it feasible for government to provide the bones and structure of a bureaucratized health-insurance system, paid for by coercing tax money from its citizens, all while heavily regulating the insurance industry itself?

Gingrich, just as Romney spent years doing, has argued that a health-insurance mandate is no different from a car-insurance mandate. That’s nonsense. Almost all auto-insurance laws require not that the driver insure his own car against loss, but that he insure against damage he might do to other cars or drivers. It is not collision insurance but liability insurance that is mandatory – and even then, it is not mandatory on private roads. The mandates are part and parcel of a licensing regime through which the state allows a private citizen to operate a vehicle – an entirely discretionary activity – on public thoroughfares. This is entirely different than forcing somebody to buy insurance merely because the person lives and breathes in these United States.

Our own health choices, stemming from the mere act of existing in human form, are no business of the government. Romney and Gingrich both would violate the Declaration of Independence’s encomium to both life and liberty. If “conservatives” are those who want to conserve our system of ordered liberty, then it is Romney and Gingrich who are the profoundly unconservative radicals.

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following is not observed on May 1st in the United States?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"There could be no greater examples of the diversity of the 2016 Republican presidential field than the dueling announcements of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina Monday morning.Carson, the only black candidate in the race, and Fiorina, the only woman, are also the only two candidates who have never held public office before. Each is working to turn what some would call a gap in their resumes into a strength…[more]
 
 
—Byron York, The Washington Examiner
— Byron York, The Washington Examiner
 
Liberty Poll   

With regard to U.S. foreign policy and national security, which one of the following likely Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination has positions most closely resembling your own?