Please Don't Kill the Freedom Movement

In the 1990s, I truly felt that the liberty movement was making inroads.


During the Clinton Administration, we had seen successful welfare reform, some deregulation and a decrease in deficit spending.

Personally, I think the famous "balanced budget" was more of lucky combination of circumstance than political skill. At the height of the dotcom boom, the economy grew faster than the CBO had predicted. Balancing a budget during an economic boom is not a monumental challenge.

If you had an expected ten percent bonus from work, would your budget be balanced for the month?

I had felt confident that the freedom movement had made its point and I was happy to see the Republicans take full control of the House, Senate and Presidency in 2000.

The suddenly the Republican establishment turned on the freedom movement and silenced it. Bush dramatically increased healthcare spending. He started no-child left behind, and issued a tax cut without corresponding spending cuts.

It was sheer insanity.

The president is the head of the party. During Bush's rule, he put a kibosh on the free marketeers, and the freedom movement lost all of the momentum of the 1990s.

In the 2012 election, we are being told by the Republican establishment that we must vote in a progressive candidate to have a chance to beat Obama.

As I look back on 2000, I realize that the momentum of the Tea Party will be lost if Republicans fall for that line again and vote in a progressive.

Wake up America!

Do you even remember the Tea Party of 2010?

Don't you see how it has all but disappeared in one short year?

Just as the freedom movement was pushed underground under Bush, the Republican establishment will stifle it under Romney.

PS: I actually care more about the people than I do about the candidate. My primary concern in the election is the effect candidates will have on the public debate.

I actually like Bush as a person. I like Obama as a person and Romney as a person.

Anyway, before voting in the primary, I ask that people put the candidate's personality aside for a moment as ask what effect the candidacy will have on the people.

I love the Tea Party, the Campaign for Liberty and Health Freedom movement. These are the things I care about.

The president's organization will control the party for the next eight years. I see this organization putting the iron boot down on all the parts of the freedom movement that I cherish if we make the mistake of putting a progressive Republican in power.

Corrupt Generations

Tom Brokaw called the generation that grew up in hardships of the Depression to win a war against Nazi Germany "The Generation."

They were followed by a corrupt generation that create the current economic and social mess.

I contend that the same pattern happened at the birth of our nation.

The Founders were part of a great generation that rose against a corrupt monarchy and established a Constitutional Union.

The US founders were not able to resolve the problem of slavery, and hoped their children would.

The generations that followed the founders was an intellectually corrupt group that brought more harm into the world than good.

The intellectuals of the Founders generation were typified by Adam Smith, who showed that a free society will out produce an enslaved one, and Benjamin Franklin who advanced multiple disciplines.

The generation that followed was typified by Hegel who brought forth an ugly new dialectics based on paradox and conflict.

The generation that followed the Founders brought us the partisan divide that continues to dominate politics.

The corrupt intellectuals of the day not only failed to address slavery. They came up with lame ideologies to justify slavery.

The thinking of this corrupt generation is typified by the German philosopher Hegel (1770-1831), who created a new dialectics that used the reflexive paradox to claim freedom was slavery and slavery freedom.

Hegelian dialectics used a device called historicism in which a pseudo intellectual presents a fantastical view of history driven by thesis anti-thesis conflicts. The intellectual then claims to be able to deduce the future from the conflicts.

The papers of the 1820s were filled with fantastical histories and pseudo science to justify the prejudices and partisanship of the day.

So, while the work of the Founders laid the foundation for a free market and constitutional republic; the generations that followed spewed forth with corrupt ideologies and fantastical histories that spun historical events in really ugly ways.

This model of a great generation followed by a corrupt one is important to remember because our current understanding of the Founders is very much influenced by the spinning and the filters of the generations that followed.

The early 1800s were an intellectually corrupt time rife with partisanship that culimated in the Civil War and laid the intellectual foundation for the totalitarian regimes that caused so much destruction in the following century.

This intellectually corrupt and partisan generation that followed the founders is the group that wrote the history of the Founders. They are the ones that laid the foundation for all of the messes that we are in today.

Everything we see in the world is filtered. So, in our pursuit of truth, we must understand that indiviual views of history are always adversely affected by these filters.

Laptop Batteries

Everytime I reboot my computer, I get a warning message that my laptop battery is failing.

I used to upgrade computers about every five years.

My 2003 Dell Inspiron is the first laptop I've owned that's outlasted the battery! I don't anticipate upgrading any of the computers in the household for another two to three years.

The company Premium Laptop Batteries of Cheyenne manufactures replacement batteries and adapters for top brands of computers. I looked up my computer model (e1505) and the replacement battery (with free shipping) was just $60.

I suspect that it is now common for laptop batteries to fail before the computer becomes obsolete. This is one of the few tech companies that will do well in our unending recession.

The Effect of the Candidate

When you vote for a candidate, one needs to consider the effect of the canidate on the system at large.

Obama is an Alinsky-style community organizer. Obama rose to power by organizing one part of a community against the other parts. The result of this type of organizing is an extremely shrill political climate.

Marx played the same game. He organized the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. Hundreds of millions of people died under the banner "Workers of the World Unite!"

Obama is a wonderful speaker, but the effect he has is devasting for our nation.

I agree with Ron Paul on most of his positions from ending the Federal Reserve to his differentiation of defense and militarism.

Sadly, I fear that, if he won the presidency, his administration would be undermined by the Republican establishment and that he would not have the positive effect I desire.

Romney is part of a Republican establishment that has a history of stifling the freedom movement in the Republican Party. In Utah, the Republican Establishment took the Health Exchange from ObamaCare, declared them to be free market and imposed them on the people with no debate.

Anyone who tries to stand against the imposition of RomneyCare will be viciously attacked by the Romney clones.

Now, I agree that Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate. Everyone knows Gingrich is deeply flawed. He is a geek who gets excited by technology and loves fanciful ideas like space travel.

Gingrich's presidency is likely to lead to a period in which people are talking about big ideas.

In summary: Obama unites people against eachother. This Marxian/Alinsky style of politics leads to deep division:

Ron Paul hopes to restore America by obstructionism. He is likely to have a bunker presidency followed by a progressive.

The organization Mitt Romney will lead to eight years of the Republican Establishment actively silencing voices of liberty on the Right.

The deeply flawed Newt Gingrich is likely to lead to a period in which people talked about big ideas. The biggest of all ideas is freedom. I think Newt is more likely to succeed in restoring Health freedom than Ron Paul.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is a deeply flawed candidate, but he is probably the best choice for the GOP, which just happens to be a deeply flawed party.

Chasing Emerging Markets

The most exciting development of the last two decades was the rapid expansion of the emerging markets.

Third world countries that used to wallow in dire poverty have begun to take shape as vibrant modern economies.

During the Bush era, the emerging markets surged forth as the primary growth areas in the world economy.

Intelligent business leaders have learned that they need to identify and chase growing markets. As the emerging markets were the primary growth area in the world, American companies were wise to seek a part in the action.

I dislike that some companies have outsourced jobs simply to cut costs; however, I believe the driving economic force behind outsourcing was the desire of US companies to diversify their portfolio and to chase opportunities in the exciting growth of the emerging markets.

There are many voices calling for a new age of protectionism, and for the United States government to begin penalizing firms for investing in the emerging markets.

I find this new atmosphere of protectionism troubling.

The call to penalize American businesses for investing in the emerging markets will not stop growth around the world. Programs to penalize American companies for participating in emerging markets will simply hurt the interest of American businesses, while triggering trade wars against our nation.

I agree that rhetoric against companies that outsource to lower employee costs is effective. However, since it is impossible to determine the intent behind actions. there is no way to separate those firms seeking to engage in emerging markets from those simply seeking to lower costs. As the former is far more important than the latter, I'm inclined to push compelling rhetoric aside and say that America companies should seek opportunities in the emerging markets and we should avoid the protectionisth stance.

A Business Movement

As the primary progresses, I hope that it has become clear to the defenders of freedom that presidential politics cannot restore America.

Government, by nature, is a constraint placed upon the people. The founders created a limited government to reduce the burden of this constraint.

The best one can hope for in presidential politics is a candidate who will keep government in check. Even if a principled constitutionalist like Ron Paul won the election, the president would be besieged by a well honed political machine that feeds off government largess.

The biggest problem in our nation is not the government, but a top-heavy corrupt financial system dominated by big banks and captured centralized exchanges.

The best way to reform these corrupt businesses is to create alternatives.

In the last two years I've blogged on The Medical Savings and Loan as an alternative to insurance.

The regulatory environment makes starting the MS&L difficult.

I am tired of just blogging and want to engage in affirmation action ... NOW.

I've applied free market principles to other areas of life and have a really fun recreational product that is ready to go live as soon as I can find a few dozen victims participants.

The goal of this effort is to use social media to create a network of businesses in a recreational/sports industry.

Presidential politics and agitating will not restore America. Action will. I am tired of just agitating ... if anyone else is tired of agitating and wants to get to work starting a weekend (recreational) business that actively discusses the free market please contact me.

Congress Passes the Laws, the Prez Administrates

I love Ron Paul as a Congressman. We need more people like him in the legislature.

That said, I am hoping Newt Gingrich wins the nomination for president.


Newt is a lover of big ideas. This deeply flawed candidate has a history of flitting from big idea to big idea, but he does have a history of getting big ideas in place.

Mr. Gingrich might best be described as a random policy generator.

He jumps from idea to idea and one comes out as policy.

If Mr. Gingrich won the presidency, I suspect that we would enter a period in which people started discussing big ideas with hopes of getting their ideas churned through the random policy generator.

The biggest of all big ideas is freedom.

Having a random policy generator in the White House is scary, however, I've come to realize that the people matter more than the presidency.

The idea that the presidency is going to restore our freedom is absurd. The only way to restore freedom is for the people to take it back.

Of the candidates on the ballot, Newt's presidency is most likely to lead to a culture where people gear up to take their freedom back.

I love the ideas of Ron Paul. I fear that his trying to legislate from an administration position would lead to a negative public reaction and a bunker mentality in the White House, which would not advance freedom.

The worst of the candidates is the organization man Mitt Romney. Mitt will speak free market rhetoric while passing progressive legislation. The cultural climate would become stagnant as his organization will actively suppress real discourse in the community.

I am happy with Gingrich taking the lead in South Carolina and believe he is the least bad of the presidential candidates.

I say least bad, because I think the people matter more than the presidency. My greatest hope is that Tea Party and Campaign for Liberty continue to thrive.

Freedom is not a gift from the presidency, it is gift from the creator that people must defend or lose.

The Limited Opportunity for the MS&L

The weak point of PPACA (ObamaCare) is the insurance mandate.  PPACA requires that everybody buys insurance.

The easiest way to attack the mandates is to create a viable alternative to insurance.

The Medical Savings and Loan is a viable alternative to insurance. The MS&L funds health care through a structured savings program supplemented with loans and grants.

Unfortunately, the MS&L is not practical at the moment because our tax laws and health care regulations favor insurance. Notably, insurance allows you to buy healtcare with untaxed dollars. The MS&L would have to use taxed dollars.

The passage of ObamaCare created a limited time opportunity to bring the MS&L into existence.

The first step is political.

People who are against government control of health care can use the MS&L in a campaign for heatlh freedom. The movement would demand that the MS&L be given an even playing field so that it can be developed as an alternative to insurance.

By putting the Medical Savings and Loan on the table, the opponents of PPACA aren't just against something, they are now for something. They are now arguing for a dynamic market that includes insurance and viable alternatives to insurance.

Americans are a positive people. It is easier to win an argument when you are arguing for something.

This political movement cannot exist on its own. If a political movement demands an alternative to insurance and there is no viable alternative to insurance in the mix, then the politicians are spouting empty rhetoric.

So, it is critical to accompany the political effort with a business effort.

The business effort would include a serious effort to make the Medical Savings and Loan a viable product that could be implemented by people who feel underserved by the current insurance paradigm. This is a huge potential market.

The first step in both the political and business movement is for a small group of patriots to get together in a room to start the process of creating a non-profit entity that defines the program.

This would take a weekend and a thousand bucks. I have a week end, I don't have a thousand bucks.

For the last three years, I've concentrated exclusively on this idea of getting a half dozen patriots in a room on a weekend to discuss creating a non-profit organization with the dual goal of arguing for health freedom in the political arena and of creating tools to help people self-finance their care in the business arena.

I live in Utah. Utah is a toxic political environment. However, it is really fun to have meetings at Park City. I am able to travel to Arizona, Las Vegas, Missoula, Denver or other near by states. Someone would have to pay my travel expenses to go much further than that.

Personally, I think either Tucson or Phoenix would be the best place to start a non-profit for health freedom. The Goldwater Institute in Phoenix is pro-freedom and the AAPS in Tucson are pro-health freedom.

Anyway, the passage of ObamaCare in 2009 created a limited opportunity to make the Medical Savings and Loan a reality. The time window on the opportunity is closing. If I can't find six people who are willing to sit in a room with me to talk about health freedom, then the game is over.

Health Care Advocate

My goal with the Medical Savings and Loan was to reverse-engineer an insurance company along free market principles.

I took the large insurance pools and sliced them up into individual accounts owned and controlled by the policy holders.

I realized that people would need help in administering their savings accounts and help in negotiating with doctors.

So, I created a new position called a Health Care Advocate.

In this second step, I take the internal bureaucracy of the insurance company and externalize it.

With standard insurance, you have a large pool of cash controlled by the company. The insurance company then hires an army of actuaries, underwriters, accountants, clerks and claims adjusters whose job it is to protect the pool.

In the Medical Savings and Loan, people own their own health care resources; So I take the same bureaucracy and have it work to help people understand and optimize their health care resources.

I believe that this act of transforming the internal bureaucracy into an external service would dramatically improve the financing of health care.

Answer to a Question

Prd2bnAmerican asked "What happens to the ppl who dont save? Who cant save for future HC?"
The answer to your question is long because I have to look at different populations. This post has four sections:

• The MS&L as an Alternative to Insurance
• The MS&L for the self employed
• The MS&L as Public Policy
• People in Desperate Need

The MS&L as an Alternative to Insurance

Most people these days work for an employer. So the primary market for the MS&L will be as an alternative to insurance. The employer makes the payments into the MS&L. The employees would be asked to sign contracts that they will only use the money for health care.
There are big questions about how ironclad one can make the contract and the tax status of the compensation.

The MS&L for the self employed

The second big group for the product is the self employed. The self employed are looking for an alternative to insurance and are generally motivated to save. The big problem with the self employed is that they suffer big ups and downs in their life.

The MS&L as Public Policy

The Medical Savings and Loan can be used in public policy. For example, if a person has no savings and requests medical care; you would give the person a loan for the care, assign the person a case worker then slam them into a structured savings program. The fact that you gave out a loan gives you a little bit more control than simply giving free health care.

People in Desperate Need

There are people who either have really high medical expenses or really low earning potential.
No matter how you go about financing health care, such people end up consuming more than they produce.
A person with a lifetime income of $400,000 might only have $20k to spend on health care. They don't have the income to pay for insurance. The Medical Savings and Loan gives such people direct control over the amount they have for care while providing substantial supplements.
Likewise, people with middle incomes and wicked nasty health care costs are unable to pay for their care. Again, the program gives such people direct control over some money while receiving supplements.

Conclusion

The Medical Savings and Loan is more flexible than insurance pools. By breaking an insurance pool into individual accounts, it is possible to create a system that can be customized to meet the different needs of different people.
The primary goal of the program is to help those people who can self fund their health care accomplish this goal. This is the bulk of health care in America. Helping working class Americans self-finance their care is empowering. It also reduces the stress on social services.
The Medical Savings and Loan exposes itself in an elegant way to social welfare. While the Medical Savings and Loan does not start with public policy, public policy can draw on the program to give incentives for good behavior. Notably, rather than giving free health care to the poor, the system would give loans and place people into structured savings plans to repay the loans.
No system provides a perfect solution to the problem of people who must consume more than they produce to survive.