Sutherland Institute is pushing the argument that Libertarians are simpletons who should be dismissed.
The Republican Establishment has been actively silencing the free market side of the party since Goldwater. The result of this tactic is that we are in an unending cycle in which the government grows and personal freedom diminishes.
I wish I could find a group willing to discuss free market health care reform. Sadly, I am stuck in a backwater pit of a state run by dullards like Paul Mero.
Guess What? Conservatives will not restore America by being closed minded buffoons who refuse to talk about ways to restore the market in health care. Conservatives are as much of the problem as are the left wing progressives.
I am repeating my challenge to Sutherland to actually discuss free market health care reform. The challenge will go unheeded because, as they mentioned, Sutherland automatically dismisses any substantive talk of free market reform.
The Sutherland Institute is a group of hypocrites who take money claiming to support free market principles, then use their political clout to support government programs that support their political benefactors at the cost of our freedom.
Case in point, their plan for health care reform involves creating a new government institution called a "Health Compact" to regulate health care. A state compact is a governing device one step removed from the voting public used to carry out interstate projects.
The Health Compact would battle PPACA in political war for control over health care resources.
Their plan is idiotic. Creating dueling government bureaucracies will not stop the encroachment of government because the dueling bureaucracies will be seeking political influence to battle its hated political enemy. It is like saying we will light our own house on fire to save it from being consumed by the wildfire.
The Medical Savings and Loan, on the other hand, gives people direct control of their health care resources. The mantra of the program is "Those who can self fund their care should." It creates a structure that educates clients on anticipated health expenses and empowers people with the tools to build resources to cover those expenses.
In the status quo, the ruling class (insurance and government) takes over a half million dollars from each person to provide care which they do so inefficiently.
The Medical Savings and Loan lets people keep their money. It creates structures to help people understand and finance their care. For people with really big problems, the program creates a well funded system of grants. (The MS&L holds aside billions of dollars for people who can't afford for their medical care. It is not stingy.)
The Sutherland Approach to health care starts by creating more government, and considers people as an after thought.
For background sake I should note: The Sutherland Institute is part of the State Policy Network. Sutherland takes money with the claim that they support free market economics, personal responsibility, yada-yada.
I would love to call them out and have them debate real free market reform for change.
Last week I tossed down a gauntlet and challenged them to a debate.
My timing was terrible. They received the challenge just before the Fourth of July weekend. I doubt anyone noticed the challenge because of the holiday.
The one problem I have is that I've never been able to find a single venue to discuss free market reform. I developed the program in the 1980s. I've explained it to empty chairs, empty tables, empty hotel rooms, to closed doors and numerous trees, rocks and cacti.
FWIW Cacti really like my plan. The spiky succulents say it is exactly what they do: Cacti soak up the occasional rain to have on hand in the long months of dry weather.
Because conservatives automatically slam the door on any original thinking, I've never found a place to give my presentation to humans.
I mention this because it is impossible to debate an idea without presenting the idea first.
A debate about the Medical Savings and Loan would have to begin with a presentation of the idea.
That introduction would take at least twenty minutes! I really can't do it in less time than that.
A proper debate would have to give me twenty minutes to present the Medical Savings and Loan. Sutherland would be allotted the same time to explain how creating a brand new layer of government bureaucracy will decrease government bureaucracy.
Only after killing an hour on introductions could we get to the heart of the matter of discussing why creating an alternative to insurance would help in the battle against mandated insurance.
(HINT, Obamacare and insurance mandates all hinge on the assumption that insurance is the only possible way to fund health care. Presenting an alternative to insurance destroys the justification for ObamaCare).
Gulp, to do justice to this debate, the event would have to take two to three hours! Leaving me feel like my challenge is asking too much.
I actually would do better if I found a group of libertarians seeking a way to keep up the fight for freedom.
Anyway, last, I tossed the gauntlet down and challenged Sutherland to a debate about real free market health care reform against their Health Compact (which is just a thinly veiled power grab).
A debate would give me a chance to introduce the concept to a group ... which is what I've been wanting for the last four years.
With just my voice calling out Sutherland, the challenge will be ignored. Perhaps if others call Sutherland out on their hypocrisy, they might be shamed into responding.