Mike Pence Shows the GOP’s New Obamacare Strategy: Pretend It’s Already Gone

spnphotosten049744

Having failed to repeal and replace Obamacare, the Trump administration appears to have settled on a different plan: pretend it’s already gone.

During last night’s vice presidential debate, Republican incumbent Mike Pence responded to the charge that the administration was “trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act, which means that you will lose protections if you have preexisting conditions,” by saying that he hoped he would have the chance to talk about health care, “because Obamacare was a disaster, and the American people remember it well.” 

The choice of words is telling. Obamacare was a disaster. Americans remember it well. Without explicitly saying that the health law has been repealed, Pence was speaking as if Obamacare was already gone. 

That is far from true. Although Obamacare has been altered in various ways over the years by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the executive branch, the law’s major components remain. The Medicaid expansion, which accounts for approximately half the cost of the law, has grown as more states have adopted it. The subsidies and regulations governing individual market health insurance remain alive. Many of the taxes and fees imposed by the law are still on the books. The “disaster” Pence spoke of in the past tense is a present reality. 

The implication that it has been consigned to history was probably not an accident. For years, President Donald Trump has spoken of Obamacare as something that exists mainly in the past rather than a law that remains on the books. As early as 2017—following the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which set the health law’s individual mandate tax penalty to zero—Trump claimed to have “essentially repealed Obamacare.” During the first presidential debate, Trump responded to a question about his nonexistent but oft-promised plan to replace the law by saying, “I got rid of the individual mandate, which was a big chunk of Obamacare.”

Even this statement is not entirely accurate: Although the mandate was widely viewed as an important component of the health law at passage, it turned out to have relatively limited effects, undercutting Trump’s claim that it was a “big chunk” of the law. And although it is true that the 2017 tax bill set the mandate’s tax penalty to zero, the requirement remains technically on the books as a toothless requirement. Indeed, the fact that the mandate remains without a penalty is the basis for the lawsuit the administration is currently backing against the law. 

Trump and congressional Republicans spent much of 2017 attempting to repeal Obamacare; that effort ended in failure. The current lawsuit challenging Obamacare, led by red-state attorneys general and supported by the White House, is based on dubious legal reasoning that many conservative and libertarian legal scholars—including those who supported previous legal challenges to the law—do not accept. Even if Amy Coney Barret is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that the challenge will succeed in wiping out the entire law

Pence’s dodge is hardly a surprise. As governor of Indiana, he claimed to oppose Obamacare, then presided over a federally funded Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. He insisted this enactment of a central component of Obamacare was actually a market-based plan to reject it. 

Still, his rhetoric is revealing. Republicans spent the better part of a decade running against Obamacare, but the party never united around a coherent plan on how to repeal it or what to do next if they did. With no consensus on how to talk about the law, many GOP lawmakers have simply gone silent about it instead, avoiding the topic of what was once the party’s top domestic policy priority. 

The GOP’s avoidance represents a near-total failure of both policy reform and political imagination. But as a rhetorical strategy in the absence of any clear plan, it makes a certain amount of sense: What easier way to avoid the topic than to pretend it is merely an unpleasant memory, long in the past?

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2I0tyx5
via IFTTT

Trump Says “China Will Pay A Big Price For What It Did To The World And To Us” In Latest Video Message

Trump Says “China Will Pay A Big Price For What It Did To The World And To Us” In Latest Video Message

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 13:34

In a video message ostensibly directed “to my favorite people in the world” – America’s senior citizens, a voting bloc Trump must marshal to the polls in November if he wants to clinch a second term – President Trump bashed China, claiming the country that unleashed the coronavirus upon the world “will pay a big price” for the unprecedented havoc wrought by the virus on modern society.

Reiterating comments from earlier, Trump said the US will make the medications he received during his course of treatment available “immediately” to Americans – especially for America’s “vulnerable” seniors.

“I want you to get the same care that I got…and you’re going to get it free – no charge,” Trump said. “We’re going to take care of our seniors – all free”.

Trump then pivoted to bashing his election opponent Joe Biden, who “just talks” and who “had his chance with H1N1 – swine flu – and he didn’t know what he was doing.”

To sum up: Trump just promised every senior citizen in America that they will have access to the Regeneron therapeutic Trump credits as a “cure” for his condition – and China, presumably, will pay for it.

 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GRMGgs Tyler Durden

The Second Amendment’s Next Chapter

Northwestern College

Friday, October 9, the Northwestern University Law Review and the Duke Center for Firearms Law will be presenting a symposium “The Second Amendment’s Next Chapter.” The symposium runs from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., Central Time. If you would like to watch some or all of it via Zoom, you can register for free on the Symposium’s webpage.

Here’s the schedule:

Panel 1: The Shape of the Right. Moderator: Kate Shaw. Panelists: Alice Ristroph, Renee Lettow Lerner, and Jennifer Carlson.

Panel II: The Power to Regulate. Moderator: Abbe Gluck. Panelists: Reva Siegel & Joseph Blocher, Nelson Lund, Brannon Denning, and Jake Charles.

Keynote Address: A Discussion with Senator Chris Murphy About His New Book, “The Violence Inside Us.”

Panel III: Theory and Conflict. Moderator: Joseph Blocher. Panelists: Mike Dorf, Darrell Miller, Robert Leider, and Dave Kopel.

Panel IV: Firearms and Chicago. Moderator: Sanford Levinson. Panelists: Stephanie Kollmann, Zach Fardon, Kofi Ademola.

My paper, for panel III, is Fewer Guns, More Genocide: Europe In The Twentieth Century. Here’s the abstract:

This Article compares the relative dangers of excessive gun ownership and of excessive gun control, based on the historical record of the twentieth century.

Part I presents homicide data for the United States and Europe during the twentieth century. First, the Article considers gun death rates from ordinary crimes—robberies, domestic violence, and so on. Based on certain assumptions that bias the figure upward, if the U.S. gun homicide rate from ordinary crime had been the same as Europe’s, there might have been three-quarters of a million fewer deaths in America during the twentieth century. The figure is a data point for the dangers of insufficient gun control.

Next, Part II presents data on mass murders perpetrated by governments, such as the Hitler or Stalin regimes. In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars. As will be detailed, the death toll of all the people killed in battle in the twentieth century is much smaller than the number of noncombatants killed by governments—such as the Jews murdered by Hitler, or the Ukranians murdered by Stalin. The mass murder by government figures are, arguably, data points for the dangers of excessive gun control.

Part III shows that totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder.

Part IV argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record shows that risks are very broad.

The record also shows that governments intent on mass murder prioritize victim disarmament. Such governments consider victim armament to be a serious impediment to mass murder and to the government itself, as described in Parts V and VI.

Finally, Part VII consider the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. If a regime does initiate mass murder, rebellions seeking regime change usually fail. However, even without changing the regime, the historical record shows that armed resistance can accomplish a great deal, including the saving of many lives.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34BaH3w
via IFTTT

Virtual Anxiety: Klobuchar Rejects Use Of Virtual Testimony For Barrett Hearing Because There Is “No Back And Forth”

Virtual Anxiety: Klobuchar Rejects Use Of Virtual Testimony For Barrett Hearing Because There Is “No Back And Forth”

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 13:25

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

It seems like people have gone virtually insane in this election year over remote testimony. 

We recently discussed the absurd excuse cited by former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that he would not appear for testimony to answer questions about his alleged misconduct in the Russian investigation due to fears for his health. He then however refused to appear virtually despite the earlier remote testimony of his former superiors James Comey and Sally Yates.

Now, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.), who once enthusiastically supported the use of “hybrid hearings,” has declared that remote testimony is entirely unacceptable because there is no ability to have exchanges with witnesses in a virtual space.  The objection to the use of a hybrid hearing for Barrett is now part of a wider campaign, but it is based on a clearly false premise. While such bizarre statements would have once risked being called a lunatic or a Luddite, it has produced little media scrutiny or commentary.

In speaking with Chris Wallace, Klobuchar rejected the use of remote testimony as completely unacceptable.  Wallace however noted that Klobuchar previously praised the use of such hearings. On May 6th, she sat for a remote confirmation hearing of Judge Justin Walker for the D.C. Appeals Circuit and thanked Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) for allowing the members to appear remotely.

Wallace reasonably asked if Klobuchar was now attacking the use of a hybrid hearing “to try to block a nomination that you frankly oppose fiercely.”

Klobuchar replied:

“Absolutely not. This is for the highest court of the land. And, yes we have had virtual hearings. I helped to put them together. It’s important to give senators that option. But you want to be able to go back and forth with this nominee.”

Wallace delicately pointed out that he and the senator were going back and forth remotely without any difficulty in that very interview.  Klobuchar then appeared to get tangled up in her narrative:

“Again, we believe you should have an in-person hearing. That doesn’t mean the virtual option wouldn’t be available, but why would you ram — I guess I’d turn the question around here, even though you get to ask the questions — Why would you ram this through when we don’t even have a COVID package done to make sure that people have health care.”

So you can have a hybrid hearing?

There is of course no difference in the “back and forth” of in-person as opposed to virtual testimony.  I have testified over 50 times in Congress and there is generally no interaction with the witness beyond the questions and answers. While some members will shake hands with a witness, even that practice would likely be curtailed in a live appearance during the pandemic.

There is a good faith objection that the Republicans have reversed their position with Merritt Garland on this nomination – just as there is a legitimate objection that Democrats like Klobuchar have reversed their prior positions from 2016. However, the objection that remote testimony does not allow exchanges with witnesses is obviously absurd.

Nevertheless, the Democrats now appear to be paraphrasing Woody Allen’s rule in arguing that “Eighty percent of [politics] is just showing up.”

*  *  *

Update: The President just said that he also has problems with virtual space in declaring that he would not “waste my time” in participating in the announced virtual debate with Biden. While one can question the necessity of this precaution, it is hard to see how a virtual debate for a presidential election would be a waste of time. It certainly would be of value to voters.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3iIjZQ3 Tyler Durden

The Second Amendment’s Next Chapter

Northwestern College

Friday, October 9, the Northwestern University Law Review and the Duke Center for Firearms Law will be presenting a symposium “The Second Amendment’s Next Chapter.” The symposium runs from 9 a.m. to 3:45 p.m., Central Time. If you would like to watch some or all of it via Zoom, you can register for free on the Symposium’s webpage.

Here’s the schedule:

Panel 1: The Shape of the Right. Moderator: Kate Shaw. Panelists: Alice Ristroph, Renee Lettow Lerner, and Jennifer Carlson.

Panel II: The Power to Regulate. Moderator: Abbe Gluck. Panelists: Reva Siegel & Joseph Blocher, Nelson Lund, Brannon Denning, and Jake Charles.

Keynote Address: A Discussion with Senator Chris Murphy About His New Book, “The Violence Inside Us.”

Panel III: Theory and Conflict. Moderator: Joseph Blocher. Panelists: Mike Dorf, Darrell Miller, Robert Leider, and Dave Kopel.

Panel IV: Firearms and Chicago. Moderator: Sanford Levinson. Panelists: Stephanie Kollmann, Zach Fardon, Kofi Ademola.

My paper, for panel III, is Fewer Guns, More Genocide: Europe In The Twentieth Century. Here’s the abstract:

This Article compares the relative dangers of excessive gun ownership and of excessive gun control, based on the historical record of the twentieth century.

Part I presents homicide data for the United States and Europe during the twentieth century. First, the Article considers gun death rates from ordinary crimes—robberies, domestic violence, and so on. Based on certain assumptions that bias the figure upward, if the U.S. gun homicide rate from ordinary crime had been the same as Europe’s, there might have been three-quarters of a million fewer deaths in America during the twentieth century. The figure is a data point for the dangers of insufficient gun control.

Next, Part II presents data on mass murders perpetrated by governments, such as the Hitler or Stalin regimes. In Europe in the twentieth century, states murdered about 87.1 million people. Globally, governments murdered well over 200 million people. The figure does not include combat deaths from wars. As will be detailed, the death toll of all the people killed in battle in the twentieth century is much smaller than the number of noncombatants killed by governments—such as the Jews murdered by Hitler, or the Ukranians murdered by Stalin. The mass murder by government figures are, arguably, data points for the dangers of excessive gun control.

Part III shows that totalitarian governments are the most likely to perpetrate mass murder.

Part IV argues against the complacent belief that any nation, including the United States, is immune from the dangers of being taken over by a murderous government. The historical record shows that risks are very broad.

The record also shows that governments intent on mass murder prioritize victim disarmament. Such governments consider victim armament to be a serious impediment to mass murder and to the government itself, as described in Parts V and VI.

Finally, Part VII consider the efficacy of citizen arms against mass murdering governments. Citizen arms are most effective as deterrents. If a regime does initiate mass murder, rebellions seeking regime change usually fail. However, even without changing the regime, the historical record shows that armed resistance can accomplish a great deal, including the saving of many lives.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/34BaH3w
via IFTTT

Poor, Tailing 30Y Auction Prices At Highest Yield Since Covid Pandemic

Poor, Tailing 30Y Auction Prices At Highest Yield Since Covid Pandemic

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 13:12

With the yield curve sharply steepening in recent days, it will not come as a surprise to most that the just concluded 30Y auction priced at the highest yield since before the covid pandemic began: today’s 29-year-10month reopening of CUSIP SP4 priced at 1.578%, which was not only sharply higher than September’s 1.473% and also a substantial 1.1bps tail to the 1.567% When Issued, but it was also the highest since the Feb 30Y auction when it prices at 2.068% after it plunged to just 1.28% in March.

The bid to cover also sagged, dropping from 2.308 to 2.288, below the 2.31 six auction average.

The internals were generally in line with Indirects taking down 62.0%, modestly below both last month’s 62.6% and the six auction average of 64.8%. And with Directs taking down 15.0%, Dealers were left holding 23.0% of the auction which they will promptly flip back to the Fed at first opportunity.

Overall, a subpar, tailing auction driven by the recent reflation scare, although if inflation is indeed on its way, coming long-bond auctions will be far uglier.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34GCGPn Tyler Durden

FBI Claims It Foiled Plot To Kidnap Michigan Governor

FBI Claims It Foiled Plot To Kidnap Michigan Governor

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 13:05

The FBI says it foiled a plot by six members of a militia to kidnap Michaigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer at her vacation home and overthrow the state government, according to an unsealed criminal complaint.

Several members talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor,” according to an FBI agent. “The group decided they needed to increase their numbers and encouraged each other to talk to their neighbors and spread their message.”

Over 12 people were arrested late Wednesday on both state and federal charges, while a core group of six alleged plotters were charged with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer.

Four of the six men reportedly planned to meet on Wednesday to “make a payment on explosives and exchange tactical gear,” the agency said in an unsealed court filing.

The FBI quoted one of the accused as saying Whitmer “has no checks and balances at all. She has uncontrolled power right now. All good things must come to an end.”

Authorities scheduled a Thursday afternoon news conference to talk about the case. The government used informants and undercover agents to thwart the alleged plot. –AP

Two of the alleged conspirators “agreed to unite others in their cause and take violent action against multiple state governments that they believe are violating the U.S. Constitution,” reads the FBI criminal complaint – which names the six as Adam Fox, Ty Garbin, Kaleb Franks, Daniel Harris, Brandon Caserta, all of Michigan, as well as Barry Croft of Delaware.

Fox allegedly said he needed 200 men to storm the Capitol building in Lansing, take hostages, and try Whitmer for “treason.” The plan was to be carried out before the Nov. 3 election, however the the suspects later shifted to kidnapping Whitmer at her vacation home.

In June, Croft, Fox and 13 others from multiple states held a meeting in Dublin, Ohio, near Columbus, according to the government.

Those present included an FBI confidential source who recorded the meetings. The source has been paid $8,600.

“The group talked about creating a society that followed the U.S. Bill of Rights and where they could be self-sufficient,” the FBI agent wrote. –The Detroit News

According to NPR, state AG Dana Nessel will join federal prosecutors to discuss the alleged conspiracy at 1 p.m. Thursday.

The investigation began in early 2020, according to the complaint, however the unsealed complaint comes days after the Michigan Supreme Court struck down several of Whitmer’s pandemic restrictions which had been widely opposed.

In early 2020, the FBI became aware through social media that a group of individuals were discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law-enforcement components. Among those individuals identified were CROFT and FOX. Through electronic communications, CROFT and FOX agreed to unite others in their cause and take violent action against multiple state governments that they believe are violating the U.S. Constitution.

“They discussed different ways of achieving this goal from peaceful endeavors to violent actions. At one point, several members talked about state governments they believed were violating the U.S. Constitution, including the government of Michigan and Governor Gretchen Whitmer,” reads the complaint. “As part of that recruitment effort, Fox reached out to a Michigan-based militia group.”

The militia group is not identified in the court filing, but members periodically meet in remote areas of the state for firearms training and tactical drills.

The FBI was already tracking the militia in March after a local police department learned members were trying to obtain addresses of local law-enforcement officers, the FBI agent wrote.

At the time, the FBI interviewed a member of the militia group who was concerned about the group’s plans to target and kill police officers, and that person agreed to become a (confidential source),” the agent wrote

In late June, Fox posted on Facebook a video in which he complained about the state’s judicial system and COVID-19 restrictions on gyms operating in Michigan. –The Detroit News

“Fox referred to Governor Whitmer as ‘this tyrant bitch,” adding “‘I don’t know, boys, we gotta do something,'”

“You guys link with me on our other location system, give me some ideas of what we can do.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2SFtipy Tyler Durden

At What Temperature Do Americans Stop Going Out To Restaurants: Here’s The Answer

At What Temperature Do Americans Stop Going Out To Restaurants: Here’s The Answer

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 12:45

Since the start of the pandemic, various consumer services such as dining have moved outdoors to reduce the risk of virus spread.

Services that have moved outdoors to avoid closure include everything from exercise classes to movie screenings, but dining is the most economically important since it accounts for about 5% of total consumption and 3% of GDP. In New York City, for example, the share of restaurants approved for outdoor dining in public areas has risen from less than 10% to more than 40% in just a few months, according to Goldman.

However, as the weather gets colder, consumer activity now conducted outdoors will decline much more sharply than seasonal adjustment factors expect, creating a risk of a sharp and adverse impact to consumer spending.

To assess this impact, Goldman forecasts the impact of the coming winter on restaurant spending and GDP.  Cutting to the chase, Goldman estimates that winter weather will reduce restaurant spending by 3–4% and consumption by 0.2pp during the coldest months. This translates to a 0.3% hit to real GDP growth in 2020 Q4, and a 0.1% hit in 2021 Q1, followed by a rebound as temperatures rise in 2021 Q2.

As part of its analysis, Goldman compared daily temperatures across 31 large U.S. cities with data on restaurant reservations from OpenTable. Because the reservation data are expressed as growth rates since the same day a year ago, they are already adjusted for normal, pre-pandemic seasonal trends. The results, shown in the chart brlow, find that cold weather significantly decreases restaurant bookings.

The relationship is highly statistically significant and stronger at lower temperatures. Compared to temperatures above 70°F, a daily average temperature below 40°F is associated with a 17.6% decline in seasonally-adjusted restaurant reservations. To Goldman, this implies that the negative effect of cold weather on restaurant reservations is substantially stronger now under pandemic conditions than it was in the past, and suggests that the cutoff point when there is a sharp drop in outdoor dining is when the outside temperature drops below 45°F.

Of course, the above is intuitive: the colder it gets, the less people go out. So what about the impact of the coming winter on actual restaurant spending, and by implication US GDP? Here Goldman finds that a 1% decrease in restaurant reservations translates to a 0.55% decrease in year-over-year restaurant spending at the national level. Restaurant spending does not decline one-for-one with reservations, likely because consumers can substitute from dining at full-service restaurants to dining at limited-service restaurants, takeout, or delivery.

Putting it together, the implied hit from colder temperatures to seasonally-adjusted restaurant spending is shown in the chart below. Goldman estimates that winter weather will reduce restaurant spending by 3–4% and consumption by 0.2pp during the coldest months. This translates to a 0.3% hit to real GDP growth in Q4 and a 0.1% hit in 2021 Q1, followed by a rebound as temperatures rise in 2021 Q2.

It goes without saying that the negative effect of cold temperatures on restaurant spending may become even more extreme at temperatures well below 40°F, or if you throw in a blizzard or two. The economic implication is also self-explanatory: a very cold winter could crush winter GDP.

To the upside, restaurants might find ways to adapt outdoor dining to winter weather by installing tents or heaters, moderating the negative effect of cold weather on restaurant spending. To this point, Goldman notes that Washington, D.C., recently offered $6,000 grants to help restaurants “winterize” their outdoor dining.  In addition, further relaxation of restrictions on indoor dining or increased substitution toward takeout and delivery might soften the negative effects of cold weather on restaurant spending. Alternatively, a good hedge would be to buy stock in companies that make outdoor patio heaters: they are about to see a record surge in demand.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jLkf20 Tyler Durden

COVID & The Escalation Of Medical Tyranny

COVID & The Escalation Of Medical Tyranny

Tyler Durden

Thu, 10/08/2020 – 12:25

Via The Mises Institute,

The coronavirus crisis has served as a powerful tool in highlighting many of the faults that previously existed in society. It exposed which politicians have an inherent need to control and which ones are guided by humility. It reminded us of the political power that lies in fear, and how crucial it is to be skeptical of prevailing narratives. It emphasized the different economic realities for those who live paycheck to paycheck and those who benefit from economic financialization.

It should also make perfectly clear the danger of handing over healthcare to the state.

Already we have seen agents of the state, at various levels, seek to leverage a viral medical crisis to expand their power. Governors and local officials have sought to use vague “emergency” powers to lock down businesses and to create criminal penalties, and have then attacked any attempts by judiciaries to rein in their actions. Judges have sought to leverage the power they hold in deciding child custody to force citizens to make medical decisions they disagree with. Anointed government experts, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, in spite of his own inconsistencies, have been held up as the final word on science, at the expense of the voices of other credible scientists.

Whether by design or by the instinctual reaction, we have seen a concerted effort of government authorities—amplified by a corporate press with a particularly vivid political agenda, and supported by the credentials of an academic landscape that suffers from ideological capture—to weaponize a centralized scientific narrative for the purpose of achieving certain policy ends. It is appropriate that some have dubbed this union “the Cathedral,” as we have seen the divine right of kings renewed in the divine right of approved scientists.

None of this should be a surprise.

Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and others have long warned of the dangers of “scientism.” As Jonathan Newman has noted on this site, we’ve seen it play out increasingly in American pop culture with the fetishizing of figures like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.

Now, luckily, the current healthcare system has limits on the degree to which we, as individuals, must submit to the power of the “scientific consensus.” How long, however, will that doctor-patient relationship remain sacred?

Already we have seen various states actively ban the prescription of hydroxychloroquine following a mass media freak-out over a story involving a man dying after digesting fish cleaner. Conflating medically prescribed hydroxychloroquine with a toxic cleaner was never grounded in either science or reason; it was a move driven purely by a partisan reaction to President Trump’s endorsement of the drug, and the willingness of the media to spin a story that was critical of his judgment. Many of these states have been forced to reverse their decision, as some (though not all) scientific studies indicate that it may be an effective treatment.

Now imagine if America’s healthcare system were turned into a single-payer model, such as the Medicare for All reform that has been championed by some of the most popular members of the Democratic Party. Beyond questions of access, wait times, and supply rationing, which we see in places like Canada and the UK, does anyone expect a nationalized healthcare system to not end up limiting the treatment options available between doctors and patients?

What about the medical services available to those who are not in full compliance with health-related government edicts? In a single-payer healthcare system is it not plausible that an unmasked social media photo could be used as evidence for why someone doesn’t deserve the same level care as someone who has followed all the rules?

Does such a new level of medical control even require a true single-payer system?

The labyrinth of government regulation and red tape within the healthcare industry, exacerbated in the post-Obamacare world, has resulted in significant consolidation of the health insurance industry. Joe Biden’s moderate healthcare reform, which calls for the re-creation of a public rival to private insurance, would only result in further consolidation. As we’ve seen in financial servicesBig Tech, and other industries, a consolidated industry is ripe to be abused by those convinced of the righteousness of their own ideological crusades.

The answer to the dangers of corporate consolidation is radical decentralization. We’ve seen this play out in the medical industry with the rise of physicians opting out of the dominant insurance-based service model and offering direct primary care. As more states have begun to lean into this trend, it will be interesting to see how long the federal government is willing to avoid pushing back—particularly if we see the return of a Democratic executive.

We should take seriously those with blue checkmarks on Twitter who shamelessly share in public dreams of covid-inspired “truth commissions,” and who gleefully wish for the suffering of anyone who questions the science behind lockdowns and mask mandates. If the state’s role in healthcare expands, it is precisely people with these sorts of views who are likely to fill the ranks of its bureaucracy.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/34GCMpU Tyler Durden

Trump Threatens To Drop Out of Virtual Debate

Trumpdebate_1161x653

The next debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden is supposed to take place in a week, but a shift to a virtual town hall has Trump threatening not to show up.

This morning, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that the next debate would not take place in person as planned. In order to “protect the health and safety of all involved” the commission decided that the Oct. 15 debate, which is going to look more like a town hall than a traditional debate, will host the candidates remotely, while moderator and veteran C-SPAN reporter Steve Scully will oversee the debate as planned from Miami.

Trump’s recent COVID-19 diagnosis—and the spread of the virus among those close to Trump—would seem to make an in-person debate unnecessarily risky. Nevertheless, Trump this morning told Fox News that he would not participate in the debate if it were virtual.

“The commission changed the debate style and that’s not acceptable to us,” Trump told Maria Bartiromo on Fox News this morning. “I’m not going to waste my time at a virtual debate.” He also complained that he’d have to sit behind a computer for a virtual debate and that the moderator would be able to cut him off, likely alluding to comments from the commission following last week’s debate that they’d add “tools to maintain order” to stop Trump’s frequent interruptions of Biden.

Trump instead said he’d be back on the campaign trail again. Listen below:

A lot of things may change in the next week, and Trump may change his mind. CNN notes that it’s not unheard of for a president to refuse to participate in a debate. President Jimmy Carter refused the first debate in 1980, in part because independent candidate John B. Anderson had also been invited. If Trump refuses to participate, maybe the commission should consider allowing third-party candidates to answer a few questions. Actually, they should consider doing that anyway.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30Kw3dz
via IFTTT