To my surprise, I've heard libertarians ask, "The problems are so great, what can I possibly do?" Simply begin by learning all you can, working for what you believe, and helping others grow in their understanding. You don’t need anything beyond what you have right now: yourself.

Think about it. Every affront to humanity, whether political tyranny or even a natural disaster, has always been ultimately overcome by the human spirit. Who was responsible for the Renaissance? Women's suffrage? The American Revolution? Was it politicians? No. It was people who used their talents to disseminate ideas, sometimes through disobedience — people who raised their voices through what they wrote, spoke, and created — people whose high level of consciousness and deep sense of conscience contributed to a better way of life for the individual.

Since Scott McInnis was successful in ousting Josh Penry from his campaign for governor, he (or someone smarter than himself) has come up with the "Platform for Prosperity". It is vapid, vague, and just more of the same old empty promises we have come to expect from the GOP. We didn't want their McCain, their Beauprez, or their Wayne Wolf. So now they are trying to foist Scott McInnis on us.

The Democrats campaign on the platform of "I believe government is the solution to every 'problem' on the planet, and I promise to bring you even more government if you vote for me". And then they do. But the Republicans get up there and talk about "small government ®" and "low taxes T" then give us what the Democrats promised. So who's actually more honest?

The so called "platform for prosperity"-better named "platitudes for prosperity"-is just more of the same. Warm fuzzy nothingness. The US Constitution says the federal government is supposed to protect our borders. The GOP wants to lay that job at the feet of employers, by cracking the heads of people who hire illegal immigrants, even while the GOP candidates are offering amnesty.

The "platitudes for prosperity" document outlines no concrete plan at all, and attacks Democrats for what they've done when elected, giving a free pass to their own incompetent, government growing elected officials. Why? Because the GOP thinks the socialism they accuse the Democrats of is just fine.so long as the GOP is in charge of it. It isn't about a plan for taxpayers. It's a plan for getting the GOP back into the dictator's seat. It doesn't refer to your rights; it refers to the benevolence of GOP dictatorship.

At first, "platitudes for prosperity" included a line about repealing Governor Ritter's immensely unpopular car registration fee hike, but that has already been removed--McInnis didn't like that part. When asked what spending cuts he would make, he not only declined to answer, but then launched into a diatribe against Ritter for the cuts he has made.

As if it weren't bad enough that the GOP expects us all to conveniently forget that McInnis was under investigation by the FEC for paying his wife walloping amounts of money out of his Congressional campaign funds---more than he himself made, and even when he wasn't running-and that he signed a pledge of term limits to congress of 2 years and then reneged and ran 3 terms, they apparently also want us to believe this guy McInnis is "the Tea Party candidate". Did Scott McInnis speak at a Tea Party protest? No. He didn't even attend any. No Tea Party groups, I Caucus, We The People, 9/12 project, or any other Tea Party groups in Colorado has endorsed McInnis, and are now pretty irate with this guy for presenting himself as such. In fact, Scott McInnis has flat out ignored all Tea Party groups' attempts to contact him. His website doesn't even have an email contact, because he doesn't want to hear from you. You could donate to his wife.uh, I mean his campaign though! The FEC investigation of McInnis was dismissed. Because there was no merit to the charges? No, because it was "low priority". Government business as usual.

And what of Josh Penry? What are we to make of his "decision" not to run for governor, and his statement that he is stepping down for the good of the GOP--not the voters, or the state? This is immensely disappointing. Apparently Penry is more concerned with moving up the ladder in his party than political principles.

So how many of you are going to step into the voting booth next fall, sick to your stomachs, and say "well, there's a Libertarian on the ballot, but I think I want to stick with the interchangeable socialist major parties, so as to help in making sure they have the better chance of winning"? Or are you going to say "Looks like we're getting socialism again this time---maybe not next time-but I'm not helping bring it about, and I'm not staying home. I'm voting for the guy who stands for what I actually believe"?

The House of Representatives has already passed its health-care bill and now the Senate is preparing to vote on its own. Should it pass, the largest new entitlement program since the New Deal will be a reconciliation process and a President's signature away from being enacted. This is Congress and President Obama's proposed cure for the ills of our health-care system. But are we sure they have properly diagnosed the disease?

In his speech before Congress in early September, Obama noted that "more and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too," and that "buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." The obvious implication is that government must do something.

But missing from the speech were answers to the following questions: Why is individual insurance so pricey? And why are so many Americans--over half the population, including more than 90 percent of the privately insured--chained to their employer for health insurance?

The answers implicate government. Government policy has favored employer-based insurance through tax breaks dating back to WWII. Together with coercive labor laws arm-twisting companies into providing health benefits, these substantial tax breaks, which have never been extended to individuals purchasing insurance on their own, have distorted the health-insurance market. Employer-based plans now outnumber more limited and more expensive individual plans 10 to 1.

Obama also decries "the problem of rising costs," which is crippling businesses and pushing the federal deficit to stratospheric highs. But again, he fails to identify the real factors at work.

Health insurance in America is typically comprehensive, intended to cover almost any medical expense, including routine care. This would be like using car insurance to pay for tune-ups and oil changes, and history has shown that this model increases (marginal) demand for medical services. But government interventions have favored the comprehensive model for decades, beginning in the 1930s with the granting of nonprofit status to Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which pioneered the model. Comprehensive coverage was further entrenched by Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s, as well as by the imposition of more than 2,100 federal and state mandates dictating who insurers must cover and what services they must pay for.

As a result of these distortions, 95 percent of insured Americans--some 240 million of us--have comprehensive insurance paid for by a third party, either our employer or the government. As consumers of medical services we are cut off from their costs. When we go to the doctor, we don't even see the price until it shows up on the invoice--with all but a small co-pay or deductible (relative to the total bill) paid by our insurance. When the cost to patients is low, we view any test or treatment as "necessary" no matter how minor the benefits. This apparent free lunch has led to the exploding spending we see today.


Past attempts to limit the expenditures of Medicare and Medicaid by lowering reimbursements to physicians and hospitals, for instance, have left medical providers loath to take on new Medicare and Medicaid patients and forced them to make up the losses by raising prices on private consumers. These "cost-cutting" measures have also done little to stop the hemorrhagic spending--Medicare alone is expected to consume nearly 50 percent of all federal income tax revenue by 2040.

Similarly, the use of mandates to increase coverage has had disastrous results. While state mandates have benefited special interest groups, they've raised the cost of basic coverage an estimated 20 to 50 percent. Moreover, in order to prevent the skirting of state mandates, federal law prohibits insurance companies from offering plans across state lines--effectively banning competition and prohibiting market forces from driving prices downward.

No honest observer of our health-care system could deny it is in need of reform. But the basic question is: Have existing government interventions proved positive? Obama and his supporters on both the left and the right answer "yes"--but the facts say otherwise. Rather than trying to expand government control over health care--as Obama would do--we should be working to eliminate it.

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable" to the "Health Choices Administrator" appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law".

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;" The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation" to support the Constitution. If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.

Here is a link to the Constitution:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

And another to the Bill of Rights:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

You have probably heard lots of politicians in recent months complaining about "the skyrocketing cost of health care." They wring their hands about how "the United States spends more on health care..." etc. etc.

Their solution? More government, of course.

But why does the cost of health care keep going up so fast? Most other products and services don't have this problem. Food prices don't skyrocket every year. Electronics don't either. What is so special about health care?

I think the problem boils down to this: the government subsidizes health care very heavily. When you subsidize the purchase of something, the price goes up--that's Economics 101. Then, since politicians use the higher price as an excuse to give even higher subsidies, you get into a vicious cycle, and prices keep rising endlessly.

Michael Munger, 2008 Libertarian candidate for North Carolina Governor, commented on this in a recent op-ed.

If the government would just get out of the health care subsidy business, I think we would see health care--drugs, doctor visits, tests, surgeries, everything--become much more affordable.

Of course, there are other problems too: too much regulation, malpractice lawsuit abuse, and so on. Libertarian Mary Ruwart has written about some of these problems in a recent article.

You won't hear Republicans or Democrats call for ending government subsidies of health care. That would mean getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid, programs which politicians of both parties support strongly. I think they love this situation: increasing government now guarantees they'll have an excuse to increase government even more in the future!

Republicans are railing against the Democrats' current plans, but that's only because the Democrats are in charge. When the Republicans had the majority, they couldn't wait to pass their giant Medicare expansion, costing over $1 trillion (entirely debt-financed, by the way). LP Chairman William Redpath pointed this out in his response to President Obama's health care speech.

Many congressmen are home for the recess. If you have time and are looking for ways to promote liberty and the Libertarian Party, please call your congressman again and tell them you oppose this plan, as we suggested before. Every call helps, even if just a little bit.

If you want to magnify the power of your voice 10,000 times, and have newspapers and television stations quoting you, then run for U.S. Congress.

For example, Libertarian Joseph Kennedy is participating in debates and getting plenty of press coverage as he runs for U.S. Senator in a Massachusetts special election.

Only the Libertarian Party wants the government to get out of the health care business. Only the Libertarian Party recognizes that government intrusion into health care is what causes most of the problems. I hope you'll support us today.

If you have not yet become a member of the Libertarian Party and wish to do so, please click here and join the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. If you need to renew, please click here. If you would like to make a contribution separate from membership, please click here.