Why Libertarian?

For most of my life I have not been politically active.  However, I am becoming more so, and will be attending and participating in the Libertarian convention for the state of Iowa this coming weekend.  Additionally, I found out today I was elected to be a “Precinct Committee Person to the Central Committee” for Des Moines Precinct 8 for the Polk County Libertarian Party.  I’m not really sure what that entails.  I guess that’s what I get for not showing up at the meeting when the vote was taken.  Regardless, I will do whatever it is that I’m supposed to do, and probably overdo it.

I’m usually the one asking, “why?”, so I suppose I should also tell my “why”, as in why I identify as a Libertarian.

The biggest influence on my political beliefs has been the years working at Clarinda and Tarkio Academies.  I have often said, “People who say the Peace Corps is ‘the toughest job you’ll ever love’ never worked at The Academy”.  We worked at those facilities with juvenile delinquents who everyone else had given up on.  We didn’t rehabilitate every one of them, or even close to a majority of them, but we had some success stories.  We didn’t just say things like, “No one rises to low expectations,” “PRIDE is Personal Responsibility In Determining Excellence”, “Confront all negative behavior”, and “Natural consequence is the best teacher”, rather we lived those things every day.  And we achieved more than anyone thought was possible.  The more popular and commonly known version of that mentality is from Winnie the Pooh: “You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think.”  I believe all that stuff, deep down, about every U.S. citizen.  And in some ways I feel sorry for those who don’t believe that way.

When I look at what the two major political parties do and advocate, I do almost feel sorry for them for not having that belief in people, but especially those who align with the Democratic Party.  Across the board, the underlying message of all their social programs is, “people are worthless and weak.  Without the government handling things for them, they will fail miserably.”  Or, if they are advocating new social programs to “help” others succeed when they are themselves successful, I see that as pretentious and condescending, an attitude of, “well, I succeeded without __________ program, but others aren’t as good as me, so they need help”.   And I put “help” in quotes because it is not really help.  It’s enabling.  The vast majority of government “help” for those who have less is the equivalent of buying another bottle of  Thunderbird for the alcoholic who doesn’t have the money to buy more booze.   As long as the government keeps handing out fish, there is not an incentive for those who don’t know how to fish to learn.

I can’t have a blog post get too serious and not have a musical interlude, so here’s some Talking Thunderbird Blues   Can’t go wrong with Townes Van Zandt.

From a practical point of view, even if someone thinks all this “help” is good, I can’t wrap my head around how anyone can think that the government, especially the federal government, is the best way to provide that help on a local level.  Which is what really matters.  As my favorite author Robert Heinlein said, “An elephant is just a mouse built to government specifications”.

The response I almost always get when I disagree with someone promoting a government mandated social welfare program is something like, “You’re an uncaring, heartless, son of a bitch!”  And the worst part is that they never get the cultural reference when I say, “When you call me that, smile”.  Actually, that is not the worst part.  The worst part of all of it is what government social programs do to us as a society.  They make it ok to not help our neighbor.  To not be “The Good Samaritan”.  To stay home and gaze into our phones instead of going out and gazing into the eyes of someone who needs our help.  When “help” is forcibly taken from citizens and distributed to others by the government (after the government has taken its cut, of course), it’s no longer a gift, and both the giver and the receiver of the gift are robbed of the beauty and joy of giving.  That’s the biggest casualty of government social programs, and the biggest reason I am against them.

And for my Republican friends who have been enjoying what I said about the Democrats, now it’s your turn.

The Republican justifications and twisting of morality boggle my mind.  The same people who chastised Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky idolize a serial adulterer who paid hush money to a porn star.  Yeah, I know, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.  But don’t forget all the other stuff like, “Go and sin no more”, having a contrite heart, repenting, etc.  And all the, “but ________ did/does it too!”  How childish are you?  Didn’t your parents ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?

A huge appeal of the Libertarian Party for me is its stance regarding foreign wars.  We need to mind our own business and concentrate on our own country.  Republicans saying that we are protecting others from evil, give it a rest (that’s my cleaned up version of what I’m thinking).  It’s about business interests, mostly oil.  If it wasn’t, we’d be involved in a lot of other countries.  “Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”

All the “tax breaks for the rich” arguments between the two major parties miss the point.  It’s not that the wrong or right people are getting tax breaks, it’s that those taxes shouldn’t be levied on anyone.  I wasn’t around for it, but I think I read somewhere that we fought the British over something regarding that.

The bottom line is this:  Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same dirty coin.  Both sides are power-hungry liars full of hate.  They just tell different lies and hate different people.  If you are saying or thinking, “But I’m not hateful!  I’m not a liar!” then you’re probably aligned with the wrong party.  Maybe you should join the Libertarians too.

Many people disdain the Libertarian Party, scoffing, “You’re throwing your vote away!”  I don’t see it that way.  I see it as disrespectful to the right to vote and those who fought to secure my right to vote to do anything but vote for who I think is the best candidate, regardless of party.  A vote for “the lesser of two evils” is still a vote for evil.  I refuse to vote for evil.

I also hear that it’s impossible to break the stranglehold the Democrats and Republicans have.  Let me ask you.  Do you know who Gunder Haag and Arne Andersson  are?  Probably not, but from 1942 to 1954, the two of them went back and forth as the world record holders for the mile run, and Hagg’s 1945 record of 4:01.4 stood for almost a full NINE YEARS!  Why?  Because until Dr. Roger Bannister did it, it was “impossible” for a human to run a mile in under four minutes.  Do you know who Larry Owings is?  Rulon Gardner?  If you’re not a wrestling aficionado, probably not.  But they proved that the “unbeatable” can be beaten.  I’m a believer.

Contrary to what many today may think, not every POTUS belonged to either the Democratic or Republican Party.  George Washington didn’t have an affiliation to a political party.  Although every POTUS in my lifetime (so far) has been a Republican or Democrat, there has been a Federalist,  Democratic-Republicans ( 4),  Whigs (4),  and National Union candidates (2) who ascended to the Presidency.   There is no reason a Libertarian could not win the office, except for all the “group thinkers“ thinking “it’s impossible”.

Some of you may be thinking, “Sure, 200 or so years ago someone other than the Democrats or Republicans won, but we live in a different time”.  You are absolutely right.  For most of my life it has been virtually impossible for someone to break through and gain national/international recognition without lots of money and big business behind him or her.   One had to have big record company backing to get music recorded and played on the radio.  Being a movie star meant going to Hollywood and required getting in with a big movie studio, maybe via “couch auditions”.  Being a published author was really only available through the big publishers.  That’s not the case any more.  Why couldn’t a politician of the Libertarian Party, or any other party, become a mega star using social media, YouTube, email, etc.  It’s worked for every other aspect of pop culture, and what is politics, if not pop culture?

Since this is my “Insurance Nerd” blog, I need to bring it back to insurance.  For this post, it’s pretty simple.  Insurance is pretty darn Libertarian.  I love freedom.  With freedom comes responsibility.  Insurance is a great way to keep our freedom by taking care of responsibilities.  If I die prematurely, it’s not the government’s responsibility to take care of my obligations to support my family.  Life insurance is the tool I use to fulfill my responsibility and assure their freedom.  I take care of a small part my responsibility to take care of my health (the majority is diet and exercise, not insurance) by buying health insurance.  And if I use insurance to responsibly fund my retirement, I paid for the freedom that comes with it.

They Underestimated. Again

Robert A. Heinlein Power Quotes

Also, "Don't underestimate the other guy's greed"--Frank Lopez in Scarface

I spent the today and will spend much of the time over the next several weeks talking with people about why health insurance rates are going up and/or benefits are being cut.  Calling it "greed" and "stupidity" might be a little bit harsh, but it shouldn't be surprising.  Anyone who thought that we were not going to have huge increases in health insurance cost is naive.  If people are given the opportunity to get something for nothing or for less than fair market value, they will.  Not everyone, but enough of them that there will be huge cost overruns.  It's human nature.  It's about survival.

If you haven't seen it in the news, the big "underestimation" of expense this past year was in relation to specialty drugs.  Even though there are a small number of people taking them, the costs are very high.  Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies were able to control for expenses by declining people who were likely to need them.  Now that the insurance companies can not decline an applicant, why would a person suffering from something like Hepatitis C apply for coverage with the lowest possible deductible and get the prescription to cure it?  He or she would be stupid not to.  If you were in that situation, do you honestly think you would care that you doing that would cost the insurance company tens of thousands of dollars?

I don't know the solution, but I do know that costs will continue to be underestimated.  Why?  Because the public moves much faster than the government and the insurance companies.  As long as there are dollars to be had, someone will find the way to get them.  It's simple supply and demand. It's already started with pharmaceutical companies coming up with "better" more expensive drugs.  They can afford to manufacture them because there is a way for them to get paid.

History repeats itself.  We don't even have to look back very far.  When Medicare Part D started in 2006, I rarely worked with people with high drug costs.   Most of my Medicare customers took no or few prescriptions, and mostly generics, because without insurance coverage, they either couldn't or wouldn't spend that much.  The exceptions were severe diabetics and those who had retiree group insurance with prescription benefits.  A person who was on "a lot" and/or "expensive" medications spent $50 to $100 on them.  I remember looking at "the donut hole" (coverage gap) of $2,250 and thinking, "Nobody uses that much in a year, or if they do, they'll be dead before long".  The vast majority of the consumers I spoke to said the same thing.   Most of them said that they'd never meet the $250 deductible.

Flash forward 10 years.  Going into 2016, even though the threshold for getting into the coverage gap is up to $3,310, a large number of my customers reach it before they get halfway through the year.  It's not unusual for people I talk to to have a drug cost (before insurance) of $500 or more per month.  The health of the people isn't any different, as far as I can tell, than people of the same age 10 years ago.  The difference is that  someone else is paying the bulk of the cost.  It's not just stupid, it's not just greedy.  It's just human nature.

History repeats itself.  Costs are going to keep going up.  Stop underestimating.