WASHINGTON — Georgia state Rep. Betty Price (R) — the wife of Tom Price, who resigned last month as President Donald Trump ’s health secretary amid investigations into his frequent use of private planes — wonders if isolating people with HIV would help stop the disease’s spread. Price, a […]
Metro Atlanta’s own Tom Price, the surgeon-turned-congressman-turned-U.S. Health Secretary, is now getting pummeled for flying around in private jets. Last week, the news site Politico detailed a three-day sprint for which Price spent more than $60,000 on such flights. Later, Politico said it was more like $300,000 since May […]
This is interesting coming from the Libertarian Media. His conclusion – the confederacy was awful for wanting slavery and Lincoln was awful for wanting a strong Federal Government. Interesting. Clearly wanting slavery and willing to go to war to support slavery is awful. However, I am not convinced that wanting a strong Federal Government is awful. But, I could be wrong and am willing to discuss it.
Americans sympathetic to the Union generally believe the war was fought to end slavery or to “rescue the slaves” from political kidnapping by the slave states, that seceded from the Union to avoid impending abolition.
“No,” say those sympathetic to the Confederacy. The states seceded over states’ rights, particularly their right not to be victimized by high protectionist tariffs, paid mostly by southern states, but spent mostly on what we’d now call corporate welfare and infrastructure projects in the north.
The declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas don’t mention taxes or economic policy at all.
That the states seceded for a different reason than the war was fought seems to elude everyone.
States’ Rights, Tariffs, or Slavery?
There is plenty of secondary literature presenting evidence on both sides, which is why Americans are still arguing this tired point over 150 years after the war ended. But there is a pretty simple way to clear the air. Just read the primary sources and take everyone at his word.
Many of the Confederate states published declarations explaining their reasons for seceding from the Union. The problem for those making the tariff argument is only a few of these declarations even mention the tariff, and then only in passing. The declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi and Texas don’t mention taxes or economic policy at all.
But what all the declarations state loud and clear is the seceding states’ objections to the federal government not fulfilling its constitutional duty to execute fugitive slave laws, the election of a president who campaigned saying the Union could not survive “half slave and half free,” and their belief that the Republican Party’s determination to keep slavery out of new territories would eventually lead to abolition of the institution in their own states.
The passage which is perhaps most damning to the tariff theory comes from Georgia’s Declaration, which reads:
The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.
The passage is accurate. The Republican Party was indeed comprised of a coalition between abolitionists and former members of the Whig Party, like Lincoln, who still sought to implement Henry Clay’s “American System” of protectionist tariffs, “internal improvements” (viz. “infrastructure”) and a central bank. But the Georgia Declaration dismisses this as merely an incidental observation and emphasizes the party’s opposition to slavery. One cannot help but conclude that Georgia, while objecting to the American System, was willing to tolerate it, but would not tolerate any threat to slavery.
Arkansas cited the Union’s attempt to coerce it into making war on the seceded states as its reason for leaving.
There is no reason to doubt Lincoln’s personal, philosophical opposition to slavery, but it wasn’t the reason he fought the Civil War. We know this because he said so, repeatedly. And it is by no means a leap, based on his lifelong political beliefs and what he said himself during his first inaugural, that the reason it was so important for him to “save the Union” was because he couldn’t pursue his big government agenda without the seceding states’ taxes. That’s quite a poor reason to start a war in which 600,000 to a million Americans are killed by their fellow Americans.
21st century Americans shouldn’t pick a side in the Civil War. Much like the brawl between the White Supremacists and Antifa in Charlottesville, Va., it was fought by two tyrannical powers for mostly evil purposes. The best we can do today is understand what really happened and work to rehabilitate the bedrock American principles of limited, decentralized government and the natural right of secession, good ideas given a bad name by Lincoln and the Confederates alike.
We’re fighting the Civil War again. Whenever both major parties drop any pretense of addressing the real problems facing American taxpayers, their constituents revert to having at each other in “the culture wars.” And no culture war would be complete without relitigating what should now be settled history: the […]
Tweet A convenience store in Tennessee is featuring a scrolling digital sign outside the gas station offering $50,000 for Kathy Griffin’s head. Lewis Country Store’s Facebook page is littered with controversial messages in an attempt to garner attention. The store’s Facebook page is very pro-Trump and anti-liberal. Apparently, the […]
Review Tools and a Process For Making Decisions As everyone says, “Work smarter, not harder.” In Winning Decisions: Getting It Right the First Time , authors J. Edward Russo & Paul J.H. Schoemaker, two experts and professors in the field of decision making, provide a direct route to working […]
To Improve Health Care We need to Change the Incentive From Making Money off of Sick People to Improving the Health of the Patient
To Improve health care and reduce costs we need to change the incentive from making money off of sick people to improving the health of the patient.
Tom Price has a plan for Health Care. His plan is to reduce transparency, reduce standards, and increase freedom to exploit the sick.
Of course he would describe his plan differently. If you ask Tom Price what his plan is, he would say that he advocates empowering individuals with their doctors so they can make their own health care decisions free from community interference. And he is trying to pass laws in Congress and is encouraging the States to enact patient-centered, market-based programs to do this.
As a Doctor, it is clear why Rep. Price would like a system that frees him from any transparency and community interference. He wants a lot of sick people that have no information so he can charge them as much as he can so he can make as much profit as he can. He says, he wants patients to make their own decision in a free market system, just as one might when they by a car. However, clearly, unlike buying a car where the buyer could know more about cars than the seller, Dr. Tom Price will always know more about what is wrong with the patient than the patient. This places the patient at huge disadvantage. In economics it is called “Information Asymmetry.” Dr. Tom Price makes a lot of money on sick people. And he wants to change the rules so he can make more money.
I had hoped the passage of Obamacare would put this debate behind us. But, sadly, Obamacare did not solve the problem. In fact, health care costs continue to ballon much faster than inflation.
So, what is the answer. I came across an interesting study by Prof. Grayboyes. The Title of the Study is “Fortress and Frontier in American Health Care.”
Here is a short video Prof. Grayboyes put together to explain his view.
While I understand his view, I see the problem differently.
The problem is that, while every cell phone is exactly the same, not every hip replacement is exactly the same. While every Model T Ford was exactly the same, not every heart bypass is exactly the same.
Professor Graboyes comparison of health care services to technology is not a good comparison because you can gain huge cost savings through standardization in technology, but there is no such cost savings improvements in standardizing health care. In fact, by standardizing health care we would actually reduce quality care.
As long as the incentive is to make money on people getting sick, the sick will continue to pay more because those making money on people getting sick will continue to want to make more money.
We need to change the incentive of our health care industry from making money to making the patient well.