Libertarian Times

Well, when they are subjects on the Wonk Prince's^[1] show, what they have in common is the lack of fundamental insight regarding the proper role of governments. Hayes started the show with guests like Michelle Goldberg, Sam Seder, and some OWS guy who just became a NY congressperson. The subject was the pending court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act that will be delivered soon. Being not only a Wonk Prince, but also a staunch Progressive, along with most of his guests, Hayes believes that shooting down the mandate and destroying Obamacare will harm people in need. Hayes praised the fact millions of poor people will be covered if Obamacare is maintained.

Caring for the poor is noble. All Americans should have compassion towards those in society who for one reason or another can't afford good healthcare, and most Americans have had compassion for a long time, thus, Americans have paid higher premiums to offset indigent care, paid for Medicaid and Medicare, donated to charity clinics, etc. Progressives, though, with their efforts at reform culminating in Obamacare, have believed that our system is not working, and they are right. Many Progressives believe that Obamacare does not go far enough, that we need single-payer, socialized healthcare. Where most defenders of Obamacare go wrong is in the premise from which they start, claiming we have had free market healthcare, and that it's failed. Yes, the present healthcare "system" is a mess, but the main reason it's a mess is because of years of government intervention. We haven't allowed healthcare services to develope in a free market environment -- there are tons of rules and regulations and very large coercive programs which create the healthcare "system". Just the fact a "system" has been created proves that a free market environment has not been in existence, otherwise, healthcare services would have adjusted over time to the myriad, diverse needs in different places all over America.

What has happend is that government interventions into healthcare have caused so many adverse consequences, like insurance monopolies in states because consumers can't buy insurance across state lines, that, now, government feels compelled to create many more rules and regulations to "fix" the previous problems caused by government intervention. Now, with a shortage of primary care physicians and the probability of poor people having coverage but no access to care, government will have to go beyond Obamacare to "fix" the consequences of all these interventions that are coming on line in the next few years. Not one person on Up spoke to this problem of government intervention -- Progressives can only imagine more government interventions when problems arise. If Obamacare continues unabated, the confusion created by all the new rules and regulations will destroy healthcare in America, and it will become a chaotic system with so many holes in that those who really care about the plight of the poor will be horrified at the results and the stories of abuse and neglect within the system. I can predict this because I worked in healthcare for 15 years, and I've witnessed the consequences of government intervention, so it's not difficult to imagine what problems a monster intervention like ACA will cause.

So, the Up with Chris Hayes panel transitioned from Obamacare to Egypt and the pending confirmation or denial of the winner in the recent Presidential elections. It has come down to power in the hands of the military or the Muslim Brotherhood. A journalist from Cairo, Mona Eltahawy made the most sense. Lila Hilal was on and she also made a very good point that no one seemed to get. Mona said that the US has propped a brutal dictator for decades because it brought security, at least to the US way of thinking, and now a group of suppressed protesters are being criticized by the likes of Hilary Clinton because they aren't politically organized. The realists in International Relations will justify Mubarak as the only way to protect Israel, but if we trace the interventions back further, I'm sure we could establish a much better path than the one we established bribing a dictator and his military machine while contributing to the suppression and abuse of the Egyptian people.

Lila Hilal said that the liberal/secular protesters should draw up a constitution stating what kind of government Egypt wants. Hilal didn't say, but I assume she means a government with limits on power. This is the problem -- all sides, even the liberal/secularists, are talking about gaining political power and who will use that power in the best interest of the Egyptian people. All sides say they will use power best -- no one, however, is calling to limit government power.

As long as there is no constitution or no philosophical foundation for the revolution, then the Arab Spring is simply a war between factions for power and control. The revolutionaries who really want change should first of all develope a set of principles and a constitution for which they are fighting, then, the power and clarity of the ideas will fuel the Revolution, but, until they have some idea regarding what role they want government to play going forward, it's all obscurantism, and power held by the liberal/secular group, if not limited, will likely be just as dictatorial as what they presently experience -- just different friends and enemies.

References

1. ^{^}Wonk Prince's (www.nytimes.com)