"Choice" Under Obama's Health Care

There is a huge amount of angry rhetoric surrounding Barack Obama's health care policy agenda. On the left we hear about the untold numbers of people dying on the streets without health insurance and on the right we hear about "death panels" that will determine who gets to live and who has to die. The President has asked that the America people take the rhetoric down a little bit and have a thoughtful discussion. He tells us that "choice" won't be affected. You will "always have private options," Obama has told us. This is, of course, a little different from what he said on the campaign trail, in which he discussed a single payer system like Canada's which prohibits private practice, but is more in line with the political realities he faces today.

It is this issue of choice that I want to focus on. Advocates of government health care are telling us that under a new system you will be free to keep your private option, but you are going to have to pay for the health care of everyone on the government system. Candidate Obama said that only those who make $250,000 or more a year will be subject to new taxes to pay for his expansive government. In the last few weeks that number has been adjusted to those making around $100,000. The reality is that spending is so out of control and unemployment is so high, having a job at all will be considered affluent under this Administration.

The funding model of government health care will be similar to that of public schools. Everyone pays for the school, even if they don't use the school. Millions of Americans can simply go to their schools of choice and not be subject to the under performing public schools that we have become famous for on the international scene, but approximately 90 percent of all children come from families that choose not to go private, according to the Department of Education. This happens because parents are "crowded out" of the private options due to how expensive they are and the lack of dollars available to spend on them because they have to pay for public schools no matter where their children attend. In England, approximately 90 percent are on socialized medicine and only 10 percent have private insurance.

Ironically, most of the same politicians who argue that our public schools are not performing at the level they should are also arguing for national health care. Since government has done so well in public education, let us allow it to have a shot at our nation's health. That is a scary thought.

So will you feel forced to be under socialized medicine? Do you feel forced to have your children in private schools, but would prefer a private option? If the answer is "yes" to that question there is a high liklihood you will be under government health care program. However, if you are part of that minority that have children in private schools, you know how great that additional burden can be. It will likely be very similar under socialized medicine, far more of a burden than private health insurance is currently.

According to Freedom Works only around 15 milllion (out of 300 million) of the population are uninsured withough choice (not including illegals who should clearly be treated differently from the rest of the country, in my opinion). The US is toying with the idea of destroying a system that gives us huge choices and the most advanced health care in the world in order to accomodate approximately 5 percent of the population. The way we will help them is by destroying their health care too, because they are still being treated in our system, even without contributing. There certainly has to be a "better way."

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Alan Bersin, "Border Czar"

"Border Czar." It sounds like the title of a movie about the cold war, but it is the informal title given to Alan Bersin, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs. What a title and what a job. Immigration issues, especially between the US and Mexico, have been a hot topic for years. Under George W. Bush, many Americans were angered over what many would call a "non-position" on the topic. We needed to make many illegals, "legal," we were told, or we would have economic ruin. This policy was accompanied with certain legal hurdles for those who were illegals that were inadequate to those of a more conservative inclination and too demanding to those with liberal leanings. The man at the center of this storm for Obama is Bersin.

Like most members of the Obama Administration, Bersin is a typical "over achiever." He was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York, attending both the city's public and Hebrew schools. He went on to attend Harvard, where he received a Bachelor's degree in government, he became a Rhodes Scholar and studied at Oxford, and then went on to receive a law degree at Yale Law School. His career experiences include Superintendent of the San Diego school system, California's Secretary of Education, Federal Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) and United States Attorney for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, and Bill Clinton's former Attorney General’s Southwest Border Representative. In other words, he was the nation's first "Border Czar," before the phrase became popular.

As the Border Czar, Bersin is called to enforce Obama's immigration policies. These polices are becoming hard to track. The Washington Times notes that "On the thorniest of political issues, President Obama has embraced the enforcement-first position on immigration that he criticized during last year's presidential campaign, and he now says he can't move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced."

This position stands in stark contrast to candidate Obama's views in 2008. During that campaign he said "Senator McCain used to offer change on immigration. He was a champion of comprehensive reform, and I admired him for it. But when he was running for his party’s nomination, he walked away from that commitment and he’s said he wouldn’t even support his own legislation if it came up for a vote." Now we see, Obama won't support it either."

The bottom line is that Obama has created a position that is difficult to defend, because it is shifting. The popular consensus is that the US needs a policy that enforces the borders with guards authorized to defend our nation and the necessary technology to keep them secure, require cities and states to respect and enforce the laws of the land when it comes to immigrants, and develops a practical approach for those who want to contribute to the economy to be here legally, but still protects US sovereignty.

Kevin Price is Host of the Price of Business, the longest running show on AM 650 (M-F at 11 am) in Houston, Texas and on AOL Radio. His articles often appear in Chicago Sun Times, Reuters, USA Today, and other national media. Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal calls Price the “best business talk show host in the country.” Find out why and visit his blog at www.BizPlusBlog.com and his show site at www.PriceofBusiness.com. You can also find Price on Strategy Room at FoxNews.com.

Duncan Hunter for President?

Duncan Hunter is an old friend of mine and, as many of you know, is running for President. He's not taken seriously by most and he seems to be playing the role of reminding the other major candidates what Conservatives should believe.

I believe Hunter, who has a son who is serving in the military in Iraq and running for Congress himself, is the strongest and most credible candidate when it comes to nationl security issues. A Vietnam veteran himself who has his own sone on the front lines, his message is very powerful and he cannot be accused of hyprocisy. Unfortunately, popular support for the war is in continued decline and in message in support of it falls on deaf ears.

Other key issues that he stands on is a staunch position against illegal immigration and opposition to free trade. I agree, illegals need to be brought out of the darkenss in order to protect our citizens. However, I also believe this economy needs the help of these immigrants. They make our economy grow. Furthermore, free trade has been fundamental cornerstone of Republican economic philosophy. Herbert Hoover, the last Republican candidate to support protectionism, propelled the into the Depression with such policies. Protectionism makes domestic companies soft, forces consumers to pay higher prices, leads to tensions between countries (as Fredric Bastiat like to say, "if goods are not crossing borders, troops are"), and is funamentally bad policy.

On Monday's Houston Business Hour (August 27, 2007 at 7 AM) Duncan Hunter will be on my program to discuss these and other issues. I believe it will be a very interesting program.

U.S. Enemployment Drops to 4.4 Percent

I remember my first economics class in college and the professor discussed the concept of "full employment." Most would think that would be be the same as zero unemployment, but it is not. Instead, full employment is simply when all the people who want to work, have a job. In other words, there are people who only work seasonal jobs, there are others who are involved in illegal activities and want to stay below the economic radar as much as possible, and other still who chose to create a new business rather than get a job after they became unemployed. With that explanation, full employment is typically defined as around four percent.

At our new lower rate of 4.4 percent, the US is hovering slightly above that remarkably low number. This incredible number leads to me making a few observations:

* The tax cuts work. In the early 1980s Ronald Reagan (see photo) described his tax cuts bill as an "unemployment act." He knew that the cuts would revive the economy, stimulate economic growth and reverse the long term unemployment problems pervasive at the time. His plan worked and they recently did it again for President Bush.

* We are losing the point when it comes to illegal immigration. Many free market economists argue that illegal immigrants contribute more to the economy than they take. This is probably true. These immigrants do the jobs that keep food affordable, homes obtainable, and allow middle income people to live like the rich by being able to afford their services. Our low unemployment validates the claim that we need these workers to improve our lives. We just need such people here legally. That doesn't mean amnesty per se, but developing a logical approach to immigration that protects our security, but still provides opportunity for those less fortunate, and improves our economy. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking they are "stealing our jobs." Rather, they are largely improving our economy.

* Let's not exaggerate the "negative effects" of globalization. Another concept I learned in economics 101 is the "law of comparative advantage," which means it makes sense for some countries to produce some things and other countries to produce other things still. Because of that law we drive cars with parts from all over the world (including the US) and cost less than $20,000, where as the exact same car made bumper to bumper in this country would likely cost multiples of that amount. With 4.4 percent unemployment, these countries aren't stealing our jobs, but allowing Americans to live much wealthier than we otherwise would if the earth wasn't "flat." We are getting great products, at lower prices, that our almost fully employed economy enjoys.

Our economy is much healthier than the media wants to admit and it should put the "big stories" in the news into perspective. We don't need to become fortress America, but instead fully enjoy the advantages of a world economy.

The Rise of Pessimistic "Conservatives"

Having cut my political teeth on the philosophy of Ronald Reagan, I have a hard time seeing "pessimistic" and "conservative" in the same sentence, but such a group is quickly on the rise. What's most interesting about this group is that they claim Ronald Reagan as their philosophical ancestor. I think the former President would be rolling in his grave if he knew that those claiming his mantle have become xenophobic about immigration and anti-free trade. But those are the exact positions many on the Right are proclaiming.

Pat Buchanan was the first conservative to get on this bandwagon back in 1992 when he ran as an alternative to Bush I and in direct opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. At the time, only hard left, pro-labor, candidates (remember Dick Gephardt) adhered to such positions. Slowly, but surely, it is becoming conservative dogma. I'm afraid that, in another decade or two, it will be on the same level of common held Republican beliefs as tax cuts generally are. Unfortunately, undermining free trade has a very different result than cutting taxes.

The reason people are opposed to free trade is because other countries (whom we trade with) don't practice it and it results in the "exportation" of jobs. There is no doubt that other countries are protectionist, but those countries suffer from extremely high prices and fewer choices than we enjoy. Are you ready to pay multiples more for the type of goods we buy from China in order to artificially prop up the prices of goods from more friendly nations? Punishing our trade partners with tariffs or quotas, punishes our consumers more than it hurts competitive nations and it leads to a reduction in the quality of goods we produce while "enjoying" such "protection." People advocate eliminating free trade because of "jobs" being exported to these countries? What jobs? The unemployment is this country is 4.5 percent, which is considered almost zero (four percent is the actual number) by most economists when you factor in voluntary unemployment, illegal activity, seasonal unemployment, etc. Protectionism will not only fail to protect jobs, but destroy them; because so many jobs (sales, marketing, legal, import, etc.) are created by trade into this country. In the end, attacking free trade will attack our prosperity and our jobs.

Regarding immigration, I understand the concern of conservatives wanting to protect our country, but te populist view does nothing to help the problems coming from it. The problem is that the system doesn't offer hope to people who want to contribute to this nation of immigrants, much opportunity to do so legally. Rather, they force people underground and allows those of us who have been here longer to act holier than thou and call them criminals. I, in particular, find this offensive. My mother was born and raised in England, met my father during World War II and came to this country, eventually giving birth to me. I know I'm the child of an immigrant. It just happens I'm one that our country finds attractive. You, too, are a descendent of immigrants unless you are a Native American. It is by luck I'm a citizen of the greatest country of the world, not by any effort on my part. We must offer opportunities to others, but they must make sense. Here are a few ideas:

* Require people to be in this country for an extended period time (minimum of ten years) before they are allowed to become citizens. This, in my opinion, should be the case regardless of where they come from.

* Provide a fast track program for those from foreign countries willing to serve in our military. Over 60,000 people serve in the US military from foreign countries. That kind of sacrifice deserves special consideration. We should consider expanding this program, especially during these times.

* Allow a long term separate status of people who never get citizenship, but work, send some money home, and eventually return there. That is the desire of many, if not most of them.

* Curtail welfare programs for immigrants, placing severe restrictions.

* Move away from an income tax and go towards a consumption tax, to make sure everyone is paying for the blessings of liberty with every purchase they make.

These are just a few things we can do to keep valuable labor important to this country (again, at 4.5 percent unemployment, there are many jobs Americans don't want to do) here, without compromising our security. In fact, it will make us more secure than ever to know who these persons are, where they live, and what they are doing here. America is a nation of immigrants. Reforms like this will make them legal ones.