Mediaboss Marketing

"I guess what disappoints me most about the Republicans who said they were for repeal, voted for it, and then no longer are, is that they've sort of forgotten," Paul said on the "Sean Hannity Show." "They think this is about actuarial tables and insurance, and all this stuff. No, this is about freedom. This is about whether we as Americans should be free to buy what kind of insurance we want. What's best for us and our families. And it's about whether the individual knows best or government knows best. Are we too stupid that President Obama has to tell us what kind of insurance? Does he think Americans are too dumb to make their own decisions?"

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated an additional 22 million people will become uninsured by 2026 under the proposed replacement for Obamacare which the Senate voted down this week (and which Paul voted against). The CBO estimated that 32 million would be uninsured under a bill to partially repeal Obamacare without an immediate replacement that Paul voted for but which also failed to pass the Senate this week.

"Are we gonna give up our freedom and say to the government you decide what kind of insurance I get and what it covers," continued Paul. "It's a freedom issue. It really isn't about actuarial tables. It isn't about all the ins and outs. We have always taken care of those who are sick in our country. We have never, ever turned anyone away. I'm a physician. I've operated in hospitals for 25 years. I have never, ever seen anyone turned away who needed care."

"But the people who are saying thousands of people are gonna die," said Paul. "That is such hyperbole and ignorance and over-the-top statements that I think they lose credibility by saying things like that. No one is going to die in America, we haven't let people die in America for hundreds of years because doctors take care of and hospitals take care of all comers."

He later added, "So it hasn't happened in generations and in fact even before Medicare and Medicaid people did not die in our country for lack of care."

View post:
Sen. Rand Paul: Health care debate about 'freedom,' not 'actuarial tables and insurance' - CNN

What initially attracted you to the liberty movement or to the ideas of liberty?

Whether it was a foundation in the principles of freedom learned from parents or in school, a desire to be rid of oppressive bureaucracy, or a speech (or set of speeches) from Ron Paul or some other advocate of liberty, most likely what attracted you were the ideas, or the picture of the change for good that liberty brings.

There is a movement, a tribe, gathering around these principles, because the ideals of liberty and what they offer to a person are attractive, they are desirable.

I truly believe, from what Ive seen of libertarianism and the rise of the classical liberals and constitutional conservatives, that these ideals resonate with everyone; from Uganda to South Africa, from China to the United States, people have an inherent desire for personal freedom and individual liberty.

Even the leftists, in their misguided ways, often come from a place of desiring freedom, though they tend to pursue freedom for themselves and their allies at the expense of everyone elses freedom. The underlying reasons for why many of them do what they do and fight for the ideals they desire (e.g. equality of outcome), is to bring about what they perceive as greater freedom for the people they consider oppressed.

Liberty is an attractive platform; its an inherent human desire, it just needs to be channeled towards the things that will bring actual liberty.

But, whats one thing thats never influenced you to change for the better? What has the opposite effect, making you shut out an idea rather than causing you to introspect and search yourself, the opposite effect of convincing you to pursue an idea further?

For me, that one thing is someone using a non-argument or insults to tell me that Im an idiot for my desire to make my world a better place. Let me explain.

Imagine you are a person who cares deeply for the poor and downtrodden, youve seen your single mother struggle to survive yes, its not societys fault its circumstance, or your absentee fathers, etc.

But because of her struggle, you have a certain empathy for others who struggle.

You want to see society step in and fill the gap that your extended family and community did not. A part of Americas greatness, that De Tocqueville spoke of, was its communitys involvement with helping the people of the community, being involved in helping the poor, the widows, the orphans, etc.

Maybe you dont understand either the economics nor the philosophical underpinnings behind the future you hope for, maybe you dont understand the blow struck to your own liberty when you involve bureaucracy and power-hungry individuals in more and more of the individuals everyday life. Maybe youve never seen the other side, or have only seen them as those who (because they are able to care for themselves) are too greedy to want to share with others.

So, you support government-run healthcare, you support greater welfare, free (or greatly subsidized) university, and higher minimum wages; you support the governments importing of hundreds of thousands of immigrants and the illegal crossing of many, many, more, because you see them all as people who are struggling without realizing the effects this may have on society.

You look at policy through your lens of struggle and choose anything you think will help change that. You may not even realize how these very policies actually undermine your own goals: as higher taxes, minimum wage increases, and inflation drive prices ever higher, the over supply of labor makes jobs more difficult to find, and the free universities become bureaucratic nightmares, overcrowded and pushing whatever nonsense is expedient to what is politically correct or whatever supports more government intervention and bureaucracy.

You dont realize this.

Rather you just want help for the people you know who are struggling day in and day out to survive, to feed their families, to pay their medical bills.

Then you come across a libertarian, and this embodiment of liberty rather than taking the time to explain to you how so many of the problems youve faced can be solved by introducing more liberty, by an acceptance of more freedom (individually and in the markets).

Rather than showing you whats so amazing about liberty, and how this mindset could help change your life through personal responsibility to help you and those you love drive towards improving your skills and providing value to others; how less government bureaucracy would lessen the tax burden (felt by all) and make reaching that middle-class lifestyle much more attainable; how ideas like the NAP could help curb the incessant appetite for foreign intervention and the costs (of both life and treasure) that come with it, and how so many bad laws and ideas could be changed if they were judged through the lenses of cost to freedom vs improvement of the freedom of others; instead of showing you the reason why so many of us were drawn to liberty, the libertarian calls you a statist or a Marxist and mocks you and your lack of understanding. Or worse, they use a weak strawman argument to point out some fallacy in your ideas.

This libertarian calls you out for being a freeloader, for being a socialist, or just straight up calls you an idiot and then moves on to the next internet debate leaving you with nothing of substance, only a deepened perception of capitalists being assholes and socialists being the ones who care driving you deeper into the arms of flawed logic.

Im not saying its wrong to debate on the internet, and Im not saying that every leftist online wants to objectively approach the ideas of liberty but how many of us were won over from the left or the right, and what was it that won us over? Was it a witty remark, or a really good burn? Or was it a set of ideals that made sense, and that we saw some person or some group of people not only espousing but truly living that set of ideals that showed the true character of what a world with liberty as its core virtue could look like?

Its not good enough to tell someone that their desire for free healthcare is akin to stealing from others to pay for yourself, its not enough to say that Canadas (or Scandinavias) healthcare systems are in shambles, because an objective onlooker would say that they are just fine, and quite frankly cheaper than the convoluted and increasingly bureaucratic systems like Medicaid and Medicare and the slew of insurance companies and bureaucracies in the United States.

But there is an idea to strive for, one where the red tape and government favoritism, the bureaucracy and high tax burden would be done away with; where medicine would be like any other service, subject to the competition of the market that brings lower prices and better services.

We need to remember to promote the goals of liberty and the outcomes that arise from increased freedom.

We need to remember to be the example of what we want to see, and to show that there is an alternative, not just become yet another voice in the cacophony of political bickering.

This post was written by Arthur Cleroux.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Arthur Cleroux is an individualist who balances his idealism with a desire for an honest, logical and objective approach to politics and political issues. Originally Arthur found that his values aligned well with the political right; however as time went on his desire for transparency and honest discourse of ideas in the political realm led him closer and closer to the center of the political spectrum! He found that on either wing there was a strong and dangerous type of groupthink, where people supported unnecessary and even bad policies because of a need to conform to the party line. As an individualist with a strong understanding of the importance of what Ayn Rand called the smallest minority on earth, the individual; he finds himself falling very closely in line with the ideals of liberty. Arthur is a lot of things but more important than anything he is a father to two amazing children! Caring for them, making sure they know that they are now and always will be loved is his primary goal, and along with that, comes a desire is to raise them to be free thinkers, to question and study the world and why it is the way it is, and to have character and grit to do what is necessary to succeed!

Like Loading...

View original post here:
Libertarians, Don't Become What We Hate About the Left and Right What Are We Thinking? - Being Libertarian

How does the Libertarian Partys 2017 Virginia gubernatorial nominee Cliff Hyra stack up from a progressive, environmentalist perspective? Lets check out his website and other sources, including the Virginia Libertarian Party platform and see (note: my comments in green). Also, for the record, Im all for including Hyra in gubernatorial debates.

Overall, on the issues listed above, Hyra gets 5 in the A range, 2 in the B range, 7 in the C range, 2 in the D range and 6 in the F range, for an overall grade of roughly a C. The reason why Democrats shouldnt vote for Hyra is that some of the areas where he gets particularly low grades Medicaid expansion/health insurance in general, womens reproductive freedom, the environment, guns are very important ones for most of us, while stuff like marijuana decriminalization is great, but not much different than Democratic nominee Ralph Northams position on the issue. So then why choose Hyra over Northam? Got me. On the other hand, perhaps if youre a Republican who detests corrupt crony capitalists like Ed Gillespie, perhaps you should consider a vote for the Libertarian candidate this year?

See the original post:
Grading 2017 VA GOV Libertarian Candidate Cliff Hyra - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

But Mr. Hayes said that while a strong majority of Republican voters adored Mr. Trump, there are creeping doubts about other administration advisers. Mr. Hayes said that Mr. Scaramuccis interview with The New Yorker magazine, in which he savaged several White House colleagues in sexually graphic terms, had shocked Republicans in his state.

How does that help us get health care and tax reform and rebuilding the military? Mr. Hayes said.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, a Republican who has been critical of Mr. Trump, echoed that sentiment, saying meaningful policies will emerge from the White House only when the chaos in the administration abates. He said he was uncertain whether the shake-up of the senior staff would have that effect.

Youll have optimism within the White House when they start having stability, Mr. Kasich said.

Among the presidents legislative allies in Washington, too, there is a deepening sense of dread that presidential tweets like the out-of-the-blue ban on transgender people serving in the military and continuing chaos inside the West Wing will get in the way of efforts to lower taxes, crack down on immigration, overhaul trade policies and rethink the countrys foreign policy.

The administration is having a hard time getting out of its own way, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which was angry about the presidents criticism of Mr. Sessions. The seeming disarray in the White House obviously makes it hard for the administration to carry out its policies.

Joseph A. Trillo, a former Republican National Committee member from Rhode Island who was chairman of Mr. Trumps campaign in the state, faulted others for the White House disarray and chalked up any missteps to Mr. Trumps newcomer status in Washington.

Hes made some mistakes, Mr. Trillo said of Mr. Trump. He didnt have political experience, and I think some of the biggest mistakes are some of the people he has surrounded himself with.

The turbulent phase appears to have taken its toll on Mr. Trumps popularity, even among those in his own party. Though Republicans are strongly supportive of him over all, public polls have shown dissatisfaction on the right with his personal demeanor and Twitter habits. On Friday, a Gallup tracking poll found Mr. Trumps job approval rating was 39 percent.

Inside Washington, the reservations run even deeper. Some veteran Republican lobbyists are increasingly skeptical that the president has built a team capable of making good on his promises. At the end of a week in which the party failed in its promise to repeal former President Barack Obamas health care law, one Washington lobbyist, who did not want to be identified as being critical of the president, said he and others were frustrated, appalled and scared.

The concern, the lobbyist said, is that without sustained White House leadership the kind that is in short order complicated legislation like a tax overhaul or rolling back banking regulations will not be accomplished.

Andrew Roth, the chief lobbyist for the Club for Growth, a group that fiercely advocates lower taxes, expressed optimism that Republicans would succeed, and he said that some of Mr. Trumps economic advisers were working effectively in spite of the chaos.

But Mr. Roth acknowledged that two things could get in the way: Distractions being caused by a White House that is still in a transitional phase and a dysfunctional Republican Party in Congress that includes too many liberals.

It is well past time that people recognize that there are far too many Democrats in the Republican Party, Mr. Roth said.

Republicans are hardly despondent across the board about the seemingly listless pace of change in Washington. In addition to the confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice, Neil M. Gorsuch, they take heart from the list of business regulations Mr. Trump has voided, and from his administrations aggressive enforcement of immigration laws.

Jay Timmons, the president and chief executive of the National Association of Manufacturers, a powerful business lobby, said he was optimistic Republicans would enact major legislation around taxes, infrastructure investment and more.

Theres a lot going on that has been beneficial to the business community, Mr. Timmons said, acknowledging that there had also been distractions from the partys main agenda. That doesnt mean that progress and success is still not occurring.

Still, Republican activists and party officials described the Senate health care vote, held in the early hours of Friday morning, as a bitter disappointment, and several spoke in caustic language about the three Republican lawmakers who blocked the bill Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

The sharpest frustration, however, came from Trump loyalists who described Congress as having failed to accommodate Mr. Trump and his agenda more broadly or even as taking a deliberately oppositional posture toward a president of their own party.

I blame everything on Congress, and most of the people I talk to feel the same way, said Rex Early, an Indiana businessman who led Mr. Trumps campaign in the state. Id like to see him take on Congress, but I think he feels that he has to get along with them, and hes probably right.

Mr. Trump has occasionally berated Republican members of Congress, and on Wednesday rebuked Ms. Murkowski on Twitter for having let the Republicans, and our country, down with her position on health care. On Friday, Mr. Trump stopped short of criticizing the health care holdouts by name, but lamented in a speech on Long Island that the swamp had prevailed over his agenda, for now.

But some of his supporters would like to see Mr. Trump go further, and a number of activists and Republican candidates called on Mr. Trump to take a harder line with members of his own party.

Corey Stewart, a conservative immigration activist in Virginia who nearly captured the partys nomination for governor this year, encouraged Mr. Trump to take the fight more aggressively to intransigent Republicans.

Hes been remarkably patient, said Mr. Stewart, who has announced that he will run for Senate in 2018. I think he needs to play a little bit more rough with the Republican establishment in the House and Senate.

Mr. Stewart, too, said that there were aspects of the presidents conduct that appeared unproductive, like his public feud with Mr. Sessions.

This stuff would be better solved behind closed doors, Mr. Stewart said.

But other supporters said that after six months with Mr. Trump in office, they do not expect a change in his behavior and many do not want one.

Pam Bondi, the attorney general of Florida and a strong Trump supporter, suggested the onus was on Congress to catch up with Mr. Trump. President Trump is ready and waiting for them to act, Ms. Bondi said, referring to the health care issue.

Congress should beware, she added, our president will not give up on doing whats right for the American people.

See the article here:
Republicans Worry That White House Disarray Is Undermining Trump - New York Times

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his administration on Sunday goaded Republican senators to stick with trying to pass a healthcare bill, after the lawmakers failed spectacularly last week to muster the votes to end Obamacare.

For the second day running, the Republican president tweeted his impatience with Congress' inability to deliver on his party's seven-year promise to replace the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama's signature healthcare bill commonly known as Obamacare. Members of his administration took to the airwaves to try to compel lawmakers to take action.

But it was unclear whether the White House admonishments would have any impact on Capitol Hill, where Republicans who control both houses signaled last week that it was time to move on to other issues.

Republicans' zeal to repeal and replace Obamacare was met with both intra-party divisions between moderates and conservatives and also the increasing approval of a law that raised the number of insured Americans by 20 million.

Polling indicates a majority of Americans are ready to move on from healthcare at this point. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Saturday, 64 percent of 1,136 people surveyed on Friday and Saturday said they wanted to keep Obamacare, either "entirely as is" or after fixing "problem areas." That is up from 54 percent in January.

With the U.S. legislative branch spinning its wheels, the executive branch pledged to look at rewriting Obamacare regulations. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price told ABC's "This Week" that he would change those regulations that drive up costs or "hurt" patients.

Price sidestepped questions about whether there were administration plans to waive Obamacare's mandate that individuals have health insurance, saying "all things are on the table to try to help patients."

But Price also told NBC he would implement Obamacare because it is the "law of the land."

That Obamacare was still law clearly angered Trump, who has no major legislative accomplishments to show for his first half-year in office. "Don't give up Republican Senators, the World is watching: Repeal & Replace ..." the president said in a tweet on Sunday morning.

On Friday, Senate Republicans failed to collect enough votes to repeal even a few parts of Obamacare. That capped a week of failed Senate votes on whether to simply repeal, or repeal and replace, the 2010 law, while Trump repeatedly berated lawmakers in a late attempt to influence the legislation.

"The president will not accept those who said, quote, 'its time to move on,'" Kellyanne Conway, a senior counselor to Trump, said on Fox News Sunday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, had made exactly that comment before dawn on Friday morning after the failed healthcare vote.

The White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney, said on Sunday lawmakers should stay in session to get something done on healthcare - even if this means postponing votes on other issues such as raising the debt ceiling.

"So yes. They need to stay. They need to work. They need to pass something," Mulvaney said on CNN.

The House of Representatives has already gone home for its August break and the Senate is expected to do the same by mid-August.

Mulvaney also said Trump was seriously considering carrying out threats he tweeted about on Saturday, when the president said that "if a new HealthCare Bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!"

That tweet appeared to be referring to the approximately $8 billion in cost-sharing reduction subsidies the federal government pays to insurers to lower the price of health coverage for low-income Americans.

The Saturday tweet also appeared to be a threat to end the employer contribution for members of Congress and their staffs, who were moved from the normal federal employee healthcare benefits program onto the Obamacare insurance exchanges as part of the 2010 healthcare law.

"What hes saying is, look, if Obamacare is hurting the American people and it is then why shouldnt it hurt insurance companies and more importantly, perhaps for this discussion, members of Congress?" Mulvaney said on Sunday on CNN.

Some Republicans have said they are trying to find a way forward on healthcare. Senate Republican Susan Collins, one of three Republicans who voted against repealing parts of Obamacare on Friday, told NBC that Congress should produce a series of bills with bipartisan input on healthcare, including appropriating the cost-sharing subsidies.

The Senate has one vote scheduled when it reconvenes on Monday afternoon: whether to confirm a U.S. circuit court judge. Senate aides said they had no guidance for the agenda beyond that vote.

Additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Roberta Rampton, and Caren Bohan; Editing by Phil Berlowitz and Mary Milliken

Originally posted here:
Trump tells Republicans to get back on healthcare bill - Reuters