Death Panels!

One of my favorite fnord phrases surrounding the healthcare reform debate is "Death Panels". Allegedly, Obama's healthcare reform plan includes a committee of State bureaucrats that decide which people qualify for medical treatment. This committee has the power to deny people medical treatment, making it a "Death Panel".

Most of the medical expenses that you will incur over your entire life occur over the last 3-6 months of your life. Suppose your lifetime medical expenses are 200 ounces of gold. About 100-150 ounces of gold will be spent in the last few months of your life. Why is that?

Suppose your grandmother is very old and sick. She has medicare or another health insurance plan. Suppose she is hospitalized and is going to die soon.

Keeping someone alive on a respirator is *VERY* profitable. The hospital collects $2k-$5k per day. The hospital doesn't have to do anything except hook you up to a machine that keeps you breathing and keeps your heart beating.

One problem is that the hospital is paid based on "# of days patient is in hospital". The hospital doesn't get paid extra if the patient recovers. The hospital doesn't have to give the money back if the patient dies. The interests of the hospital bureaucrats are not aligned with the interests of the patient.

Lawyers and doctors get paid by the hour. They don't get paid based on whether they actually help their customer or not. If you die in a hospital, you doctor still gets paid based on the work he actually performed.

Suppose the hospital keeps someone alive for 100 days at a cost of $3k per day. That's $300k! That's a very profitable scam! Your grandmother is kept alive on a respirator, but she's barely conscious or unconscious and unable to do anything. Her odds of recovery are practically zero.

Your grandmother isn't spending her own money. She's spending the health insurance corporation's money or medicare's money. There's no incentive for her to say "Forget it! This is a waste!"

Suppose your grandmother were spending her own money. Then, she might make the rational decision "$300k just to be stuck on a respirator unconscious for 3 months! Forget about it! I'd rather give the $300k to my children!"

The current system denies old and sick people the right to make rational economic decisions. They aren't paying the cost of their own medical care directly. They can't choose to die and pass the savings on to their children.

The hospital is making the decision whether to unplug the life support system or not. However, the hospital is getting a couple of thousand dollars per day! The economic incentive is for the hospital to drag out the dying person's life for as long as possible.

Obama's reform proposal is that a State committee will make the "unplug life support" decision, and not the hospital. This committee saves money by denying medical care to people who are nearly dead. However, what happens if the committee makes a mistake and denies treatment to someone who would have recovered?

There is no "free market" choice in the current system or in Obama's reform proposal. Someone who wants to be kept alive on life support should be able to pay their own money and get it. Someone who wants to pass the savings on to their children should also have the choice.

In the current system, the "unplug life support" decision is in the hands of hospital bureaucrats. With Obama's "Death Panels", a State bureaucracy will be making the decision. It isn't a substantial difference. A hospital bureaucrat is effectively a State employee.

Is the Truth Spreading?

I performed a very interesting experiment.

Google allows you to search for a specific date range. I searched for "taxation is theft" (with quotes) for various time periods.

Apr 2009 - 72 results
Oct 2008 - 54 results
Apr 2008 - 29 results
Oct 2007 - 32 results
Apr 2007 - 24 results
Oct 2006 - 16 results
Apr 2006 - 16 results

Q2 2009 - 358 results
Q1 2009 - 305 results
Q4 2008 - 299 results
Q3 2008 - 185 results
Q2 2008 - 90 results
Q1 2008 - 82 results

The number of search results for "Taxation is theft" is increasing over time. That's a good sign. I did a similar search for "agorism". The results were similar, but I didn't post them here.

That might be biased, because older pages might get removed from the hosting website. Plus, the total volume of pages on the Internet is also increasing exponentially. If a page is updated, it'll show up in the timeframe it was last updated. I tried to avoid that bias by not including current webpages in my search.

A lot of those references were denouncing people who believe "Taxation is theft!"

Even if someone is saying "People who believe 'Taxation is theft!' are fruitcakes!", that's still progress. Going from no citations at all, to people denouncing it as a stupid belief, is progress.

The volume and quality of free market thinking on the Internet is definitely increasing.

An Example of Damaging Government Regulation of the Insurance Industry

This post on David Z's shared items reminded me of an important point.

Most health insurance corporations do *NOT* have a choice regarding "Which drugs are covered?" and "Which treatments are covered?" It's mandated by law.

In turn, this guarantees that healthcare is expensive. If an insurance corporation is required by law to cover the latest blockbuster drug "cashcowazine", then they're forced to offer high premiums.

Insurance corporations don't mind this regulation, because they merely pass the cost on to customers as higher prices.

Customers don't have a choice. They have no choice but to buy an expensive policy. If you want to buy an insurance policy that only covers hospitalization or serious illness, but not routine medical care, that's not available.

The purpose of medical insurance should be "guard against disasters". Instead, health insurance covers *EVERY* medical transaction. This evolved from the health insurance tax loophole.

After World War II, corporate employers started offering health insurance as a tax-free perk. At the time, this benefit wasn't explicitly tax-free. The income tax law was amended to allow this tax-free benefit. This led to the custom of everyone getting health insurance from their wage slave job. Since it's a tax-free perk, the incentive is to cover everything, even routine medical care.

True insurance is protection against disasters, and not to cover routine expenses. The State completely perverted the purpose of health insurance, making it mandatory even for routine health care. Most people aren't directly paying the cost of medical care, leaving no incentive for efficiency.

Health Care Reform Debating Tip

I noticed an effective tactic when debating pro-State trolls on health care reform.

If you say "Government licensing requirements for doctors are damaging and should be eliminated!", then the Statist will say "You're a fruitcake." Saying "Government licensing requirements are damaging!" is a fnord phrase that sets off their pro-State brainwashing and causes their logical thinking ability to shut down.

Instead, I say "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased." This frames the issue in a manner that pro-State trolls can understand.

While Bill Clinton was President, there was a law that decreased the number of slots in State-licensed medical schools, restricting the supply of doctors.

The supply of doctor licenses is not determined by a free market process, but by a law.

The USA has fewer doctors per-capita than other industrialized countries. That leads to higher prices. In a State-backed monopoly, supply and demand have a nonlinear relationship. If you cut the supply by 20%, then prices may rise by more than 20%, especially for medical care where the patient/victim has no choice but to buy.

If you say "Government licensing requirements for doctors are damaging!", that's impermissible in the eyes of a pro-State troll. They'll get hostile when you suggest the idea. If you say "The supply of doctor licenses should be increased!", that's something a pro-State troll can understand.

No mainstream media debate of healthcare reform suggests "Increase the supply of doctor licenses!" as a solution.

Pyscho Donuts

The story of "Pycho Donuts" is amusing. A store called itself "Psycho Donuts". Mental health advocacy groups are now advocating that the store be closed. They are organizing riots and protests. They are lobbying the State to force the store to change its name.

Recall that "mental health advocacy groups" are really fronts for pharmaceutical corporations. Does that mean that the owners of the "Psycho Donuts" store are the real victims?

I don't care whether such a store opens or not. People who don't care aren't going to protest.

I tried to figure out why the homicide industry would be offended by such a store. I see why the psychiatry/death industry is offended by "Psycho Donuts". It presents mental illness as something not-scary. Official State propaganda is "People labeled with a 'mental illness' are **BAD** and must be forcibly drugged." The theme of the store contradicts official State propaganda, and therefore it must be closed.

It seems like a clever publicity stunt. I predict that this will end in the store being violently shut down by the State.

Bernard von NotHaus Was Arrested

Bernard von NotHaus is the operator of the Liberty Dollar. According to this page, Bernard von NotHaus was arrested by the FBI. Lewrockwell.com also has an article.

I liked the quote on this page.

Here is a very telling quote from an internal staff meeting by William Casey, Director of the CIA in 1981: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

Actually, brainwashing everyone to have perfectly false beliefs is pretty impressive! Then, just by taking the opposite of the majority, you know you're right! This is simultaneously silly and true. The more that pro-State trolls get offended by my writing, the more important the subject. It's like the "Opposite George" episode of Seinfeld (fnord!).

On this page, von NotHaus announced that he was ceasing operations for the Liberty Dollar. As part of the conditions of his bail, he was forced to stop operating the Liberty Dollar business. Notice that, even though he hasn't been convicted of a crime (yet), the judge ordered him to cease operating his business. He decided that he preferred to be out on bail instead of waiting in jail for 6-12 months, so he agreed to the restriction. There is no legal requirement for a judge to offer someone bail, so the judge can demand whatever restrictions he chooses.

Even if he is acquitted, he doesn't recover the time and expense of a trial. The trial is going to last for months. It will extract a financial and physical toll, even if it ends in acquittal. The State bureaucrats can afford to harass von NotHaus, because their salaries are paid by taxation/theft. If you have a very profitable extortion racket, you can afford to spend a lot of resources harassing people who try to end your scam. As long as only a handful resist at a time, this is profitable.

Just like Robert Kahre was railroaded into a conviction in an unfair trial, it is very likely that von NotHaus will be convicted. It seems that every high-profile critic of the Federal Reserve winds up going to jail for income tax evasion or other "victimless" crimes. Once you realize that the Federal Reserve and income tax are one big scam, you have to act on your beliefs. Otherwise, you're accepting your status as a slave.

I'm surprised that he hired a lawyer, instead of going pro se. His lawyer is probably going to argue "The law is legitimate, but von NotHaus did not break it!", instead of "The Federal Reserve is immoral!" Von NotHaus probably won't be allowed to explain to the jury the immorality of the Federal Reserve and financial industry extortion racket.

The Liberty Dollar is immoral and stupid. I disagree with "The Liberty Dollar is illegal!" If I had to rank evil on a relative scale, the Federal Reserve is way more evil than the Liberty Dollar. However, the Liberty Dollar has some undesirable elements.

The Liberty Dollar buys silver at spot ($15 when I wrote this) and sells it at face amount (currently $20). The difference of $5 is profit for the Liberty Dollar business. Liberty Dollars are sold via a multi-level marketing scheme. Also, the Liberty Dollar should have picked a design that didn't look like State-issued money.

A really stupid person could confuse the Liberty Dollar with State-issued money. This potential confusion is probably the reason von NotHaus was assaulted by the State police. I read stories of someone taking a Liberty Dollar to a bank to deposit it, only to have the bank reject it. Some people are stupid enough to accept Liberty Dollars in payment and then try that.

It should be legal to use Liberty Dollars as money if you want to. It's misleading if people confuse the Liberty Dollar with State-issued money.

Businesses like the Liberty Dollar give alternative currencies a bad name. Instead of using Liberty Dollars, you should use generic silver rounds and value them based on the spot price of silver.

Looking at the indictment, the problem seems to be "The Liberty Dollar coins look sort of like US government-issued money." If von NotHaus hadn't made his coins look like State-issued money, then he probably would not have been arrested. On the other hand, then the State bureaucrats would probably have found another frivolous charge.

Even though the Liberty Dollar is stupid, I disagree with "Bernard von NotHaus is a criminal!" It seems that his biggest mistake was making the Liberty Dollar sort of look like State-issued money. If he printed "NOT LEGAL TENDER!" on the Liberty Dollar and made it look different than government money, he probably would not have been assaulted by the State. On the other hand, State bureaucrats always look for loopholes to arrest people who criticize the State.

For example, even if the Liberty Dollar did not look like State-issued money, von NotHaus could have been arrested for not reporting all his sales to the IRS. Whenever you buy or sell silver, it's a taxable transaction. If you use silver as barter money, it's a taxable transaction, with a much more unfavorable tax treatment compared to when you use slave points as money.

Even though the Liberty Dollar is offensive, I'm disappointed to see that von NotHaus is the victim of State violence.

If you want to boycott the Federal Reserve, use generic silver/gold rounds/bars and value them based on the spot price. There's no need to use Liberty Dollars. Even better, quote prices directly in silver or gold instead of slave points. Instead of saying "This costs $30!", say "This costs two ounces of silver!" It's loss-oriented thinking when you only think of prices in terms of slave points.

The Liberty Dollar is not a true alternate currency, because it's still based on Federal Reserve Notes. Stamping "$20" on a silver coin entirely defeats the purpose of an alternate monetary system.

It seems that every high-profile critic of the Federal Reserve winds up in jail, especially if they act on their beliefs. That is a serious problem if I want to promote agorism. Pro-State troll critics like Ron Paul are allowed, because they implicitly endorse the State. If I promote agorism, but don't also act on my beliefs, that makes me a hypocrite. My goal is to start agorist businesses myself, and help other people start agorist businesses. If I'm a high-profile advocate for agorism, then State enforcers will be eager to kidnap and torture me. It's a problem.

Which is Worse - Al Qaeda or the IRS?

According to this page, the IRS investigates approximately 4000 people per year for tax crime, with 2700 prosecutions, and 2100 convictions. The World Trade Center terrorist attack had 2974 victims.

Translating, more Americans have their lives ruined by the IRS each year, than by Al Qaeda.

If your father is kidnapped by the IRS, that's just as bad as if he were murdered by a terrorist. In some ways it's worse, because with a terrorist attack you can collect life insurance. When you go to jail, your wife and children are SOL.

If the IRS prosecutes you and you're acquitted, you still don't recover your legal fees. You aren't reimbursed for the time and expense and stress of the trial. State bureaucrats have an incentive to make a trial as long and stressful as possible.

Being investigated by the IRS is pretty stressful, even if there's no prosecution.

Suppose that there's n people working in the IRS enforcement division, and each is expected to prosecute m cases per year. Then, there will be n*m prosecutions per year, no matter what the merit. The tax law is so complicated that practically anyone could be found in violation.

Some IRS prosecutions, such as that of Irwin Schiff and Robert Kahre, are politically motivated. The tax law allows State insiders to crack down on any small business owner they want to terrorize.

The burden of IRS tax audits hurts small business owners more than executives at large corporations.

If you're a small business owner and your customers pay you in cash, then there are plenty of ways to avoid reporting your income. This leads to confrontations between the IRS and the small business owner. If you're found in violation, you could lose your business or go to jail or pay incredibly huge fines.

If you're an executive at a large corporation, you have an army of accountants. If there's a problem, you can claim "The accountants did the tax forms. I'm not responsible." The accountants can claim "I just work here. I'm not responsible." Unless there's flagrant fraud, nobody suffers any negative consequences. The cost of any fine is paid out of the corporation's assets, which isn't the executive's own money anyway. A small business owner pays the full cost of the IRS audit himself.

Even if you've never been audited by the IRS, fear of the IRS causes many people to be compliant with the tax code. You pay the cost of income taxes and the cost of tax compliance, even if State bureaucrats have never personally assaulted you.

By cultivating a culture of terrorism, most people are bullied into paying. By having outrageously huge criminal fines and penalties for tax evasion, people are bullied into paying. State insiders know that tax collection is the most important function of the government.

Sending someone to jail for income tax evasion is pure terrorism. Tax evasion is not a crime in the sense of natural law, because tax evasion doesn't injure someone else. Sending someone to jail for 10-20 years is almost as evil as murdering them. State bureaucrats aren't outright killing them, but they're still stealing a huge chunk of the victim's life.

If you really think about it, the IRS is a much more dangerous terrorist organization than Al Qaeda. More Americans have their lives ruined by the IRS than by Al Qaeda. Most people have been brainwashed into believing that the IRS is legitimate and necessary. The perceived legitimacy of the State and State tax collectors is precisely what makes them so dangerous.