Followup to "A Libertarian Against Howard Dean"

[Updates below.]

In this Catallarchy post, Jonathan Wilde made mention of my broadside against a libertarian Dean vote. Just recently, a Logan Ferree left a comment on that Catallarchy post that addresses some of the things I said in a comment I left in that same post. His words are in italics below, responding to my normal-faced words:

>I remember when the first rumbles of a "single payer" nationalized healthcare system started coming out of the Democrats' presidential camp. Egads am I repelled by that notion. I simply will not vote for *anyone* who endorses such an idea.

Well good, because Dean doesn't support a single payer nationalized health care system.

>Ditto for protectionism,

Wonderful, Dean isn't a protectionist like Gephardt, Kucinich, or Bush.

>affirmative action,

Well, I guess this is one issue where we feel that it's better to have a president that support affirmative action than one that supports a Big Brother warfare state managed by Ashcroft and Rummy.

On Mr. Ferree's first point, I think my initial post is quite clear on Mr. Dean's stance towards a nationalized healthcare system, but I'll add some supporting documentation to make it clearer.

Promoting American Health

In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.

There you have his justification for his programs. It's pretty straightforward: if you can't afford healthcare, you shouldn't have to go without it. He then goes on to promote the high percentages of people in Vermont who have coverage, implying he wants such an outcome for the nation as a whole.

For a year now, I have been traveling this country advocating a repeal of Bush's tax cuts so that we can provide universal healthcare and restore fiscal discipline.

Not very ambiguous there.

Health Care for America

The plan is built on four components:

Start by covering children The plan calls for extending current programs to every child and young adult under 25 up to three times the poverty level. It will also require employer health plans to extend coverage to dependents up to age 25.

Expand to Families For those at lower income levels, extend current programs for children to include parents up to 185 percent of the poverty level. For those above that level, allow them to buy into a health plan similar to the plan for government employees, while providing tax credits to keep insurance affordable.

Support Small Businesses Help small businesses afford coverage by letting them buy into the federal employee look-alike program at reasonable rates.

Send a Message to Large Companies Without any mandates, the government can still send a strong signal to larger businesses that could afford to but don’t provide coverage by limiting their tax deductions and their government contracts.

The Dean plan is ambitious, but realistic, targeted, and affordable. To extend affordable insurance to all Americans, it takes a consensus-based approach that builds on existing systems and that can pass Congress.

So, perhaps attibuting a "single payer nationalized healthcare system" to Dean isn't entirely correct. His plan falls short of that...unless you count this:

Universal Health Benefits Program (UHBP)

Governor Dean’s health insurance plan will establish a new Universal Health Benefits Program (UHBP), open to all Americans (except those eligible for FCHIP, Medicaid or Medicare), providing coverage identical to what members of Congress and federal employees get through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).

[...]

Under the Dean plan, any insurance company that offers a plan to federal workers through the FEHBP will be required to offer an identical plan open to other Americans. All people eligible for the new Universal Health Benefits Program will have a guaranteed right to have that insurance coverage issued to them, at affordable rates.

To ensure that premiums under the UHBP plan actually are affordable, a federally funded reinsurance trust will be available to keep premiums at the levels that would be expected if a broadly representative sample of the public participates in the plan.

[...]

Insurance Enrollment Through Tax Returns

Governor Dean’s plan will automatically enroll uninsured taxpayers in Medicaid, FCHIP, or UHBP insurance plans through their tax returns. For uninsured taxpayers who fail to make a choice, the default result would be their enrollment in the appropriate plan, although they later would again have the option to drop the coverage before paying any premium.

Making enrollment automatic on a tax return would greatly increase the rate at which people participate in insurance plans for which they are eligible. By contrast, currently, about one-quarter of all uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but are not enrolled.

Satisfied? The governor wants to go in a direction that is against everything libertarians should stand for. The outcome (higher rates of healthcare coverage) isn't the problem, it's his means that are horrifying.

For more on his goals, read this:

...it was precisely because the health of my patients was my “first consideration” that I decided to enter public service. And that’s why I persevered as Governor of Vermont to get as close to universal health insurance for the people of my state as I could.

Dean isn't the candidate for anyone who adheres to libertarian principles in terms of heathcare coverage.

For Mr. Ferree's second point, that Mr. Dean isn't a protectionist, I again think my first post is proof enough, but here are more of his positions to solidify my stance against him:

Trade That Benefits All

Having traveled the country and seen the impact first-hand, I am very worried about the effects these job losses are having on communities all across the US. We should be acting to protect jobs here at home and labor and environmental rights abroad with the same enthusiasm that we apply to protecting intellectual property rights, capital, and the interests of investors.

He wants to protect jobs. Cut-and-dried protectionism.

The Crisis of Manufacturing Job Loss

Governor Dean believes that we must acknowledge these [job] losses and take action to help the workers and the families who are feeling the impact the hardest.

[...]

Ensuring tough and effective enforcement of US unfair trade laws against foreign countries and foreign companies that dump and subsidize exports to the US begins with adequate funding for the Commerce Department.

He doesn't come outright in these passages, but the implication is clear. He wants to use the power of the federal government to help domestic industry, wielding the classic "dumping" arguement other protectionists use.

Stemming these job losses also means vigorously opposing legislation that encourages corporations to move overseas.

This is unintentionally ironic. All legislation that imposes costs on businesses makes moving overseas more and more attractive. Legislation that Dean supports.

After years of government deregulation of energy markets, telecommunications, the airlines and other major industries, Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is proposing a significant reversal: a comprehensive "re-regulation" of U.S. businesses.

The former Vermont governor said he would reverse the trend toward deregulation pursued by recent presidents -- including, in some respects, Bill Clinton -- to help restore faith in scandal-plagued U.S. corporations and better protect U.S. workers.

In an interview around midnight Monday on his campaign plane with a small group of reporters, Dean listed likely targets for what he dubbed as his "re-regulation" campaign: utilities, large media companies and any business that offers stock options. Dean did not rule out "re-regulating" the telecommunications industry, too.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Not very consistent there, is he? It's probably his healthcare background; when saving someone is your primary goal, costs are irrelevant.

World Trade Organization

Governor Dean believes that we must also carefully examine the efforts to deregulate trade in services to make sure Americans who work in health, education, commercial and technology services do not suffer a competitive disadvantage.

More protectionism, this time cloaked in the rhetoric of a free trader, which he certainly is not. As a side note, he opposes the Free Trade Area of the Americas on the grounds that it "fails to include...tough labor and environmental provisions."

As for Mr. Ferree's final point about affirmative action, he's presenting a false alternative. He suggests that to not vote for Dean is to vote for President Bush. I can excuse him if he hasn't read the reasons why I won't vote for Bush, but I did mention in my blog post:

Though I have dumped Bush for his domestic policies, it did that because I want to vote for someone who represents my views closer...NOT for someone who represents them worse. That's the whole point of deciding not to vote for someone: that person won't do (or disdains or is ignorant of) the things you want him or her to do.

Additionally, I also said how Michael Badnarik looked appealing as a real libertarian candidate. I would hope my comments don't imply I want President Bush in office or want someone like him; anything but the sort. The criticisms I level against Mr. Dean should make that obvious.

Then there's Ted Rall's Dean endorsement. Yuck.

In any case, I hope this helps further prove why I dislike Howard Dean on these issues.

UPDATE(12/5/2003 8:20pm)
Oh yeah, by the way, Howard Dean is no fiscal conservative.

UPDATE 9/24/2004 5:30pm
The Austin American-Statesman, Voting, Free Speech, and Information

Posted by Drizzten at November 24, 2003 12:26 AM