The Real War Behind Common Core Part 3: Public Private Partnerships and the Free MarketOn Aug 30, 2013 4 Comments
In Part 1, I established a backdrop for how the people have lost local control and have confused the public with the private, and indeed have formed mergers called, “public private partnerships” or “P3s.”
I urge you to review each Part in sequence so that you can follow the logic and avoid confusion or misinterpretation of this argument.
Part 2 describes the history behind the P3 and began to discuss what this sacred cow is and how it has killed “choice” in the trade market.
Part 3 here explains more about what this sacred cow is, how it has damaged free enterprise and competition in the health care industry, and how it is applied to education policy.
Comparing “Free Market Choice” in Another Context
What many did not realize when they embraced the concept of “free market-choice” is that because of Heritage Foundation’s development of that movement’s sacred cow – the North American Free Trade agreements, the U.S. would lose millions of jobs overseas, and it would be competing with socialist nations that subsidize their corporations and production. Naturally, this forced our nation to do the same, if we were to compete in this “free” global economy. All very Friedman-esque.
But wait. I wonder, did Milton Friedman anticipate that entering the “free” market of socialist economies that subsidize and manage their private enterprises – or own them – would force the United States to subsidize our private corporations and production and become more socialist ourselves in order to compete with them?
I wonder, because as I recall, we were told that “free trade” was going to force socialist nations to be more like the U.S. capitalist economy that became the greatest place to live on earth to achieve that “American dream.”
This should ring a bell by now, and you can hang it on that sacred cow in education: school choice.
What say you, who have embraced Milton Friedman’s free choice theory? Here’s another example.
Health Care: A Comparison
Doesn’t this sound familiar with how, under ObamaCare, private doctors and insurance companies are expected to compete with FREE health care? Under the State Insurance Exchanges, private insurance is now expected to compete with FREE insurance (Medicaid) as it is a law that everyone must be insured.
At the same time, the hospitals are a doctor-patient’s worst enemy now. They are using the UK model of public-private partnerships, as illustrated with the 2012 merger of Barts Health (St. Bartholomew’s Hospital) and the National Health Service. All in the name of “free market choices.” Remember all those dancing doctors and nurses from NHS at the 2012 London Olympics?
These P3’s – are swallowing up not only the private insurance companies, but also solo and private doctors and smaller hospitals through consolidation, forcing them to eventually become government employees, virtually killing free enterprise capitalism.
Here’s how it worked in Utah:
In the 2013 Utah session a conservative legislature, most of whom convinced the voters that they love the Founders and support the U.S. Constitution, faced a nullification of national health care bill. Nullification is a solid constitutional principle the Framers put into place as a safeguard for Amendments 9-10, the states’ rights (federalist) amendments that establish the vertical checks and balances between the states and the federal government. In today’s statist climate it gets a bad rap, in part because to nullify would typically mean cutting off federal funding, to which the states are now entirely addicted.
Senior members of the House and Senate manipulated the newbies into rejecting the nullification proposal telling them it would never pass and so they eagerly substituted it.
The substitute – a “Prohibition of Medicaid Expansion” bill – heartily passed the House, but when it got to the Senate, two attorney collaborated (naturally) to virtually render it useless. As a representative of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, I worked overtime to at least create the requirement that the Governor had to report to the legislature, and the legislature had to vote on whether Medicaid is expanded or not. What’s more, the conservative Utah governor still cannot make up his mind whether or not to expand Medicaid. We’re told he’ll wait until the next legislative session, after ObamaCare is fully implemented, but that he is “leaning against expansion.”
These elected officials call themselves “conservatives.” My blog site is dedicated to defining that abused term, and I’m here to say that no conservative would balk at an opportunity to keep this nation from moving further to the Left.
Under this conservative legislature’s and governor’s direction, Utah was also one of the first to develop the gateway to facilitate nationalized health care by adopting the state insurance exchange, without which the Obama administration argued in the Supreme Court challenge, ObamaCare could not be implemented.
What part of this plan was not understood?
Utah citizens and legislators alike were duped into believing that Utah’s exchange was a “clearinghouse” that would represent the free market.
Now, many are beginning to see that, first, the Obama Administration showed that it was not going to allow Utah or any state to set up an exchange unless it met its requirements. In fact, the government has announced that you and I are now paying for “brokers” called “navigators” to peddle the “free” choice – Medicaid – when you go to the exchange website and key in your personal information.
Once the FREE option is placed along side of the other insurance plans, guess which one is going to win out? Can you guess? Really. I want to know. This is NOT a trick question. [Check that Left brain seat belt one more time on this jet liner, if you will.]
The real winners have been the states that refused to play. Their refusal severely jeopardized the success of ObamaCare because the federal government has been scrambling to figure out how to fund it without the states’ help they were counting on.
The Free Market in Education
Does this ring a bell in education? I gave a speech to some surgeons recently and after describing the exchange, one astute doctor said, “This reminds me of the public school system.” Indeed, more than he may have realized.
Does this not sound very much like what is happening to the private schools that are now trying to compete with the publicly-subsidized choice/charter schools – those public-private partnerships (P3’s) also supported by the Left and the Right?
Are you aware that private schools are going out of business because they can’t compete with the “free” charter and voucher-receiving schools?
Does this ring another bell? Well, you can hang that one on this lie of how a charter or a voucher provides more choices. I promised in Part 1 that this would all make sense. Are you getting it yet? Hang in there because there’s more.
Free Enterprise and Logic 101 Quiz Question: Whether in health care or education, how do you compete with FREE? [We’re experiencing a little more turbulence here aren’t we. Please keep your Left Brain seat belts fastened.]
One must hand it to these planners: it was a brilliant strategy to force socialism onto the United States.
It is an illusion to believe that Utah is the crown jewel of conservatism – or of logical thinking (not “critical” – more on that in another article).
In Part 4, we will conduct the anatomy of the school choice/charter movement vs. private schools. Stay tuned.
Your suggestions and comments are welcome. This is a costly challenge. We appreciate your donations to the American Leadership Fund so that we can continue to educate and influence state and federal elected officials. Simply click on the donate button at the top right.