By Richard McCarty

You may have never heard of them, but there is a new, young billionaire couple determined to leave their mark on society. John and Laura Arnold are not interested in the type of philanthropy that builds libraries and college buildings or feeds, clothes, shelters, and educates the poor. No, like George Soros, the Arnolds are on a mission to “change the country,” whether we like it or not. When these arrogant elitists are not busy trying to erode our gun rights, promoting abortion, funding spying on citizens, or trying to upend our electoral system, they are busy trying to cut medical professionals pay. Specifically, the liberal power couple wants to address the issue of surprise medical billing by reducing the amount of money that medical professionals are paid for providing out-of-network care to patients. 

It is unclear why a guy who made his fortune betting on natural gas prices and a lawyer who worked in the oil industry would feel the need to weigh in on medical billing. But apparently they do. Of course, due to the fact that they are siding with the insurance industry, it does raise questions about whether or not they are invested in any insurance companies and stand to grow richer if their policy wishes are enacted.

To be sure, surprise medical billing is a problem. Even if you go to an in-network hospital for care, you could be treated by an out-of-network doctor and wind up with an unexpectedly large bill. There are a couple main proposals to address the issue. 

One proposal, which the Arnolds support, would force out-of-network healthcare providers to accept whatever an insurance company pays in-network providers for their services. It is claimed that this proposal would save insurance companies money and, in turn, reduce costs for consumers and the government. Of course, it could lead to more providers exiting the field, which could be particularly problematic for rural areas that already lack adequate access to health care. 

Forcing medical care providers to take whatever an insurance company offers is concerning. If this were to be made an acceptable practice, what would stop the government from arbitrarily reducing prices of anything that it purchases? Imagine the amounts of money that could be saved if the government required office supply companies and cleaning companies to sell their products and services at cost. While that might seem absurd, is it any more absurd than arbitrarily reducing medical providers’ payments? Just before Enron's implosion, John Arnold received an $8 million bonus. While he's happy to suggest that the government should pass legislation that would lead to medical professionals being paid less, one suspects that he would have objected to a law that reduced his bonus even if it saved the government money.

A better proposal would require binding arbitration if a health insurance company and a medical care provider could not agree on pricing. As with the other proposal, insurers and providers — rather than patients — would be responsible for resolving disputes over surprise bills. States as divergent as Texas and New York have already passed such legislation. 

For a number of years the tight has been telling “woke” entertainers to kindly “shut up and sing.” Now it is time for the Right to deliver a message to the “woke” billionaires, like George Soros, Tom Steyer, and John and Laura Arnold: “Shut up and drink your champagne.” Just because these liberal billionaires have been financially successful does not mean that they have any special insight into health care, abortion, law enforcement, or criminal justice policies. If they are not adequately fulfilled by their champagne-drinking and feel the need to give back to society, maybe they should reconsider feeding, clothing, sheltering, and educating the poor – even though they might find it boring or beneath them.

Richard McCarty is the Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation.

---

Time for the Senate to end Democrat impeachment nightmare

Jan. 31, 2020, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement urging to Senate to acquit President Donald Trump of all charges:

“The Democrat majority in the House of Representatives has embarrassed themselves and have been exposed for their craven effort to politically weaponize the once somber impeachment process.

“For those still clinging to the idea that if the House Democrats can just call more witnesses on the Senate floor that somehow they will stumble upon something resembling an impeachable offense, you will have your chances in November of 2020 to make your voice heard.  But please know that the House impeachment was never about convicting Donald Trump, instead it was nothing more than a chance for coastal politicians to preen in front of cameras and raise money to fund their future political ambitions.  The House impeachment was nothing more than Kabuki Theatre on a national stage with fundraising appeals accompanying every manufactured highlight.

“It is truly sad that the House’s political ambitions were put ahead of our national interest, but in some ways it was good for America to witness the lengths Democrats will go to win power as we head into the 2020 election.”

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2020/01/time-for-the-senate-to-end-democrat-impeachment-nightmare/

---

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from Bizpac Review’s Vivek Saxena, former Sen. Rick Santorum makes the case against the articles of impeachment and in favor of acquittal:

Santorum: ‘House articles of impeachment in the eyes of senators are not sufficient to remove a president’

By Vivek Saxena

Despite all the tears that were shed after the GOP-led Senate voted to not allow witnesses to testify in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, the fact remains that were no legitimate charges for them to testify about in the first place, according to former Sen. Rick Santorum.

In a heated discussion Friday evening with his colleagues at CNN, where he’s been employed since early 2017, the former Pennsylvania senator repeatedly declared that the House Democrats’ case against the president has been flawed from the get-go.

“It’s because, as you heard from many senators who have commented since, you will hear from many more, they believe that the House case as presented in the articles of impeachment is not sufficient on its face to vote to remove a president,” he said early Friday evening after his colleagues began complaining about the no witnesses vote.

“They’re voting on articles of impeachment that the House presented. If the House articles of impeachment in the eyes of senators are not sufficient to remove a president, who cares what the case brings,” he added.

Former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired from his post by Trump in early 2017, disagreed with this mindset, though his rebuttal seemed lacking.

“I agree with the adjectives that have been used by other people [to describe what happened]. It’s a travesty. I go back and forth between thinking, do you call it a sham or do you call it a shame? It’s probably both of those things,” he said.

“John Bolton is going to testify in a way, but it won’t be under oath and it won’t be in the Senate. He’s going to testify in a manner of speaking night after night on television and on the radio and on the radio and in editorial pages for weeks and weeks and weeks.”

If former National Security Adviser John Bolton is going to “testify” publicly regardless of what happens in the trial, then why is forcing him to testify in the trial necessary? Especially when you factor in that the president was slated to be acquitted no matter what?

Bharara then turned his attention to Santorum.

“And the fact that the former senator there on your panel says there’s a technical argument that the Senate trial was based on, even without witnesses and documents, the limited record that was provided to the House, that’s not …,” he said before being cut off.

“That is not what I’m saying!” Santorum said. “Just to be very clear, because everybody is misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m not talking about the record. I’m talking about the articles of impeachment themselves. Not the witnesses, not the record.”

“The actual allegations made against the president in article 1 and article 2 are, of themselves, insufficient to remove a president. That’s what Republicans are saying. You can argue all you want about witnesses, you can argue about documents, the point that’s being made is … still not guilty.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

Liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a CBS News legal analyst and George Washington University law professor, has maintained the exact same point.

“The problem I have is that judging by how they define these two articles, you could impeach every living president on this type of allegations,” he argued last month on CBS News.

While he’s criticized both articles of impeachment, he’s been especially critical of the “obstruction of justice” charge.

“The most troubling for me is the obstruction of Congress,” he continued last month on CBS. ” They set an abbreviated period for investigation, arguably the shortest investigation of any presidential impeachment, depending on how you count the Johnson impeachment days.”

“And then they said if you don’t turn over the evidence during that period, you’re obstructing Congress. Well, President Trump went to court to challenge the necessity of handing over that material. Both Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were allowed to go all the way to the Supreme Court –they ultimately lost, and Nixon resigned soon after. My concern is that this really does seem like you are making an appeal to the court into a high crime or a misdemeanor.”

Listen:

Nevertheless, Bharara persisted Friday with his claim that Bolton’s testimony would have somehow affected the outcome of the president’s trial.

“People understand when you have a person like John Bolton who is close to the president, after the president’s lawyers were saying week after week after week that you have no evidence of someone who has firsthand knowledge, and this person has firsthand knowledge and is prepared to testify, the public is going to perceive that as a sham. And I think that they will,” he said.

“There is a reason why I think there is a debate in the Senate right now about how much deliberation there should be, because senators who understand that it’s a sham, and that common sense renders it a sham, don’t want to spend a lot of time on this and have to explain. Some people do want to explain because they have constituencies who ask them the question, you have a guy who has firsthand knowledge who undermines the chief defense of the president of the United States. Why don’t you let him testify?”

Unfortunately, host Wolf Blitzer chose to block Santorum from replying by interrupting the discussion and drawing viewers’ attention to what was happening in the Senate at the time.

Had the senator been allowed to reply, he may have perhaps chosen to quote the words of Rick Manning, the president of Americans for Limited Government.

In a statement released earlier in the week, he explained why he believes anything Bolton has to say is irrelevant.

“No matter what [he] claims, the facts remain the same,” he said. “The Ukrainian government had zero knowledge that the funds were being held until a story ran on August 28.”

“Senator Ron Johnson, who was meeting with the Ukrainians on September 1 along with Vice President Pence, called President Trump about what they should ask for in exchange for the aid being released, to which the President replied, ‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?’ And, that he would likely be happy with the decision that was made: ‘We’re reviewing it now, and you’ll probably like my final decision.'”

Permalink here.

 

---