Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Logan Darrow Clements, a former magazine publisher who made headlines in 2005 with his creative rebellion against eminent domain abuse. While his attempt to seize the home of Supreme Court justice David Souter garnered thousands of supporters, his current project will require support to get it off the ground. While Michael Moore plans to release a movie, “Sicko,” in the fall advocating socialized medicine, Clements' plan is to release a movie, “Sick and Sicker,” for theatres at the same time which exposes the realities of socialized medicine.

FP: Logan Darrow Clements, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Clements: Thanks for having me.

FP: So tell us what inspired you to make this film.

Clements: I simply don't want the government to force me and everyone else into socialized medicine.  I don't like being forced around when I haven't done anything wrong and I can see that nearly everything that government does is a complete and utter failure, often with deadly consequences.

I think that the best way to prevent the government from taking over is just to show the realities of socialized medicine in Canada since this is the system that U.S. politicians most often admire. 

FP: Why do you think that nearly everything that government does is a failure? Empirical reality does suggest that the free market always works the best. Why do you think this is so?

Clements: The reason that nearly everything that government does is a failure is because everything that government does is an act of force.  You are forced to do X.  You are forced to not do Y.  It takes money by force from its rightful owner and gives it to another person.  As humans our primary tool of survival is our mind.  However, when the government forces us around we are unable to use our mind.  Instead of each person using their own mind and acting in their own
best self interest we are forced to act in a way that suits the political interests of the people that made the law.

FP: So what difficulties have you had, and are you having, to get this film into gear?

Clements: Fundraising.  People are not aware how close we are to having socialized medicine or single payer foisted upon us.  Everyone will be forced into this system rich and poor, old and young.  If it is designed like Canada's system it will be illegal for you to pay for faster treatment even if you want to.  If you have a life threatening condition or you are in pain you'll simply have to wait in line for your turn to be treated through the government system.  Government bureaucrats will decide if and when you get treatment.  But the affluent pro-liberty people who could fund this movie just don't realize how close we are to disaster.  Perhaps they won't realize what a disaster it is until they need medical care a few years from now and it resembles a visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

FP: I can tell you that as a Canadian myself I know that most of my fellow Canadians pride themselves tremendously on their health care system. It is a way that they distinguish themselves from Americans and foster their own identity. The tragic thing is that they don’t really know anything about their own health care system but without it they would have no self-definition.

So tell us, what are the ethical, as well as pragmatic, arguments against socialized medicine – such as the system in Canada?

Clements: The ethical argument against socialized medicine is that each person is an end in himself and therefore the only proper function of government is to stop the initiation of force against individuals.  When government forces one person to be the means to ends of another person it is violating the rights of the first person.  This happens when the government forces you to subsidize the health expenses of strangers by forcing you to pay into a government health insurance monopoly.  Likewise it is unethical for the government to use force or threaten to use force when a person wants to pay a doctor for treatment.  These two individuals are not initiating force or fraud against any third party and therefore they should be left alone, not treated like criminals.  In some parts of Canada it is illegal to pay for a procedure that the government provides even if you use your own money, having a willing doctor and need faster treatment.

The pragmatic arguments against socialized medicine are that it leads to bad health outcomes.  When health care is provided by the government there is always more demand than supply so health care has to be rationed through the use of waiting lists.  As a result more people die from treatable illnesses, more people suffer in pain for longer periods of time, fewer new technologies and new drugs are available.  Furthermore, the idea that government can provide health care more efficiently, as some proponents advocate, is laughable.  When the government does anything it always costs far more than an average buyer would pay in the free market.  Does anyone remember the Pentagon's purchase of $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats?

FP: Ok, well then what are the solutions?

Clements: The long term solution is to remove as much government interference and create an efficient market.  In all other markets you see price declining and quality improving.  For example, you can buy a computer now that is many hundred times more powerful than one from several decades ago at a small fraction of the cost.  We can see similar improvements in the parts of the health care industry which are not dominated by government interference. The cost for laser eye surgery for example has dropped significantly while the quality of the technique has improved.  Cosmetic procedures have also gone down in price. 

To create an efficient market you need to have consumers care about what something costs and be able to shop around for the best quality at the lowest price.  Toward this end the government needs to level the playing field of insurance such that there is no tax advantage for a person to get their health insurance through their employer rather than buying it themselves. Health Savings Accounts are a good way to do this.  HSA's are like an IRA which allows you to put money in bank account tax-free so long as you use the money to buy a high-deductible health insurance policy and pay for health expenses.  The money rolls over and collects interest.

Just as employers don't pay for their employee's auto insurance they shouldn't pay for their employee's health insurance.  Employees shouldn't be stuck with one plan, connected to one employer that works only in one state. People change jobs too often these days.  And, having something paid for by a third party makes the consumer not care what the cost of it is.  Imagine if a third party agreed to pay for whatever car you need.  I need a Lamborghini, no, make that two Lamborghinis.

It's bad enough when health consumers don't care what something costs because their employer or employer's insurance agency is paying for it. Exacerbating the problem are all the people whose health treatments are paid for as part of a government program.  A large percent of all health consumers have their health care bills paid for by Medicaid, Medicare and various state program.  These consumers don't care if an x-ray costs $50 or
$500. 

Meanwhile state mandates that force insurance companies to cover certain conditions have driven up private health insurance premiums.  States should not be allowed to set the terms of private contracts between health insurance sellers and health insurance buyers.  In addition the cost of medical liability insurance for doctors is out of control because of the number and expense of malpractice lawsuits. Limits on malpractice awards need to be set to rational levels.  And in the terms of the cost of pharmaceuticals the FDA is the major problem.  Aside from violating a persons right to decide what to put in their own body the FDA drives up the cost of drugs by taking years to approve drugs, many of which have already been approved in other countries.  All this time many people are dying who could have been saved if these drugs were approved sooner.

FP: What are your thoughts on how hard it is to get Americans motivated to protect their liberties until it is almost, or actually, too late?

Clements: This is one of the main reasons we are losing our freedom in America.  Most people don't notice when ominous threats are brewing and even fewer are motivated to take any action until it is almost too late.

FP: So when can our readers expect to see the film?

Clements: If we receive a sufficient amount of funding we could have it out in the fall of 2007.  If no one steps forward to help fund our movie we'll probably all have to suffer through Michael Moore's film and go home and take two aspirin.

FP: Well then how can those who support you and this cause help?

Clements: They can donate to the Movie Fund set up by Consumers for Health Care Choices Foundation.  This is a 501c3 organization so their donation will be
tax deductible.  To help, click here.

FP: Logan Darrow Clements, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.