With the media reeling from the death of Sen. Kennedy, an underreported story is the sleazy machinations of the Massachusetts Democratic Party to ensure another Democrat replaces Kennedy. The Democrats aim to milk Kennedy’s passing in every way. They are already portraying socialized medicine as the fitting tribute to the late millionaire, but the more disturbing prospect is their shameless manipulation of the law regarding his successor. The Republicans need to get in the mud on this one and stake out their own strategic ground.

When Sen. Kerry ran for President in 2004, Sen. Kennedy feared that should Kerry win, Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican replacement. In a purely partisan move directed by Sen. Kennedy, the Democrat MA legislature forced through a new law to prevent Romney from appointing a replacement Senator. Of course Kerry lost, but the statement was made that the MA Governor should not enjoy this customary privilege.

Fast forward to 2009, and Sen. Kennedy has terminal cancer. Now that a Democrat holds the Governor’s office, the ailing Kennedy demanded on his death bed that the law be repealed to ensure a Democrat Senator for MA. Critically, the flip-flop would keep Sen. Reid’s supermajority essential to pass government healthcare. The move is unjustifiable and among the lowest hack political tactics ever. Of course the mainstream media is burying the story. This tactic, which besmirches the Kennedy legacy, is getting a free ride.

Of course dirty politics is a universal practice in Washington, and anyone who plays clean is probably out of office. How can the Republicans answer the Democrat tactics and still take a slightly higher road? Mitt Romney should announce his candidacy for the open seat on Monday.

Kennedy will be buried on Saturday, and the news cycle of his death will begin trailing off on Monday. Expect Democrat politicians to begin calling for an interim appointment early next week, while sympathy for Kennedy and his legacy is at its peak. Even though it may seem unsympathetic, Romney should announce his candidacy timed to steal the Democrats’ thunder.

Until it is changed, the law requires a special election for Kennedy’s seat, and Romney is within reason and right to announce his candidacy. The suddenness of the move will attract national attention, making any quiet repeal of the special election law impossible. Instead of an abstract political maneuver, the Democrats will be seen as torpedoing a former Governor’s legitimate candidacy. Instead of promoting government health care, Democrats would be denying the people their choice. By announcing on Monday, Romney will be executing a master stroke of political jujitsu – turning his opponent’s strengths into weaknesses.

At a minimum, Romney’s move would deny Reid a supermajority for an additional five months, but Romney could actually win. He was a reasonably popular Governor who, unlike today’s Republicans, did promote a health care plan. While MA’s health care plan is flawed, Romney clearly brings a credible voice to the debate, something the Republicans desperately need.

Retake the health care debate momentum. Expose the Democratic Party cynicism and avarice. Deny Reid his supermajority. Play Washington politics to win. Mr. Romney, announce your candidacy for the Senate on Monday.

Many socialized medicine advocates consider health care to be a basic human right. They see any system that does not grant health care to all as violating the rights of the uninsured. No doubt their intentions are good; it is painful to watch a loved one suffer. Sometimes the world seems unfair, and the government should step in. While socialized medicine advocates are well intentioned, they are confusing a right with an entitlement. So, what is a right?

Broadly defined, human rights involve the prevention of one person imposing his will upon another. If a man were dropped on a deserted island, he would have all of his human rights: he could go where he wanted, say what he wanted, keep anything he built or collected, and employ his time how he chose. This castaway would not have the right to food, but would rather have to gather it himself. He would not have the right to a hut, but if he built one, nobody could take it away.

By its nature, health care cannot be a right because it not free or limitless. Health care is the combined work of millions of people who dedicate their careers to researching new treatments, administering care, building hospitals, and running businesses. Most of these people find great satisfaction in their professions, but they also expect to be compensated for their expertise and efforts. They have the right to do what they want and chose the career that best suits them. Socialists like Michael Moore who claim that health care is a ‘right’ must not realize that health care is the result of the voluntary career choices of countless people. The great fallacy of socialism is that greater wealth cannot be willed into existence by the government. The government can only take wealth away from some and give it to others.

The only way to make health care a ‘right’ is to somehow force unwilling people to provide it to people they normally would not. As this blog has shown, however, the demand for subsidized health care is limitless, so rationing in the form of long waits and ‘death panels’ becomes inevitable. The government has a long history of providing such ‘rights,’ usually with disastrous results. Social Security and Medicare, for example, are hopelessly bankrupt and will fail within a few decades.

Yet socialists continue to claim that health care is a basic human right. They live in a fantasy where resources are limitless and the great socialist experiments of the 20^th Century never killed upwards of half a billion people. The only way to deliver false ‘rights’ such as universal health care is to indenture innocent people to work for the collective goal. The next time someone claims a right for himself at your expense, take a moment to explain his error.

Across the US, hundreds of thousands of drivers have changed their minds. Rather than hold on to their older cars for a while longer, they have taken the Government’s incentive to trade up to a newer model. All this amounts to a $3 Bln study that seeks to answer the question: “Do people like free money?” The answer: – drum roll – Yes. What can that tell us about Obamacare and the alleged ‘Death Panels?” Plenty and the picture is ugly.

The subsidized car program is the latest in a long line of programs that distort the free market and cause people to change their otherwise efficient decisions. Presumably, these car buyers were not in the market until the Government stepped in. A consequence of all subsidies, there is now a shortage of subsidized cars and a line has formed to buy them. An axiom of economics is that subsidies cause shortages and inflated pricing.

The free money for cars program offers a glimpse into Obamacare. Pres. Obama can promise all he wants that there will not be lines or rationing (A.K.A. Death Panels), but that is a promise he cannot keep. Health care is just another of life’s necessities, and like all of life’s necessities, the supply is finite. A subsidized necessity always results in shortages and rationing; always. Does Obama want to ration health care and create ‘death panels?’ Of course he does not. Was he sincere when he promised to never do these things? Yes he was, but his well established ignorance of businesses and markets makes his promise insubstantial. Obama probably does not even realize he is making a promise on which he can never deliver.

As with autos, the best way to ensure people make the economically efficient health care choice is to make them pay the full cost of their choice. The single payer health care system that Obama and Speaker Pelosi advocated until recently completely divorces cost from decision making for consumers. The public option they are now pushing is only a stealth pathway to the same end. Even if Obama and Pelosi table the unpopular public option, Obamacare still seeks to subsidize health care, and eventually ration it.

Democrats push their socialist agenda with anecdotes of extremely sick people who cannot afford health care and the misleading statistic of about 40 million uninsured Americans. Extremely sick people younger than Medicare age are extremely rare, and most of the 40 million uninsured Americans know that. Most of the uninsured could afford catastrophic insurance, but they know the odds are strongly in their favor that they will never need it, so they spend their income on more certain comforts. Democrats use the duplicitous argument that because perhaps 10 million people cannot afford health care, the entire system must be socialized for nearly 400 million people.

The nature of the US’s health care troubles has nothing to do with the Democrats’ arguments. Spiraling health care costs and the many uninsured are caused by a disconnect between choice and cost. The only way for the Democrats’ plan to contain costs is to contain choice. Not surprisingly, Republicans also miss the point. They sense the inherent evil in the Democrats’ plan to limit choice, but they also seem to promise choice without responsibility. The Republicans refuse to state the obvious: nobody can have everything. Everyone must make choices based on limited resources – the very definition of economics. Republicans are rightly against government panels that decide which treatments will be available to whom, but they ignore the only alternative which is empowering people to work within limits and be responsible for their own well being.

Republicans did hit on a part of the health care solution in the creation of HSAs. Because HSAs require health care consumers to manage their own money for most of their health care decisions, consumers are forced to better understand their choices and seek the best value. Not surprisingly, the godfather of socialized medicine, Sen. Kennedy, has vowed to outlaw HSAs. HSAs are only partially successful because they must work in a world where choice and cost are most often divorced. Most doctors do not even know the price for their services, and will not give an upfront quote. No other business can operate like that.

Shout Bits does not advocate socialized medicine and does not believe the US Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to have any such role in people’s lives. Nonetheless, the US health care economy has been partially socialized for decades, and Pres. Bush (43) immensely expanded such programs. Since it is impractical to turn back government entitlements, the only choice is to seek the best solution for the mess government health care subsidies have created.

The key element for health care reform is to join choice with responsibility. The HSA model is a good start. When consumers spend their own money, they shop around, educate themselves, and make extremely economically efficient choices. Nothing contains costs better than a free and open market. The Government should encourage a HSA-like system of private insurance for the vast majority of Americans who are reasonably healthy and can afford such health care. The remaining handful of needy people can be addressed separately as a welfare issue. Combining the two issues is a Democrat foil to advance a broad socialist agenda.

The essential libertarian cry is “I can take care of myself. I don’t want the Government’s help.” The essential socialist cry is “we are all in this together, and we need the Government to allocate resources.” That juxtaposition is present in every Washington speech and bill, but never so clear as the current health care debate. The Republican minority needs to sharpen its opposition to the socialized medicine movement with the principles of freedom, choice, and responsibility.