Run for Local Office!

Have you considered running for public office, but find yourself intimidated by all the rules and process?
We can help! We have experienced past candidates, and current elected officials, that can train, explain and help you through every step in the process!
If you ran for office before, consider running again, your odds actually go up on the second try!

The deadline for filing for the May Primary is 4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023! Write-In Filing Deadline, 4:00 p.m., February 21.

Here are the localities and roles up for election in Franklin County for 2023:

FRANKLIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of Judicial FDS, Notice of Judicial Candidate Seminars,
Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Special Form 3-I (Franklin County)
Signature Requirement … Min. 50 – Max. 150
Filing Deadline … 4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $80.00 ($50.00 petition filing fee & $30.00 O.E.C. fee)
Offices to be elected:
Judge, full term commencing 1-1-2024 … Andrea C. Peeples
Judge, full term commencing 1-2-2024 … Cindi Morehart
Judge, full term commencing 1-3-2024 … Jarrod B. Skinner
Clerk, full term commencing 1-1-2024 … Lori Tyack
Nominated by petition – these offices do not appear on the primary ballot.

CITY OF COLUMBUS
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Special Columbus – Single; Columbus City Council
Signature Requirement (Mayor) … Min. 1,000 – No Max.c
Signature Requirement (City Council) … Min. 250 – No Max.c
Filing Deadline … 4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition filing fee & $25.00 O.E.C. fee)
Offices … Mayor (Ginther)
… Nine Council Seats (Districts 1 – 9)
Non-Partisan ballot. If no more than two candidates are certified for a contest, then no
primary election will be held.
Additional Requirements:
Petitions shall contain the names and addresses of five registered electors of the City of
Columbus designated in advance by the candidate or candidates as a nominating
committee.

CITY OF GAHANNA
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Special Form Gahanna Mayor Nominating Petition
Signature Requirement … Min. 50 – Max. 100
c
Filing Deadline … 4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
Offices … Mayor (Jadwin)
A non-partisan primary for Mayor only. Two to be nominated.

CITY OF HILLIARD
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Form 2-I
Signature Requirement
Major Party …Min. 50 – Max. 150
Minor Party …..Min. 25 – Max. 75
Filing Deadline…4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
Offices…Three Council Seats
(Marsh, Tarazi, Vermillion)
Partisan Primary – In the event the number of candidates from a political party is less
than or equal to the number of positions to be filled in the next General Election, then no
primary election need be held.
City of Hilliard – INDEPENDENTS:
Petition: Form 3-N
Signature Requirement ….. Min. 159 – Max. 477*
Filing Deadline….4:00 p.m., May 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
Additional requirements per charter – No group petitions and signers of petitions are
restricted to the number of offices to be voted on. Nominating Committee not required.

CITY OF REYNOLDSBURG
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Form 2-I
Signature Requirement
Major Party … Min. 50 – Max. 150 (Ward Council Min. 25 – Max. 75)
Minor Party ….. Min. 25 – Max. 75 (Ward Council Min. 13 – Max. 39)
Filing Deadline…4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
Offices…Mayor (Begeny)
…City Attorney (Shook)
…President of Council (Jenkins)
…Council Wards 1, 2, 3 and 4
(1-Strickland, 2-Salvati, 3-Pyakurel, 4-Lawson-Rowe)
Partisan Primary – If the number of candidates from a political party is less than or
equal to the number of positions to be filled in the next General Election, then no primary
election need be held.
City of Reynoldsburg – INDEPENDENTS:
Petition: Form 3-N
Signature Requirement (Mayor, City Attorney, Pres of Council) Min. TBD – Max. TBD *
Signature Requirement… (Council Ward 1) Min. TBD – Max. TBD *
Signature Requirement… (Council Ward 2) Min. TBD – Max. TBD *
Signature Requirement… (Council Ward 3) Min. TBD – Max. TBD *
Signature Requirement… (Council Ward 4) Min. TBD – Max. TBD *
Filing Deadline….4:00 p.m., May 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
* Signatures required for independent candidates in the Hilliard and Reynoldsburg municipal elections are based on
1% of the total votes for governor at the 2022 General Election.

CITY OF WHITEHALL
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: “Special – Whitehall”
Signature Requirement… Min. 30 – No Max.c
Filing Deadline…4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $45.00 ($20.00 petition fee and $25.00 OEC fee)
Offices…Mayor (Maggard)
… Treasurer (Alexander)
… City Attorney (Bivens)
… President of Council (Potter)
……. Three Council-at-Large Seats
(Bailey, Conison, Kantor)
Non-Partisan Primary – If the number of persons filing such declaration does not exceed
twice the number of offices available for nomination, then no primary election shall be
held for such office. Nominating Committee not required.

VILLAGE OF BRICE charter
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Form Brice Special
Signature Requirement…. Min. 10 – Max. 30c
Filing Deadline…4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee … $30.00 ($10.00 petition fee and $20.00 OEC fee)
Offices…..Mayor
…..Two Council Seats
Non-Partisan Primary – If the number of persons filing such declaration does not exceed twice the number of offices available for nomination, then no primary election shall be held for such office. Petitions shall contain the names and addresses of five registered electors of the Village of Brice designated in advance by the candidate as a nominating
committee.

BOARD OF EDUCATION – COLUMBUS CSD
Handouts: Acknowledgement of Notice of FDS, Acknowledgement of Notice of ORC, Receipt
Petition: Form 2-V- Board of Education Primary (single candidate)
Petition: Board of Education Special (several candidates)
Signature Requirement…….Min. 300 – Max. 900
Filing Deadline…4:00 p.m., February 1, 2023
Filing Fee …….$30.00 ($10.00 pet. & $20.00 O.E.C. fee)
Member of Board of …….Four Board Seats (Adair, Beckerle, Brown, Pierce)
Non-Partisan Primary Election only if there are more than twice the number of candidates as open seats. Columbus City School District candidates are required to file afinancial disclosure statement

c – indicates this is a charter requirement. 

Source: https://vote.franklincountyohio.gov/BOEL-website/media/Election-Info/2023/(1)%20Primary%20Election%20-%20May%202,%202023/(1)%20Notices%20of%20Election/2023-Primary-Schedule-4.pdf

Help get the Libertarian Party back on the ballot!

We need your help to get the Libertarian Party regain ballot access in Ohio. This article helps explain what ballot access is, why it is important to us, and why the Libertarian Party of Ohio does not currently have it. To volunteer, check the “Circulate Petitions” or “Validate Petitions” box on the Volunteer form.

What is “ballot access”?

“Ballot access” is the right to put a political party label under a candidate’s name on the ballot. Having ballot access also enables a party to hold a primary. Under Ohio law (ORC 3501.38, amended in 2013 by Senate Bill 193), a political party must get 3% of the vote for Governor or 3% of the vote for President to gain ballot access for four years. The party must again get 3% of the vote for President or Governor to renew its access for another four years. Supporters of SB 193 designed and timed this bill to prevent the Libertarian Party of Ohio (LPO) from appearing on the ballot in 2014. To correct this injustice, the LPO filed several lawsuits. The federal district court in the first case,  Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Husted, ordered the Secretary of State to keep the LPO on the ballot in 2014 (Court documents).  This case went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which decided to let stand a federal appeals court ruling against the LPO. A suit filed in the state court system in 2015 challenged the constitutionality of SB 193 on the basis of Article V, Section 7 of the Ohio Constitution.

Why the Party needs to circulate petitions now

The law requires us to circulate petitions containing more than 55,000 valid signatures (with at least 500 each from eight of Ohio’s 16 Congressional Districts), and file them by August 2023 to allow our candidates to show the Libertarian label on the ballot. Because petition gathering usually results in a large number of invalid signatures, the state party will attempt to gather at least 110,000 signatures statewide.  The Libertarian Party of Ohio office will be open throughout this year to receive and validate signatures using a method proven successful in our effort to get our 2020 Presidential candidate Gary Johnson on the Ohio ballot as a Libertarian. Volunteers are validating the signatures in a process so laborious that — to do the process correctly — it would take a full-time employee over a year and a half to validate the petitions.

Get involved today!

Regional Development Meeting – Pickaway

Wed, July 27 @ 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

Learn about ballot access, running for local office, state and local issues, and developing a county party to support local candidates and issues.

Jackie Ray’s Grill 20 Cromley St 
Ashville, OH 43103 United States

Get directions and learn more: http://www.fclpo.org/event/regional-development-meeting-pickaway/

FCLP Committee Updates

During the 5/17/2022 business meeting for the Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio Central Committee the following actions were taken.

The following individuals were elected to the following roles:

Central Committee

  • Chair – Michael Sweeney
  • Vice-Chair – John Stewart
  • Treasurer – Chris Gill 
  • Secretary – Ken Holpp

Executive Committee

  • Chair – Michael Sweeney
  • Vice-Chair – Drake Lundstrom
  • Treasurer – Pat Hoffman
  • Secretary – Ken Holpp
  • At Large – Jordan Bertke
  • At Large – John Stewart
  • At Large – Chris Gill

After the elections we discussed and voted on the following changes to the FCLPO By-Laws:

Bylaw D – Central Committee, Section 2.

In the event the Secretary of State denies ballot access as a recognized party, Central Committee shall dissolve at the end of their term. After dissolution a new Executive Committee will be chosen by direct election and assume the duties of this committee not already conferred.

FCLP Bylaws. http://www.fclpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/FranklinCountyBylaws_rev2022.pdf

These changes were adopted by unanimous vote and should be considered applied to the current Central and Executive Committee. 

Thanks to everyone for your patience and generous assistance.

Michael Sweeney

Chair, Franklin County Libertarians

2022 FCLP Central Committee Election Closed

The following individuals have been elected to the Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio Central Committee.

  • John S. Stewart – Gahanna Ward 04
  • Patrick J Hoffman – Madison Township
  • Kenneth D. Holpp – Worthington Ward 01
  • Michael Sweeney – Gahanna Ward 03
  • Jordan T Bertke – Hilliard Ward 04
  • David Nadolny – Worthington Ward 02

The meeting of the full committee, election for Central Committee officers and Executive Committee officers, will occur  at the next regular county party business meeting on May 17th, 2022.

2022 1st Ohio Primary Election Instructions

TOMORROW, MAY 3RD is the first Ohio Primary Election for 2022.

tl;dr If you are a Libertarian in Ohio, be certain to pull an “issues only” ballot for the Ohio Primary Election.


If you intend to join or remain a member of the Libertarian Party of Ohio, and also intend to vote in the Ohio Primary, you must remember to request an “issues only” ballot from your poll workers.Be sure to verify that you were issued an “issues only” ballot and do not have primary candidates for the Republican or Democratic parties.If you do participate in either major party primary you will not be eligible for elected, and in some cases appointed, roles in the state and county Libertarian Parties in Ohio.Be kind and considerate, most poll workers are volunteers and received an hour of rushed training.

FCLPO Central Committee Elections 2022

Please consider this the announcement for the 2022 Franklin County Libertarian Party of Ohio Central Committee election.

In the event the Secretary of State denies ballot access as a recognized party, Central Committee elections shall take place at a central location, at a time and place agreed upon by the outgoing Central Committee.
Elections shall be held in even-numbered years in the same month as the official state primary election.”

The LPO Office will be open to the public for voting in the Central Committee Election from 9am to 6pm, May 3rd, 2022.

After 6pm the votes will be tallied and the new Central Committee will be announced.
At the discretion of the new Central Committee a meeting may be held immediately to elect Central Committee officers, a new Executive Committee, and conduct other party business.
If no meeting is held the election for Central Committee officers and Executive Committee will be scheduled for the next regular ExCom meeting on May 17th, 2022.The following current Central Committee members are running for election. (If you would like to be added for election, please reply to this announcement before April 2nd, and include reliable contact information; contact name, phone and email, so we can be in touch.)

  • John S. Stewart – Gahanna Ward 04
  • Drake Lundstrom – Gahanna Ward 04
  • Patrick J Hoffman – Madison Township
  • Kenneth D. Holpp – Worthington Ward 01
  • Michael Sweeney – Gahanna Ward 03
  • Jordan T Bertke – Hilliard Ward 04
  • David Nadolny – Worthington Ward 02

Franklin County Libertarian Party
c/o Ohio Libertarian Party
6230 Busch Blvd, Suite 102
Columbus, Ohio 43229


Michael Sweeney
Secretary, Central Committee, Franklin County Libertarians

A Tale Of Two Conflicts

In March of 2003, the US invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretenses. 

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, also on the flimsiest of pretenses. 

We hailed our invasion as brave and valiant and necessary for our security. 

We condemned their invasion as barbarous and the work of a power-hungry tyrant.

I’ve been wondering just what the difference is between the two.  The only thing I’ve come up with is, when we invade a country it’s good; when they invade a country it’s bad.

But wait, you say, we were attacked on September 11, 2001.  We were…but not by Iraq.  They didn’t even have the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction we claimed they had.

So, again, what’s the difference between the two?

I see people all over social media praising the Ukrainian citizens fighting against the Russian military as brave and noble.  But some of these same people also condemned the Iraqi people as evil and cowardly for doing the exact same thing against our military. 

And don’t even get me started on Central America. 

If an action is right, shouldn’t it always be right?  If an action is wrong, shouldn’t it always be wrong?

In V For Vendetta, V was the hero for assassinating the leaders of a currupt government and blowing up Parliament.  In The Batman, The Riddler is the villain for doing the exact same thing. 

Is it not the height of hypocrisy to determine the morality of an action based on who it is performing said action?

It seems to me that invading countries that have done you no harmshould always be wrong, and citizens of said countries should always have the right to defend themselves.

Better still, let’s stop trying to play the world’s policemen. 

Ken HolppFCLPO Communications Director

Three Books on Health Care Policy

Medical Apocalypse – the dramatic climax of a very bad horror movie.

The United States has massive problems to solve.  I believe the collapse or corruption of our health care system, our financial system and our election system are the most important to us as libertarians.  Any one of these three issues could destroy the country.  At the very least, our economy and our ability to compete on the world stage have been severely compromised. These issues feed directly into an unsustainably high cost of production which is in turn caused by an unsustainably high cost of living.  America’s costly and inefficient medical system is a major factor.  The result of a high cost of production is a reduced standard of living.  Our health care system is destroying us.Some would make the argument that the failure of our health care system is a failure of the market.   To them, the government must step in to solve the crisis. This is just flat out wrong.  Our health care system is anything but a free market.  What it represents is the failure of government intervention.  Health Care system reform must be a priority for our communication and our candidates.  We must insist that our candidates are educated about the problems and solutions and can explain them well.    We should be communicating as a political party to get this message out and calling out other party candidates and office holders for not providing leadership.  I think the three books I’m about to highlight can provide a foundation for this knowledge and drive home to all of us why this issue is so critically important.    

Priced Out by Uwe Reinhardt was published in 2019, two years after his death.  Reinhardt was the James Madison Professor of Political Economy and Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton.  He was highly regarded by mainstream participants in the health care discussion. His life’s work, including this book, made a clear case that the U.S. Health Care system is a chaotic mess.  Hospitals have pricing and economics that very few people understand, and that includes administrators, doctors and patients.  Reinhardt is a master at breaking down the key metrics to explain the American system and “why it costs so much more and delivers so much less than the systems of every other advanced country.” If you have a desire to wonk out on the economics of health care in the U.S., Priced Out is an excellent choice.A forward for the book was written by William Frist, MD., a Republican from Tennessee who served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007 and as Senate Majority Leader from 2003 to 2007.  Being a heart and lung transplant surgeon by occupation, and a student of Reinhardt, Frist understood the financial complexities and the ethical considerations discussed by Reinhardt.  In the forward, his respect and admiration for Reinhardt is obvious.  

Reinhardt’s analysis of our health care system made him the darling of Congress and mainstream stakeholders.  His grasp of detail and complexity was impressive, but it gave perfect cover for politicians and members of the health care establishment to avoid changing the system.  There are many that benefit from a needlessly complex and dysfunctional system.  This grasp of detail is actually a central flaw in his analysis.  He made it too easy to for politicians and medical professionals to say, “you know, it’s complicated”, or “we did the best we could” or “you can’t change it over night” and “you can only do so much”.  

The second flaw is a central organizing philosophy of Reinhardt’s life’s work, which he considers the fundamental question: “As a matter of national policy, and to the extent that a nation’s health system can make it possible, should the child of a poor American family have the same chance of avoiding preventable illness or of being cured from a preventable illness as does the child of a rich American family?”

William Frist certainly thought the answer was yes.  It is clear he was a fan of George Bush’s compassionate conservatism philosophy and proud of his role in it.  In his forward, he claims credit for writing and passing PEPFAR, The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a framework by which the U.S. government provides money for medical programs, mostly in Africa.  It was launched in 2003.  Since its inception, the United States government has funneled roughly 100 billion dollars into various programs using the authorizing legislation of PEPFAR.  This vast expenditure has mostly had the effect of enriching pharmaceutical company executives and others at the top of the world health food chain while leaving death and destruction behind it.  In my opinion, the record of experimentation and blatant exploitation on the people of Africa is well documented in Robert F. Kennedy’s book which I will mention last in this piece.  Frist should be more ashamed of the PEPFAR program than proud of it.  He seems like a good man.  I wonder if he would concur. 

Frist and Reinhardt are both misled by the central organizing question.  It’s the wrong question phrased in the wrong way leading to the wrong outcome.  It allows politicians to make themselves feel good about themselves by imposing their moral compass on other people.  The question uses phrases like “national policy”, “nation’s health system”, “poor” and “rich”.  The question is a shaming device and implies force to make some people pay for other people’s health care.  The question does not raise any consideration regarding individual responsibility for health of themselves and their children.  The question of cost of the “nation’s” health care is only vaguely referenced and left open ended to an unlimited expense.  What is included in a “nation’s health system”?  Does it include agricultural policy and the incentives for more healthy food as opposed to less healthy food choices?  Does it include food as medicine as opposed to only relying on pharmaceutical drugs?  When American political leaders authorize vast expenditures of money for a continent thousands of miles away, does it ever occur to them to follow up to ensure that money has been put to a good use, not to an evil one?

The problem I see in Reinhardt’s book is not intended as a criticism of the whole work.  He does give an unbiased and tremendously insightful look at the data.  It is a great book to study regarding the problems in our health care system. 

The Price We Pay by Marty Makary, MD, is another great work, also published in 2019 (with an update in 2021).  This book is probably more accessible to the average person than Reinhardt’s book.  Makary is a great story teller.  He is not trying to address every aspect of health care.  His primary focus is hospital system billing practices and the shocking abuse of the low-income wage earner.  Many hospitals systems, and especially the not for profits, sue patients for non-payment of invoices and have the courts garnish their wages.   The patients have no way to know in advance what the cost of the service will be and little they could do to avoid them.  Almost no one understands any particular hospital’s price structure.  Makary mentions one hospital that has over 3,000 contracts, each with a specified discount.  That’s 3,000 different prices for the same medical procedure!  

Makary’s mission has been to lobby Congress over the last couple of years to force hospitals to display their prices in a similar way that food labels are required to include nutritional content. He has achieved some success with this initiative, but unfortunately this success is little known due to being drowned out by the tsunami of Covid information.  Marty Makary’s book is relevant today, and maybe more relevant today after the revelations presented in the third book and last book I’m reviewing.      

The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was published and released to the public in late 2021.  This is a highly controversial book. It blows the lid off the many individuals using science and medicine for their own selfish or evil purposes.  It pulls no punches in accusing Big Pharma and its supporters in government run Public Health agencies of conspiracy, probably criminal, but at minimum worthy of termination of employment and public disgrace.  The conspiracy described is the push for vaccination at the expense of all other public health measures.  The motive for the conspiracy is simply greed and power.  The amount of wealth gained by the perpetrators is immense. The damage to the world’s health is immeasurable.  Kennedy’s book is comprehensive, detailed and exceptionally well referenced, but whether or not the accusations are true, there is no doubt that the leaders of the CDC, NIH, NIAIA, FDA and the majority of the health care establishment will push back. They cannot allow this attack on their actions, motives and reputation to stand.

However, this opinion piece is not about the conspiracy.  It’s about the reform that was discussed in the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations but never got resolved.  It never got resolved because liberals have made nationalized, government run health care one of their signature goals, while conservatives and libertarians have been adamantly opposed.  It never got resolved because the criminal conspirators are masters at covering their tracks and concealing the true problems.  It never got resolved because the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex came together as a nearly unstoppable force in public policy.  The mess we are in today might have been avoided if the right discussions had taken place and we had come to the right conclusions.  Unfortunately, a better solution has not been advocated strongly enough.  We have an opportunity to make a difference because at this point it is painfully obvious to many Americans that government involved health care is dangerous and doesn’t work.  

This system deserves a radical destruction/restructure, but it isn’t always productive to be viewed as too radical.  Fortunately, we can play the Jinga game as well.  There are blocks that can be removed which can dramatically bring down the whole system.  

My favorite goal advocating a small change with big potential to upset the system is to remove any tax advantage for insurance provided by an employer.  This hoary chestnut of a health care policy has been around since right after World War II.  It was promoted by employers to counter union organizers who were advocating health care benefits for union workers.  It has become a Frankenstein monster.  It has enabled insurers to reduce cost by marketing primarily to businesses while only offering crappy, expensive products to individuals.  Over time, this system has created a barrier between the individual and the health care system while HIPPA laws have created a barrier between the health care system and the employer to hide the true cost of the medical from the employer and the employee.  While allowing the insurance fox to guard the medical establishment hen house was in their best interest for a while, it has even begun to work against them.  The medical insurance industry has eaten all the chickens.  Costs have gotten so out of control that insurance companies have nearly destroyed themselves.  Removing the tax advantage for the employer provided insurance over insurance provided to individual will over time put the individual back in charge of his or her health care.  Medical providers will not be able to hide the cost of their services and patients will be enabled to negotiate the price of the services they receive before the service is provided.

The health insurance industry will need to be deregulated in an additional way. Private enterprise would normally elect to offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot buy insurance against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one’s own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person’s health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. “Insurance” against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person’s own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the “winners” and “losers” will be. “Winners” and “losers” are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If “winners” or “losers” could be systematically predicted, “losers” would not want to pool their risk with “winners,” but with other “losers,” because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

The current laws take none of this into account.  Laws, mostly state but some federal, place legal restrictions on the health insurers’ right of refusal — to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable — so the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups’ risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution — benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low-risk groups. 

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care. 

It is good news for libertarians that this initiative is primarily a state issue, an arena in which libertarians can compete on more equal footing.  It is state legislatures that have succumbed to pressure from special interest groups to force insurance carriers to provide coverage for the special risks of their constituency.  This is precisely the reason most conservatives want to remove laws that prevent companies from buying insurance across state lines.  If individuals or companies could buy out of state insurance, it would make the legislators pay attention to what anti-competitive restrictions they are proposing that hurts the insurance companies in their own state.  Not a bad idea.  As our contribution, we can provide the platform upon which state legislators are evaluated.

All licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel must be eliminated. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing — if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a “national standard” of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

Government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices must be eliminated. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own — rather than the government’s — risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

Eliminate all subsidies and special privileges to pharmaceutical companies and hospital systems.  Without a doubt, this means eliminating all liability protection laws currently in place for the pharmaceutical companies.  This liability protection and subsidies from Congress given to the NIH, CDC and others seems to only have encouraged them to make people more sick than to try and cure them, if Robert Kennedy’s book has any truth within it.  Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. If you subsidize ill health you encourage ill health.  Subsidizing ill health promotes carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living.    

We will have to take a hard look at Medicare and Medicaid and highlight any provisions that seem to encourage carelessness with one’s health.  Money should be spent on programs which educate people on healthy living, such as providing it to social service agencies to help the poor navigate the new insurance and health care landscape.  However, force should never be used to make individuals do things which they do not believe is in their own best interest.  We need to take a hard look at agricultural regulations to be ensure that individuals have the information and freedom to make healthy food choices.

The solutions section of this article borrowed heavily from one that originally appeared on Mises.orghttps://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/a-four-step-health-care-solution/

John Stewart – FCLPO At-Large Member