Category Archives: economics

My View On Health Care Reform

We don’t need health care reform as proposed by the President and Congress.

We need catastrophic medical insurance only. The same way we have catastrophic insurance for homes.

The way President Obama and Congress propose it, it is like getting “insurance” to cover changing your filters, vacuuming your carpet, mowing your lawn, etc.

It is all paid for by money taken with taxes, which obscures the cost and eliminates any incentive to be reasonable about use.

If you feel you have already paid to have your lawn mowed as much as you want, why not get it mowed every 3 days to keep it perfectly neat/trim? If you have to pay each time with your own money, you can budget for it and make a rational decision on what you actually need. Health care is the same way.

And since the Democrat health care proposal is all based on taxes and then disbursed, it creates several significant problems:
1) There are more transactions, and every transaction adds to the costs. This means it can ONLY increase costs to taxpayers
2) When there is an economic downturn, the govt doesn’t have enough money to pay for everything, and they will make deep cuts in treatment/care. This is happening in Canada and the UK right now, but the US news media’s support of govt-supplied health care leads them to suppress reporting the growing health care supply problems and corresponding growing dissatisfaction in those nations.

Health care costs could be reduced by no less than $50 billion/year (compared to the Obama administrations proposals that will cost $100 billion/year) by just enacting basic tort reform. President Obama and the Democrat-led Congress refuse to even consider it. Sen. Reid dismissed it as not providing enough savings to be worth it.

President Obama said that his health care reform will be paid for in part by $500 billion in savings from ending fraud, waste and abuse. Why doesn’t he eliminate this fraud, waste, and abuse first? Many Americans fear this is another promise he won’t keep, but we won’t know until it is too late, the fraud isn’t cut and we are yet another $500 billion deeper in debt.

There is an essential dishonesty on the part of President Obama and the Congressional Democrats. They make promises of what is and isn’t in the plan. When those promises are criticized or used to make a case against reform that starts to gain traction, proponents of the plan insist the plan isn’t totally completed and passed yet.
If it isn’t completed and passed, how can any promises of what it contains and projected costs savings be considered valid? But health care reform proponents insist that savings are guaranteed, even if it hasn’t been decided whether there will be a public option or not. Democrats people to believe there is a set plan when it comes to making promises, but want to only have a draft proposal when it comes to fact-checking the costs.

We need a catastrophic care coverage insurance plan. That can be backed by the government at an extremely cheap cost, especially if the insurance is purchased at conception.

All other medical costs should be paid out of pocket. Tax-exempt medical savings plans should be approved. Earned Income Tax Credits (which result in more federal money being paid back to low earners than they paid in the first place) can be set to help cover medical payments the same way they already do Child Care. Tort reform needs to be done now. Government scholarships/incentives for medical school to increase the supply of doctors would help decrease costs (based on immutable supply/demand laws of behavior). Doctors can and should be encouraged to do more pro bono work like lawyers do.

I also want income tax day to be on November 1st, I want the 17th Amendment repealed, and I want term limits for congresscritters. But that’s another issue.


1 Comment

Filed under economics, leadership/parenting, Me, philosophy, Politics, Social Issues, Two Kinds of People...

Democrat Party-Designated “Right Wing Terrorist”

Dunno. She seems much more like a freedom fighter to me.

The part I find the most revealing?  The politician doesn’t say he’s not willing to take her money…just that he can’t take her money like that.

I’m going to segue into a point that can’t be emphasized enough: It sounds good to talk about raising taxes to help the “needy”.  But need is always a judgment call.  And if the government is in charge of making those judgment calls, “need” will inevitably be determined on the basis of politics.

No one should want that.

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, leadership/parenting, Link of Admiration, philosophy, Politics, Social Issues, Two Kinds of People...

Why Can’t Democrats Support Their Positions?

That’s kind of a leading question, because I’m sure if you ask Democrats, they will tell you they support their positions extremely well.  They still claim to be the “reality-based” constituency, for some reason.

Of course, part of the problem is we come in with different assumptions.  But as both sides like to say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Unfortunately, Democrats refuse to recognize simple, clear, obvious facts.

The health care problem, as much as it is a problem at all, is a bureaucratic problem.  Democrats want more bureaucracy.  The government is inefficient, but Democrats have never met a problem they didn’t want to use an excuse to increase the size, scope, and power of government.

Or another perfect example.  We had a recession in 2001. Blame Bush for it, I don’t care (because you will anyway, and the source is immaterial).  The point is, President Bush used his political capital to pass tax cuts. Democrats said it would only make the problem worse.  They were wrong.  We had the hottest economy in 2 decades, the only better economy in the last 4 decades being after President Reagan’s tax cuts.  Compare that to this recession.  Again, blame President Bush (you’d be dead wrong, but that’s another problem of Democrats: inability to understand that not everything in the world is President Bush’s or Republicans’ fault*), I don’t care, but President Obama said we needed to increase spending and taxes and give lots of government money** away or things might get really bad.  Well, he got what he wanted, and now things are really, really, really bad.  He’s taken responsibility for the economy at least 4 times by my count; coincidentally, each time the economic prospects seemed to brighten.  But when each proved to be a false dawn and the economy got still worse, President Obama was right back to blaming President Bush.  That’s about as much proof in the world that Republican not only are Republican tax cuts the right response to recessions and the Democrats’ spending increases the wrong response to economic downturns, but it also proves pretty much beyond the shadow of a doubt that Democrats simply don’t understand the economy.  I mean, that should already be obvious by the fact that they support varying degrees of socialism, but this is proof positive!

So there are two reasons Democrats can’t really support their views and methods:

1) since they have no proof for their platforms and proposals, all they can do is try to undermine anyone who takes an opposite position.  If you can get the other person to shut up, they don’t ever have to defend their own views.  Any time you corner and challenge a Democrat to provide proof of his views, that Democrat will respond that it is your burden to prove his views are wrong.  And they won’t accept any proof.  This leads into the second reason:

2) Modern liberalism/progressivism/Democratic Party platform/leftist viewpoint has inseparably grown hand-in-hand with Political Correctness.  Political Correctness carries a core presumption that all the answers are already known, that progressive views are correct, and all that remains is to end all opposition to what is already the correct view.  Since liberals/progressives assume the truth is already known, and they are the sole possessors of that truth, then anyone who opposes them must be completely (perhaps willfully) ignorant, or else deliberately opposing the PC view out of selfish, ulterior, and perhaps evil motives.

Doesn’t that explain pretty much everything that has happened over the last 10 years, at least?  Doesn’t that absolutely explain the hatred and vilification of Bush and Cheney, the near-worship of President Obama, the Democratic Party leadership’s accusation that the true grassroots movement opposing Obama Care (and other massive deficit spending) can only be Nazi-ist astroturfing?  Is it any wonder that instead of answering questions candidly and honestly, they duck out and/or bus in Union and ACORN paid protesters with pre-printed signs?

To tell the truth, this is a useless post.  Conservatives already know this, and liberals will fail to recognize any of the truth in it.

*the current economic crisis was clearly triggered by statements and actions by Democrats in control of Congress indicating they would end tax cuts and forcing financial institutions to abandon sound practices to fulfill a progressive agenda

**there is no such thing as government money, nor “free” benefits from the government.  This is one of the most evil, dishonest tactics of the Democratic Party.  I cannot understand how any moral person can continue to support a party that embraces this basic deception so universally

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, leadership/parenting, philosophy, rant, Social Issues, Two Kinds of People...

Really Bad News for President Obama and Democrats

They have already claimed the recession has turned the corner for the better twice.  All the news media supported that assertion, sometimes through some rather torturous interpretations of data.

Well, for the 2nd time, after the declarations of victory, things turned bleak again with the news that August job losses were 30% worse than projected.

Last time, President Obama blamed his predecessor.  He claims that things were so bad that nobody could have stopped the recession, that things would have been even worse without the stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, blah, blah, blah.

He has zero evidence for all this of course.

The only evidence is that unemployment and the GDP are far worse than he claimed they would be if we didn’t immediately pass all the stimulus plans.  Analysis tells that the stimulus, in all its various forms, ended up actually being:

1) Mostly undisbursed, yet still committed

2) Of the disbursed money, it appears to be mostly payments and sweetheart deals to cronies and contribut0rs

3) almost completely unaccounted for, despite President Obama’s promise of unprecedented transparency

The fact is, the recession was brought on by Democrat actions:

1) Threats to cancel the Bush tax cuts after the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 started the slide

2) Orders from Democrat politicians Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to be more socially progressive in extending credit, especially home loans

3) Massive, ENRON-style fraud in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while being run by prominent Democrats

The final painful fact is that the economy was on much more shaky ground in fall/winter of 2001.  President Bush exhibited leadership by calling for tax cuts. Democrats said it would make the economy worse.  Instead, the economy quickly rebounded.  Job recovery did lag, but caught up in time to prove that the tax cuts worked: President Bush presided over an economy significantly better than Bill Clinton’s .com bubble economy.  President Bush’s excellent economy was denied by Democrats and the news media, and although was not a bubble economy like Clinton’s, it was brought low by Democrats who sabotaged it enacting Democrat platform planks.

With all that, Democrats have proven that they have no leaders that understand even the most basic facts about economics.

We should never, ever, ever trust them with leadership again (until they embrace free market principles of Friedman and Adam Smith).

1 Comment

Filed under economics, leadership/parenting, Link of Admiration, philosophy, Politics, rant, Social Issues, Two Kinds of People...

Health Care Reform

I gotta tell you, this is the way we need to go.

This is very simple.  The government doesn’t create anything.  The government takes a portion of everything the whole country produces.  It can use that money to obtain health care for people, but all normal incentives for acceptable cost determination on the basis of supply and demand are obliterated.

But if health care is a business, then every transaction helps create wealth and reduce waste.

Insurance is a half-step towards government control, which is all about waste and disconnecting true cost-benefit analysis from political cost-benefit analysis.

When I say “true” cost-benefit analysis, I mean that everyone has, or should retain, the right to determine costs vs benefits for themselves.

We don’t have a health care crisis.  We have a bureaucratic crisis.  In the example I linked above, individuals are able to decide for themselves what monetary and non-monetary costs they wish to accept.  And since these costs are all for routine care that everyone needs to have regularly, it makes sense to budget it, rather than trying to get it covered by “insurance.”  Adding insurance to the equation for routine maintenance just adds costs and complexity.

The “insurance” companies are a privatized form of bureaucracy, right?  People who have never met you nor understand your needs are making decisions about what care you are entitled to based on incomprehensible regulations and cost-benefit analysis.  Democrats rightly decry this as a problem (although not a crisis).  But since this is a bureaucratic problem, why would we want to solve the problem by increasing the bureaucracy?

Answer: we don’t.

The answer, linked above, is that insurance should be returned to its original function: providing security for catastrophic events.

Democrats (or anyone arguing for universal, single-payer, or socialist health care) hate the fact that:

a) people can make money off of taking care of people, and

b) rich people can purchase longer lives and/or better health than poor people

These people miss the point.  People make money when they create something of value that people want.  It is a free exchange of goods for money.  There is nothing wrong with it, and increased competition and decreased bureaucracy/regulation will result in reduced prices and increased quality.  Moreover, while rich people can purchase longer lives/better health, by doing so they make medical breakthroughs possible and bring about reduced costs. Heck, a good portion of the time the rich are acting as guinea pigs to find out what works so poor people can use those same techniques and drugs safely and cheaply after they mature!  Win-win!

The bottom line is that anyone who turns to bureaucracy as a solution doesn’t understand the problem in the first place.

1 Comment

Filed under economics, leadership/parenting, Link of Admiration, philosophy, Politics, Social Issues, Two Kinds of People...

Hubble Deep Field Political Angle

The video, via The Corner.

The narrator says something like, “There are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe.  Simply saying that number doesn’t really mean much to us, because it doesn’t provide any context.  Our brains have no way to accurately put that in any meaningful perspective.”
I don’t know if I agree with his assertion.  After all, that’s just about 1/8th (in dollars) of President Obama’s Stimulus Plan to keep us from going over 8% unemployment.  It’s about 1/12th (in dollars) of what President Obama has ballooned the deficit to.  And it’s about 1/10th of what the CBO projects Obama Care would cost us in new spending over the next 10 years.

How’s that for accurate context?

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, snark

If Only We Had Done Nothing…

Just in case the YouTube embed attempts continue to not work:

Leave a comment

Filed under economics, Link of Admiration, Politics