Pamela Geller's site has a nice report and follow-up titled "FED BEGS FOR SECRECY ON FAILED BANK BAIL OUT".
The argument the Fed is making is that if we knew what they were spending money on, without any oversight and approval from the people by the way, it would place undue stress on those banks.
Even those in Congress openly wonder how The Fed can spend billions without any approval, just by printing more dollars.
William Greider has an excellent article in The Nation where he explains the destructive and uncontrolled actions of this quasi-government body. Since the Fed has been in place, almost 100 years now, we have seen booms and busts, and persistent protection of bankers who are "in the club". His prescriptions, in my view, do not go far enough, as he suggests we retain the money printing press ... which will always be subject to political manipulation.
Read the article, Dismantling the Temple, and learn more. A bit of a left of center view, but worth a look.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
If You Think Health Care is Expensive Now, Wait Until it is Free!
A couple of items cross my desk that gave me pause.
The first was an excellent IBD editorial yesterday.
There is no free lunch, as the article insists, contrary to the "its free!" cry from some of my Canadian relatives. In France
That is a whopping 36% of his total compensation cost going to health care. Thank God it is free, otherwise, no-one could afford it.
Is the care better?
Second item is this chilling email from my sister-in-law, from Canada.
Are you as chilled as I am? Government run health care is not the answer. IT will be MORE expensive (sorry Mr. Obama) and produce poorer results.
The first was an excellent IBD editorial yesterday.
There is no free lunch, as the article insists, contrary to the "its free!" cry from some of my Canadian relatives. In France
a Frenchman making a monthly salary of 3,000 euros has 350 of them deducted for health insurance. Then the employer throws in an additional 1,200 euros.
That is a whopping 36% of his total compensation cost going to health care. Thank God it is free, otherwise, no-one could afford it.
Is the care better?
during an August 2003 heat wave — when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity — 15,000 elderly citizens died.
Second item is this chilling email from my sister-in-law, from Canada.
I know you have been spending a lot time reading and writing about the Canadian health care system and I thought I'd give you an example of a problem we have.
About two weeks ago, my dad accidentally cut off his finger cutting wood. Anyway, he went to the emergency room (he had the finger) and they couldn't sew it back on because they couldn't get surgeon to the hospital for 5 hours and the tissue died. Frankly, I don't think they had the skills or technology anyway, but he did sit there for 5 hours waiting for a surgeon. I don't know if you find that interesting but I did.
Are you as chilled as I am? Government run health care is not the answer. IT will be MORE expensive (sorry Mr. Obama) and produce poorer results.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Fed - Savior or Destructive Force?
News is now emerging that Bernanke is lobbying for his new term as head of the Fed, and will be re-nominated by Obama today.
As I noted previously, Bernanke has been wrong in his outlook and prescription for the economy since 2005. How sure can we be that his current prescriptions for the financial crisis will be the cure? The even bigger question is: how likely is it that government intervention at such a scale can possibly get it right?
I am afraid we can be sure that the Fed will continue to be the problem, and will continue to destroy wealth for everyday Americans, while supporting constituencies: its members and the government. (Members benefited from the Fed bailout -- look at the NY Fed roster - GE, JPMorgan, etc.)
The Fed and its system is an enormous government intervention that we have had now since 1913. Since it was created, it shifted control of money and interest rates to the government. Since then, we are assured of wild booms and busts, and persistent inflation. The Fed cannot be neutral, as it is a government controlled body. So it bends policy to befit its members, and to support government spending.
The Fed members are a closed shop of financial and government appointees, even though the theory was that The Fed was supposed to be independent of government. With so much government control of banks, the banks, who elect members, are under the thumb of government to pack the Fed's 12 regional boards.
So yesterday, we have Denis Hughes, president of the NY AFL-CIO joining the New York Fed! AS THE CHAIR! Welcome Labor to control of interest rates! What ever happened to free market for money? I guess we will not see that until we abolish the Fed, which is unlikely to happen.
The Fed is generally regarded as a positive and stabilizing force in the economy, but trust me, they are an insidious and destructive government intervention ... and they almost always get that intervention wrong.
Fasten your seatbelts.
As I noted previously, Bernanke has been wrong in his outlook and prescription for the economy since 2005. How sure can we be that his current prescriptions for the financial crisis will be the cure? The even bigger question is: how likely is it that government intervention at such a scale can possibly get it right?
I am afraid we can be sure that the Fed will continue to be the problem, and will continue to destroy wealth for everyday Americans, while supporting constituencies: its members and the government. (Members benefited from the Fed bailout -- look at the NY Fed roster - GE, JPMorgan, etc.)
The Fed and its system is an enormous government intervention that we have had now since 1913. Since it was created, it shifted control of money and interest rates to the government. Since then, we are assured of wild booms and busts, and persistent inflation. The Fed cannot be neutral, as it is a government controlled body. So it bends policy to befit its members, and to support government spending.
The Fed members are a closed shop of financial and government appointees, even though the theory was that The Fed was supposed to be independent of government. With so much government control of banks, the banks, who elect members, are under the thumb of government to pack the Fed's 12 regional boards.
So yesterday, we have Denis Hughes, president of the NY AFL-CIO joining the New York Fed! AS THE CHAIR! Welcome Labor to control of interest rates! What ever happened to free market for money? I guess we will not see that until we abolish the Fed, which is unlikely to happen.
The Fed is generally regarded as a positive and stabilizing force in the economy, but trust me, they are an insidious and destructive government intervention ... and they almost always get that intervention wrong.
Fasten your seatbelts.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Howard Dean Speaks What The Left Really Believes: Profits are Inefficient!
My Gosh! At least Howard Dean speaks without a vieled cloak. He says yesterday on Face the Nation that
So in a short sentence, Dean tells us what The Left really thinks. Profits are bad. They are not the reward for providing a good service, but is money removed from the system that could otherwise serve the "public good."
Is this socialism, or what?
Bob Scheaffer lets Dean spout on without any challenge.
Watch CBS Videos Online
"Private health care insurance is incredibly inefficient. Not because the private sector is by nature inefficient. But because they are investor owned and a huge proportion of the money they take in has to go to return on equity."
So in a short sentence, Dean tells us what The Left really thinks. Profits are bad. They are not the reward for providing a good service, but is money removed from the system that could otherwise serve the "public good."
Is this socialism, or what?
Bob Scheaffer lets Dean spout on without any challenge.
Watch CBS Videos Online
Sunday, August 23, 2009
"The Mob" is Not as Organized as "The Left"
The mainstream media reports that people protesting at town halls, on the web, and those calling and writing their congressmen are "mob", organized right-wing extremists and Republicans.
Those same so-called objective reporters suggest that it is the common American that really wants socialized health care. hell, we've got Medicare, and that's government run. If you' re against government run health care, you must also be against Medicare ... the trap is laid ... You must be un-American! they claim.
The reality is that "The Left", which includes the President, the White House, Pelosi and Reid, is extremely organized. The 501 (c) lobby groups do not hide the fact they have the support of the president. Organizing for America has the web url "barackobama.com". These groups have well-oiled shock troops that are mobilzed to "balance" a protest, and present opposing views.
BarackObama.com is not a big fan of argument, reason or discourse. Subscribers are instructed what to do, what to say and when and where to say and do it.
Here are some of the emails that BarackObama.com has sent out to instruct the troops:
Can we recall a time in American history where the President of the United States allowed his name to be used by a political action group to push an agenda. This is highly organized and don't let The Left's media shills tell you otherwise.
Those same so-called objective reporters suggest that it is the common American that really wants socialized health care. hell, we've got Medicare, and that's government run. If you' re against government run health care, you must also be against Medicare ... the trap is laid ... You must be un-American! they claim.
The reality is that "The Left", which includes the President, the White House, Pelosi and Reid, is extremely organized. The 501 (c) lobby groups do not hide the fact they have the support of the president. Organizing for America has the web url "barackobama.com". These groups have well-oiled shock troops that are mobilzed to "balance" a protest, and present opposing views.
BarackObama.com is not a big fan of argument, reason or discourse. Subscribers are instructed what to do, what to say and when and where to say and do it.
Here are some of the emails that BarackObama.com has sent out to instruct the troops:
- Aug 12: I had signed up to "visit" a Senator's office on behalf of BarackObama.com. The emails provided me with "my orders":We put together a step-by-step guide you can use to plan your visit and maximize your impact. You can download the guide and additional information to drop off at the office here:http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/HC_OfficeVisits/OfficeVisit_MD.pdf
"We put together a step-by-step guide you can use to plan your visit and maximize your impact. You can download the guide and additional information to drop off at the office here: DOWNLOAD YOUR OFFICE VISIT GUIDE"
The Office Visit Guide instructed me to print out the guide, practice my pitch by writing it out, specific steps I should take when I visit the office and, of course, told me what my talking points where. I was scheduled at a specific office at a specific time to "take up my post" in the fight against those who might oppose BarackObama.com - Aug 13: I received a follow-up email asking me for a report on my visit.
- Aug 18: I received an email from BarackObama.com:
"Frightened crowds have flooded town halls, and the office of a Georgia representative was defaced with a swastika. Check out the site today and then spread the word to your friends. These lies are no accident. They're part of a deliberate plot by the special interests who profit from the status quo to kill any reform at all."
Can we recall a time in American history where the President of the United States allowed his name to be used by a political action group to push an agenda. This is highly organized and don't let The Left's media shills tell you otherwise.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
What Healthcare Rationing Looks Like: Death, But No Death Boards
A lot of buzz has been made that there will be "death panels" (Sarah Palin) that will make life and death medical decisions.
Fortunately, teh end-of-life counselling mandate looks like it is losing steam, if not already dead, in the Senate.
That doesn't mean the death panels won't happen!! Let me walk through the logic where government management of "pricing" must lad to rationing. That rationing leads to deaths.
Like the frog who slowly dies in cold water being boiled, no-one rings a bell and says "Mrs. Smith will be terminated." It is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of government controlled health care that achieves the same effect.
Again, once government assumes the role of paying for a substantial part of health care costs, either through subsidy or direct pay, it has a vested interest in controlling costs.
In Canada, where I immigrated from, the governments response was to restrict the number of practicing doctors, close hospitals and reduce spending on new equipment and procedures until there were well established. (Where would they be well established? In the United States, of course, that encouraged experimentation and development of new cures!)
Since the supply of services is controlled (and therefore costs become predictable and manageable), how do you manage the demand side of the equation? In a free market system, price intermediates. But in a perfect socialist society, we can't allow that to happen! We will just have people line up for services. We will have a "board of experts" decide the order in which they line up.
This bureaucratic board, combined with a limitation of services, is effectively is the death sentence for many people.
So in Canada, in 2008, you wait 17.3 weeks for your general practitioner. 900,000 people are waiting for hospital beds. Death rates from colon cancer is projected to be 66% higher in Canada.
Government control kills.
Fortunately, teh end-of-life counselling mandate looks like it is losing steam, if not already dead, in the Senate.
That doesn't mean the death panels won't happen!! Let me walk through the logic where government management of "pricing" must lad to rationing. That rationing leads to deaths.
Like the frog who slowly dies in cold water being boiled, no-one rings a bell and says "Mrs. Smith will be terminated." It is the mind-numbing bureaucracy of government controlled health care that achieves the same effect.
Again, once government assumes the role of paying for a substantial part of health care costs, either through subsidy or direct pay, it has a vested interest in controlling costs.
In Canada, where I immigrated from, the governments response was to restrict the number of practicing doctors, close hospitals and reduce spending on new equipment and procedures until there were well established. (Where would they be well established? In the United States, of course, that encouraged experimentation and development of new cures!)
Since the supply of services is controlled (and therefore costs become predictable and manageable), how do you manage the demand side of the equation? In a free market system, price intermediates. But in a perfect socialist society, we can't allow that to happen! We will just have people line up for services. We will have a "board of experts" decide the order in which they line up.
This bureaucratic board, combined with a limitation of services, is effectively is the death sentence for many people.
So in Canada, in 2008, you wait 17.3 weeks for your general practitioner. 900,000 people are waiting for hospital beds. Death rates from colon cancer is projected to be 66% higher in Canada.
Government control kills.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Ok, Mr President. Is Everyone Who Disagrees with You Evil?
I have been documenting the on-going use of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals by The Left and the President. Never before have we seen such an ideological White House, so well versed in radical practices. It views the pursuit of its agenda as a crusade, and sees the destruction of opposing views as a means to an end.
Ridicule, polarization and the use of power are employed by the White House to attack those who want to debate issues.
Viz:
Polarization. Avoid the issue. Attack and demonize the other side. Is this the Change people voted for?
Ridicule, polarization and the use of power are employed by the White House to attack those who want to debate issues.
Viz:
- In Montana last week, Obama told us that insurance companies are holding us hostage.
"We are held hostage at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage or drop coverage or charge fees that people can’t afford”
- Next, Obama attacks the media, the same people who provided no critical and balanced analysis of his policies. "TV loves a ruckus. You've got to be careful about those cable networks." I guess even friends can be enemies if they don't play along.
- The numbers prove that Obama's polarizing efforts are succeeding. Today's Rasmussen Poll shows 32% of people Strongly Approve of Obama, 41% Strongly Disapprove. (In G W Bush's final month in office, 43% Strongly Disapproved.)
- Every media outlet, every Democratic "action": committee, every George Soros radical organization is demagoguing town hall protesters. David Andersen characterizes the attacks:
"The Democrats are losing ground according to the polls and evidenced by the disquiet at town halls from Oregon to New York to Texas to Delaware. They have decided not to address the issues the people have passionately brought up. They have decided to characterize people who differ with them as a staged mob. This is so outrageous that it is beyond the pail.
Since when are people not suppose to express their agreement with a speaker by cheering? Are they not allowed to express their collective disagreement with a proposal with a collective response to a question by saying just say no?" - Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning economists, who has an unproven theory that we can spend, spend spend our way to prosperity, admits that "Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream".
- Obama attack dog Nancy Pelosi, well trained in Alinksy Rules, said last week that American citizens that exercise their free speech rights are Un-American. This is exactly the same term she used in March 2009 to describe raids on illegal immigrant work sites!!! So let me get this straight ... Free speech is Un-American ... Upholding the law is Un-American ...
Polarization. Avoid the issue. Attack and demonize the other side. Is this the Change people voted for?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Health Care Protest "Real, Grass-Roots" - Democratic Senator
Finally, a level headed Senator McCaskill (D-Mo) admits that people who showed up at her towns halls about health care were "real, grass-roots" people.
Now, this seems to contradict the "experts" over at the fair and balanced MSNB Olbermann, always fact based interviews the very balanced Arianna Huffington. (NOT!)
What evidence does anyone have that the concerns are not genuine? (None!) Why not, like Ms McCaskill is doing, deal with the issues, instead of diverting the issue to the messengers?
Again, I fear we are seeing brilliant execution of Salinky's Rule #12 , gladly supported by media "progressives".
Now, this seems to contradict the "experts" over at the fair and balanced MSNB Olbermann, always fact based interviews the very balanced Arianna Huffington. (NOT!)
What evidence does anyone have that the concerns are not genuine? (None!) Why not, like Ms McCaskill is doing, deal with the issues, instead of diverting the issue to the messengers?
Again, I fear we are seeing brilliant execution of Salinky's Rule #12 , gladly supported by media "progressives".
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The Solution to Overspending on Credit? More Credit, of Course!
When I was very young and was learning about money, I would scratch my head when I passed by roadside signs: "Bad Credit, No Credit -- No Problem". So let me think this through .... If I had overspent, had racked up too many loans, and perhaps even started to default on some of them .. but I really really really wanted a new purchase, say a car ... my solution was MORE CREDIT!
Wow! If you spend beyond your means, just borrow more!
Reality sunk in as I matured. The ultimate destination for unbridled spending in our personal lives is bankruptcy, not greater prosperity. Unless, of course, I had a magic spring of cash in my basement that would simply print more money when I needed it. Ahh! Fantasy Land ... I have since learned that I just have to generate more revenue, or cut my spending to generate and accumulate wealth. What an old fashioned concept!
Along comes our Federal Government, with the ability to create fiat money (print money). And what are they doing in response to the "debt crisis"? You got it! Spend more money!
An excellent article, The Debt Crisis Cannot Be Solved with More Debt by David Saied documents how rapid our expansion of debt has been.
As simply as this is not sustainable in our households, it is not sustainable at the national level.
Wow! If you spend beyond your means, just borrow more!
Reality sunk in as I matured. The ultimate destination for unbridled spending in our personal lives is bankruptcy, not greater prosperity. Unless, of course, I had a magic spring of cash in my basement that would simply print more money when I needed it. Ahh! Fantasy Land ... I have since learned that I just have to generate more revenue, or cut my spending to generate and accumulate wealth. What an old fashioned concept!
Along comes our Federal Government, with the ability to create fiat money (print money). And what are they doing in response to the "debt crisis"? You got it! Spend more money!
An excellent article, The Debt Crisis Cannot Be Solved with More Debt by David Saied documents how rapid our expansion of debt has been.
Consumer credit, which in 1950 was only 6% of total gross domestic product (GDP), has by 2009 tripled to 18% of GDP. Bank credit, which in 1947 was 45% of GDP, has by 2009 risen to 67% of GDP. Household debt, which in 1957 was only about 45% of national income, peaked at over 120% of national income by 2007. According to the congressional budget office (CBO), federal debt, which was at an already-high level of 41% of GDP in 2008, is expected to balloon to 200% of GDP by 2038. The CBO expects federal debt to grow to 60% of GDP by 2010.
As simply as this is not sustainable in our households, it is not sustainable at the national level.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Well -- It Seems the AARP is Listening to its Membership!
The AARP has been widely viewed as bring the in the bag for Obama's health care "reform" plans.
Maybe not so!
Today, Newsmax reports:
It's good to see that the AARP is listening to its members. I guess the commotion at the town halls isn't just "right wing radicals" as The Left is trying to paint. It has to include some real people, honestly concerned that this plan is going the wrong way!
Maybe not so!
Today, Newsmax reports:
At the town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., Obama said, "We have the AARP onboard because they know this is a good deal for our seniors." He added, "AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare."
But Tom Nelson, AARP's chief operating officer, said, "Indications that we have endorsed any of the major healthcare reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."
It's good to see that the AARP is listening to its members. I guess the commotion at the town halls isn't just "right wing radicals" as The Left is trying to paint. It has to include some real people, honestly concerned that this plan is going the wrong way!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Obama-backed Rules for Radicals Exposed!
A 501 (c) called Health Care for America Now (HCAN) boasts that "its principles for reform are supported by President Obama". It's steering committee includes ACORN, AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Education Association, and the SEIU.
In case you didn't notice, this is The Left at its best, with many of these organizations funded by "progressive" George Soros. It's hard to say that the hand-painted signs at the health care protest are well-funded, right-wing orgaized protests, especially when facing this highly-organized response SWAT team.
Last week, this group issued a memo to its ground forces, detailing (in 2500+ words) how to respond to "right wing activists" and "tea-bagger" protesters who are protesting at Member of Congress and President Obama's meetings. Tsk, tsk .. we really don't want freedom of speech if we disagree with it, do we?
It is a very good implementation of many of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
The HCAN memo provides tactics to use to thwart everyday Americans who are upset at the sweeping proposals for health care "reform".
Do they want a debate on the issues? HCAN says:
Alinsky' Rule 10 says "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." In other words, if you tell everyone that government health care will be all rosy, maybe people will believe you.
So Obama supports, according to HCAN, grass-roots activists who want to avoid the policy issues and cram down their points of view.
In case you didn't notice, this is The Left at its best, with many of these organizations funded by "progressive" George Soros. It's hard to say that the hand-painted signs at the health care protest are well-funded, right-wing orgaized protests, especially when facing this highly-organized response SWAT team.
Last week, this group issued a memo to its ground forces, detailing (in 2500+ words) how to respond to "right wing activists" and "tea-bagger" protesters who are protesting at Member of Congress and President Obama's meetings. Tsk, tsk .. we really don't want freedom of speech if we disagree with it, do we?
It is a very good implementation of many of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.
The HCAN memo provides tactics to use to thwart everyday Americans who are upset at the sweeping proposals for health care "reform".
Do they want a debate on the issues? HCAN says:
"Do not debate on their “policy” points. Remember, they are seeking a platform to distort the truth about reform by making health care about abortion, rationing, euthanasia, etc. Rather than try to reply with the truth (which won’t move them anyway) we should respond with our message and at every turn re-focus the agenda on communicating with the Member of Congress."
Alinsky' Rule 10 says "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." In other words, if you tell everyone that government health care will be all rosy, maybe people will believe you.
So Obama supports, according to HCAN, grass-roots activists who want to avoid the policy issues and cram down their points of view.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Application of Bully Rules from MSNBC "Host"
I posted Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals a few days ago.
Here is a perfect example of someone who knows how to use the "rules" to drive a radical agenda. Peter Schiff stays on point, despite the rude and unseemly "host".
Here is a perfect example of someone who knows how to use the "rules" to drive a radical agenda. Peter Schiff stays on point, despite the rude and unseemly "host".
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Obama / DNC - Community Organizers, Or President?
Wow ... the President is an activist!
I found "guidance" from the DNC on how to visit my local Senator / Congressman's office and how to spread the word.
Here we have a website BRANDED under the President's name that has a feedback web site (my.BarackObama.com/OfficeFeedback) telling us
Now someone help me ... When was the last time that the President of the United States created guidelines for "community organizing?" and grass roots activism?
Our President is selling hard ... not willing to take feedback that is contrary to his agenda .. and willing to mount his brown-shirts to do his bidding.
Very ominous!!
I found "guidance" from the DNC on how to visit my local Senator / Congressman's office and how to spread the word.
Here we have a website BRANDED under the President's name that has a feedback web site (my.BarackObama.com/OfficeFeedback) telling us
- The position we should be taking.
I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT’S HEALTH INSURANCE GUARANTEES
No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions
No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays
No Cost -Sharing for Preventive Care
No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill
No Gender Discrimination
No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage
Extended Coverage for Young Adults
Guaranteed Insurance Renewal - Talking points to argue in our politicians office.
THE COST OF INACTION in Maryland
810,000 are uninsured today in Maryland, and 740 Marylanders will lose
their health coverage because of rising costs.
The average family premium in Maryland costs $1,100 more because our
system fails to cover everyone.
Our broken health insurance system will cost the Maryland economy
as much as $3.9 billion this year in productivity losses due to lack of
coverage.
Now someone help me ... When was the last time that the President of the United States created guidelines for "community organizing?" and grass roots activism?
Our President is selling hard ... not willing to take feedback that is contrary to his agenda .. and willing to mount his brown-shirts to do his bidding.
Very ominous!!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Spying On Americans --- Obama Style
In December 2005, the Washington Post and New York Times broke an article, stating that Bush Authorized Domestic Spying. Caroline Frederickson of the ACLU said:
Hmmm ... think the new version has greater respect for civil liberties to fight ... er... not terrorism ... but .. Americans who don't like their policies?!
Roll forward to 2009 and a new President in office. Citizens exercising their first amendment rights to free speech protest against the health care "reforms" proposed by the new party in power.
And in August 2009 on http://www.whitehouse.gov, we are asked to snitch on fellow Americans:
Let me see ... Bush was fighting terrorism and intercepted calls to terrorist states ... now American don't like the health care proposal and the White House is asking you to spy on your neighbor.
Reactions
This is politics, Chicago-style. Don't agree with the "chosen one", and you will be spied on, smeared and then what?
This is a dangerous and ominous development.
"It's clear that the administration has been very willing to sacrifice civil liberties in its effort to exercise its authority on terrorism, to the extent that it authorizes criminal activity."
Hmmm ... think the new version has greater respect for civil liberties to fight ... er... not terrorism ... but .. Americans who don't like their policies?!
Roll forward to 2009 and a new President in office. Citizens exercising their first amendment rights to free speech protest against the health care "reforms" proposed by the new party in power.
And in August 2009 on http://www.whitehouse.gov, we are asked to snitch on fellow Americans:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Let me see ... Bush was fighting terrorism and intercepted calls to terrorist states ... now American don't like the health care proposal and the White House is asking you to spy on your neighbor.
Reactions
- Sen John Cornyn (R-Tex) wrote the President asking:
"I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed “fishy” or otherwise inimical to the White House’s political interests."
- The Left has begun labeling Americans who come out and exercise free speech as "Republicans and their rightist allies", "mob rule", and "political terrorists". (Ah, so the program is to fight terrorism, just like Bush was!)
- Bloggers are comparing the actions to Nazi Germany.
"He actually wants people to tell on those of us who oppose the healthcare “reform.” He wants his supporters to send his people (his SS enforcers, I assume) information about who and where his policies are being resisted."
This is politics, Chicago-style. Don't agree with the "chosen one", and you will be spied on, smeared and then what?
This is a dangerous and ominous development.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
What Are We Trying to Accomplish in HealthCare?
When you read the health bills in Congress and the analysis of them, you have to ask, what the heck are we trying to accomplish?
That raises 2 issues: 1. Do we cover people who freely choose not to have coverage? 2. Can we afford it?
Forcing people to play: We don't need to force everyone into care, unless we assume that government will be the nanny for everyone, that people cannot make free decisions in a free society. Many people decide, for good and various reasons that are no concern of the state, that they do not want to pay for health care insurance. They pay for services as they use them. Personally, I would rather have a real "insurance" program that protects me against disaster (like my auto insurance), but leaves me to shop for regular services like a checkup (or an oil change).
Can we afford it? If we agree that the number of people that we will have to pay for is 15 million, then the annual cost to give them an $8,000 "insurance" plan would be $120 Billion per year, or $1.2 Trillion in 10 years. Given the financial state of the federal (and state and local) governments today, can we afford $1.2 Trillion OR MORE? Remember, the first estimates of the cost of Medicare have been exceeded by over 10 times. We can surely rest assured that any estimate of a government run program will be much higher than any conservative estimate.
Hmm? What example (just give me one!!!) can we point to where government action has actually lowered the costs of anything? If the US Government ran Intel, we would still be using 286 chips that cost $500, instead of chips that run millions of times faster for $100.
Will the government be reforming tort law and reducing the costs of malpractice insurance (which by the way, costs more than the costs of covering those 15 million people we mentioned)? Nope! Aren't trial lawyers the top contributor to Democratic PACs?
In a free market, the competitive forces of supply and demand will eventually drive prices down. Many argue that we do not have a free market in healthcare. As mentioned before, we don't have insurance per se. We get a "unlimited pass" once we have paid our out-of-pocket, and we don't have an incentive to shop. (Perhaps that is where we should focus reforms.)
Nope: the only way a government plan can control costs is to limit the supply of services, aka "rationing". In the UK and Canada, that is exactly the way they control costs.
If you remember your basic economics courses, a market will clear when supply and demand are cleared by a market price for those services. When a government eliminates price, demand will be high ... which requires a government to take control of all supply of services and limit them to the "affordable" budget.
When I was studying for my MBA (and was living in Canada at the time), I took a course in Political Economy under Professor John Crispo, an outspoken political commentator in Canada. A presentation from one of my fellow students was a sign of the coming future of healthcare in Canada.
Telling us in 1983 that she reflected Government healthcare ministry policy, she said that we had 3 cost problems: "Doctors, Doctors, Doctors". That policy had its consequences. In the 1990's, Canada was losing up to 771 doctors per year to the United States. Today, Canada has about 188 doctors / 100,000 population. The United States has 256, or 36% more. How long will it be before a government bureaucrat decides the problem with healthcare costs is doctors?
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. The bills presented in Congress do not accomplish even these objectives, but certainly will reduce our liberties. The examples of government success in this area are nil. The examples of government waste, corruption and bad outcomes are plentiful.
- Is it to cover everyone? The so-called, Universal Coverage.
That raises 2 issues: 1. Do we cover people who freely choose not to have coverage? 2. Can we afford it?
Forcing people to play: We don't need to force everyone into care, unless we assume that government will be the nanny for everyone, that people cannot make free decisions in a free society. Many people decide, for good and various reasons that are no concern of the state, that they do not want to pay for health care insurance. They pay for services as they use them. Personally, I would rather have a real "insurance" program that protects me against disaster (like my auto insurance), but leaves me to shop for regular services like a checkup (or an oil change).
Can we afford it? If we agree that the number of people that we will have to pay for is 15 million, then the annual cost to give them an $8,000 "insurance" plan would be $120 Billion per year, or $1.2 Trillion in 10 years. Given the financial state of the federal (and state and local) governments today, can we afford $1.2 Trillion OR MORE? Remember, the first estimates of the cost of Medicare have been exceeded by over 10 times. We can surely rest assured that any estimate of a government run program will be much higher than any conservative estimate.
- Is it to lower costs of health-care?
Hmm? What example (just give me one!!!) can we point to where government action has actually lowered the costs of anything? If the US Government ran Intel, we would still be using 286 chips that cost $500, instead of chips that run millions of times faster for $100.
Will the government be reforming tort law and reducing the costs of malpractice insurance (which by the way, costs more than the costs of covering those 15 million people we mentioned)? Nope! Aren't trial lawyers the top contributor to Democratic PACs?
In a free market, the competitive forces of supply and demand will eventually drive prices down. Many argue that we do not have a free market in healthcare. As mentioned before, we don't have insurance per se. We get a "unlimited pass" once we have paid our out-of-pocket, and we don't have an incentive to shop. (Perhaps that is where we should focus reforms.)
Nope: the only way a government plan can control costs is to limit the supply of services, aka "rationing". In the UK and Canada, that is exactly the way they control costs.
If you remember your basic economics courses, a market will clear when supply and demand are cleared by a market price for those services. When a government eliminates price, demand will be high ... which requires a government to take control of all supply of services and limit them to the "affordable" budget.
When I was studying for my MBA (and was living in Canada at the time), I took a course in Political Economy under Professor John Crispo, an outspoken political commentator in Canada. A presentation from one of my fellow students was a sign of the coming future of healthcare in Canada.
Telling us in 1983 that she reflected Government healthcare ministry policy, she said that we had 3 cost problems: "Doctors, Doctors, Doctors". That policy had its consequences. In the 1990's, Canada was losing up to 771 doctors per year to the United States. Today, Canada has about 188 doctors / 100,000 population. The United States has 256, or 36% more. How long will it be before a government bureaucrat decides the problem with healthcare costs is doctors?
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. The bills presented in Congress do not accomplish even these objectives, but certainly will reduce our liberties. The examples of government success in this area are nil. The examples of government waste, corruption and bad outcomes are plentiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)