Category Archives: Socialism

Chavez Running New Gambit To Break Opposition Media

This doesn’t sound good:

Chavez said the authorities have determined that 25.8 percent of shares in Globovision belong to one of the owners of the Banco Federal, which the government took over last month citing financial problems and irregularities.

With that minority ownership stake, the government will have a right to name a board member of Globovision, Chavez said.

“We’re joining the business,” he said.

Globovision takes a consistent anti-government stance, and its broadcasts have been a frequent target of the president’s wrath.

Chavez also suggested the government could take over an additional 20 percent stake that belonged to a shareholder who recently died, which would raise its ownership to 45.8 percent.

“If someone receives a concession and dies, the state recovers that concession,” he said.

Chavez has been fighting for years to fully consolidate the media in state hands. I’m not sure he’s got enough power to walk in the front door, but he just might have found an unlocked window.

Quote Of The Day

Not sure how it ended up this way, but I’ve got three posts coming this morning on socialism/communism. First we’ve got Friedrich Engels, communist intellectual, opining on the American government in an 1891 work:

Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests…. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society…. Nowhere do “politicians” form a more separate and powerful section of the nation than precisely in North America [i.e., the United States]. There, each of the two major parties which alternately succeed each other in power is itself in turn controlled by people who make a business of politics…. It is in America that we see best how there takes place this process of the state power making itself independent in relation to society …we find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt means and for the most corrupt ends — the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate and plunder it.

His cure isn’t right, but I’ll be damned if he didn’t nail the symptom cold.

The NFL And Los Angeles — Which Taxpayers Get Screwed Worst?

Being a football junkie, engineer, and overall nerd, one of my favorite sports websites is Advanced NFL Stats. They delve into the minutiae of the game at a level relatively unseen elsewhere, in addition to regularly linking commentary about the sport elsewhere that tackles strategy and tactics at almost a “football coach” level rather than ESPN talking-head level.

There’s usually not much overlap with politics, but today the purveyor of the blog, Brian, is discussing whether it’s better for the NFL to have a team in Los Angeles or to have it as a lucrative bargaining chip for other cities:

It may be that the NFL would be foolish not to take advantage of such a large market, but perhaps the current 32 teams are better off leaving LA wanting for a team.

Without a team there, they sacrifice the exposure and revenue LA can provide. On the other hand, a team-less LA might provide the 32 NFL teams much more. As it currently stands, any team trying to wrangle a new stadium or other major concession from its home city and state has a credible threat of a lucrative destination.

If Vikings owner Zigi Wilf wants a new stadium, with LA in the mix, he’s likely to get more cooperation from Minnesotans, fans and government alike. If Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver is seeking deep discounts on his lease or a bigger share of the stadium concessions, he’ll get a better reception with LA as a suitor than if Portland or Oklahoma City were the next best alternatives.

Based on this analysis, I would think that the taxpayers of cities with NFL stadiums are desperately hoping that LA gets a team. After all, as the actual victims of the extortion that local team owners foist on city officials, they’ve got the biggest dog in this fight.

What’s sad in this analysis (and I don’t discredit Brian for leaving it out, as he’s not — to my knowledge — a libertarian, and even if he were his blog is not a political policy blog in any way) is that it is merely a foregone conclusion that team owners can expect cities to bend over backwards to build stadiums if the teams merely have a credible threat to leave.

In a sane world, stadium funding wouldn’t have anything to do with city government, except maybe for zoning and traffic planning considerations. In fact, to the extend that infrastructure needs are stressed by the stadium, a city/state would be justified in extracting money from the team to help cover the externalities imposed upon neighboring residents due to the impact of the new stadium. But we don’t live in a sane world. We live in a world where local officials have an ego-driven need to keep teams in the city, and are willing to spend a lot of money in order to do so (it is easy since it’s not their own money). Team owners know this, so they’ll do whatever it takes to shunt the cost onto the taxpayer as well.

If this is the way the game is played, I hope for the rest of the country’s sake that LA gets at team. It would be nice to have professional football here in addition to USC.

Venezuela: Ruled By A Complete Madman

If it wasn’t already evident that Hugo Chavez is a complete madman, the exhuming of the long dead revolutionary Simon Bolivar should prove that to you:

(Reuters) – Venezuela exhumed the remains of 19th century independence hero Simon Bolivar on Friday and will test them to see if he was poisoned by enemies in Colombia.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez rejects the traditional account that Bolivar, a brilliant Venezuelan military tactician who freed much of South America from centuries of Spanish rule, died of tuberculosis in Colombia in 1830.

He insists Bolivar was murdered by a Colombian rival, and Venezuela’s newly inaugurated state forensics laboratory is taking as its first case the death of the hero some call Latin America’s George Washington.

The insanity continues considerably with Chavez’s ramblings as he seems to orgasm and faun over the skeleton of Bolivar:

“What amazing moments we have lived tonight! We have seen the remains of the Great Bolivar,” Chavez wrote on his Twitter account, @chavezcandanga, after the casket was opened before dawn.

“My God, my God … my Christ, our Christ … I confess we have cried, we have sworn. I tell them: this glorious skeleton must be Bolivar because you can feel his presence. My God.”

This is sick stuff. Meanwhile, the Hard Left in the United States has been acting in accordance with this sick puppy as he utilizes populist sentiment to expand power and enrich himself. Food is being rationed for the Venezuelan people while Chavez, who had a very trim figure in his revolutionary days, is well fed and plump.

Who Defends 40% Taxation?

Saw this (original comic by Wuerker of Politico) at The Big Picture:

My question… In what world is it fair that any entity stakes a forcible claim to 40% of your income? It doesn’t matter that the number was higher in the past, the number is simply too high.

Again, that number is 40%!

You go to work, you work your ass off for a 10 hour day (as most people in this income group do), and at the end of the day 4 of the 10 hours you worked were for the government? For every $100 you earn, the feds take $40 (not counting social security, medicare, state income and/or sales taxes, fees, etc).

40%?!?!?! The recommended portions of your income to put towards HOUSING EXPENSES is 28%. You’re expected to spend far more of your income on your government than on your own house? Absurd!

We can debate the use of the word “socialism” all we want. But I think if every payday someone had to cut a check for 40% of their income just to feed the gaping mouths in Washington, the very idea of 40% tax rates would start a revolution. But instead, we have people explaining it away and waving us off because the rates used to be higher.

But I Thought This Was The [Secret] Plan?

Sometimes this gets tiring. I’m getting a bit sick of showing that bad consequences, entirely foreseeable (and possibly planned) and predicted, are coming to fruition — and the power-brokers in Washington have the gall to actually act appaled?

The great mystery surrounding the historic health care bill is how the corporations that provide coverage for most Americans — coverage they know and prize — will react to the new law’s radically different regime of subsidies, penalties, and taxes. Now, we’re getting a remarkable inside look at the options AT&T, Deere, and other big companies are weighing to deal with the new legislation.

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

Of course, the pols in Washington didn’t want this to come to light too quickly:

In the days after President Obama signed the bill on March 24, a number of companies announced big write downs due to some fiscal changes it ushered in. The legislation eliminated a company’s right to deduct the federal retiree drug-benefit subsidy from their corporate taxes. That reduced projected revenue. As a result, AT&T (T, Fortune 500) and Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500) took well-publicized charges of around $1 billion.

The request yielded 1,100 pages of documents from four major employers: AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar and Deere (DE, Fortune 500). No sooner did the Democrats on the Energy Committee read them than they abruptly cancelled the hearings. On April 14, the Committee’s majority staff issued a memo stating that the write downs were “proper and in accordance with SEC rules.” The committee also stated that the memos took a generally sunny view of the new legislation. The documents, said the Democrats’ memo, show that “the overall impact of health reform on large employers could be beneficial.”

Nowhere in the five-page report did the majority staff mention that not one, but all four companies, were weighing the costs and benefits of dropping their coverage.

An optimist — or a rube — would suggest that this is an unintended consequence of the legislation. That, after all, all of their cost estimates were based on employers largely keeping their employees on their own plans. And, after all, this bill was but a small move to cover those who were uncovered, not an attempt to overtake the American health care system in toto. That’s what they said, right?

Many said that the goal of the legislators was to get employers to toss their employees onto the exchanges, but it was denied. So why is it that rather than string these employers up in front of Congress, vilifying them for being uncaring profit-whores who would throw their employees on the hands of the government exchanges, Waxman swept this under the rug and canceled the hearings?

Could it be that these discussions weren’t the unplanned, unintended consequences of the legislation? That maybe this really was the intent?

H/T: David Henderson @ EconLog

ObamaCare’s Immediate Impact

As we all know, most of ObamaCare is pushed out to 2014 or so. But Ezra Klein, ever helpful, points out this nice PDF which explains what will occur nearly immediately. Ezra is always celebrating the cost-control measures of ObamaCare, so let’s see how these provisions stack up:

1. SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDITS—Offers tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable. Tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums will be immediately available to firms that choose to offer coverage. Effective beginning for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2014, the small business tax credits will cover 50 percent of premiums.)

Okay, an immediate hit to Uncle Sugar here, but probably not big unless it really changes behavior immediately. So we start hurting the deficit right away. This is a net hit on government spending, but one might think that it probably won’t do much to private healthcare costs in the short run. I expect this will result in marginally increased coverage and thus will show no real change to health insurance premiums.

2. BEGINS TO CLOSE THE MEDICARE PART D DONUT HOLE—Provides a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the donut hole in 2010. Effective for calendar year 2010. (Beginning in 2011, institutes a 50% discount on brand?name drugs in the donut hole; also completely closes the donut hole by 2020.)

Another government spending hit on drug coverage. In 2011, a 0% subsidy in this range jumps to 50%. According to Wikipedia, this may affect somewhere in the range of 25% of Medicare Part D enrollees. I’ll leave it to others to quantify this, but this is another spending measure.

3. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER MEDICARE—Eliminates co?payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services from deductibles under the Medicare program. Effective beginning January 1, 2011.

Oh, look! Another government spending increase subsidy! And as one of Ezra’s colleagues at WaPo points out, preventative care doesn’t really lower total medical spending costs. So overall this is not a cost-control measure for government budgets or spending in general.

4. HELP FOR EARLY RETIREES—Creates a temporary re?insurance program (until the Exchanges are available) to help offset the costs of expensive health claims for employers that provide health benefits for retirees age 55?64. Effective 90 days after enactment

Another subsidy. This’ll mainly hit government, I don’t see a major change to insurance premiums here. There may be additional companies who provide early-retiree benefits, but only union jobs and government tend to do so. Most who are wealthy enough to retire early on their own will cover their own medical insurance costs — not their employer.

5. ENDS RESCISSIONS—Bans health plans from dropping people from coverage when they get sick. Effective 6 months after enactment.

And here we go. The first of [many] provisions that will raise private insurance premiums. Of course, this depends on how common rescissions are. The left says they happen OMG like ALL THE TIME, so if they’re right, it’s a big hit. I don’t think it’s a huge change, but it’s definitely going to raise premiums.

6. NO DISCRIMINATON AGAINST CHILDREN WITH PRE?EXISTING CONDITIONS—Prohibits health plans from denying coverage to children with pre?existing conditions. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, this prohibition would apply to all persons.)

Again, an increase to private health insurance premiums. But hey, who’ll complain? After all, it’s for the children.

7. BANS LIFETIME LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Prohibits health plans from placing lifetime caps on coverage. Effective 6 months after enactment.

Again, if you think anything other than that this will increase premiums up front, you’re smoking something. And you shouldn’t be smoking, because it’s bad for you. But on the bright side, in 6 months you can be assured your lung cancer will be treated with no limits. And don’t worry about lying about that smoking habit on your insurance application, because rescissions are banned too.

(UPDATE 7:55 AM PDT: Commenter Fabio Escobar notes that rescissions are still allowed in cases of fraud, so it would be best not to lie on those applications, folks.)

8. BANS RESTRICTIVE ANNUAL LIMITS ON COVERAGE—Tightly restricts new plans’ use of annual limits to ensure access to needed care. These tight restrictions will be defined by HHS. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2014, the use of any annual limits would be prohibited for all plans.)

Again, we have a regulation that’ll up private premiums. [Do you see a pattern here?] Costs must be amortized, so this added risk is going to show up in premium hikes rather than limits on annual coverage. Insurance is built to hedge risk, and its increasingly looking like the risks to the insurer don’t expire [until you do].

9. FREE PREVENTIVE CARE UNDER NEW PRIVATE PLANS—Requires new private plans to cover preventive services with no co?payments and with preventive services being exempt from deductibles. Effective 6 months after enactment. (Beginning in 2018, this requirement applies to all plans.)

Ahh, two fun ones here. Immediate premium increase (costs must be amortized, you know), and a probable increase in total healthcare costs, for the aforementioned reason that preventative care doesn’t lower total spending.

10. NEW, INDEPENDENT APPEALS PROCESS—Ensures consumers in new plans have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal decisions by their health insurance plan. Effective 6 months after enactment.

Again, here come higher premiums. Unless you think the external appeals boards are going to rule less in favor of the patient than the insurance companies would have, of course. Since the left believes insurers deny care left and right, this has to be a big impact, right?

11. ENSURING VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS—Requires plans in the individual and small group market to spend 80 percent of premium dollars on medical services, and plans in the large group market to spend 85 percent. Insurers that do not meet these thresholds must provide rebates to policyholders. Effective on January 1, 2011.

“Ensuring value for premium payments” sounds a lot nicer than “capping profit margins”, doesn’t it? If the left’s belief that insurers are fat and happy and spend all their money on lavish bonuses instead of medical services, this would in fact be a cost control measure. One story from late last year suggests insurers already spend above 80% (Wall Street analysts say low 80’s, industry says 87%). Overall, my read is that this probably isn’t a major component either way.

12. IMMEDIATE HELP FOR THE UNINSURED UNTIL EXCHANGE IS AVAILABLE (INTERIM HIGH?RISK POOL)—Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre?existing condition ? through a temporary high?risk pool. Effective 90 days after enactment.

Initially there’ll be $5B in subsidy for this risk pool. It’s unclear whether some of this funding will replace existing state gov’t funding (35 states already have high-risk pools), so I’m not sure how much of that $5B is a net adder to the total cost. But the simple fact is this — while it might be better for some of those people currently denied due to pre-existing conditions (i.e. 100% risks), much of the cost will come out of *OUR* pockets.

13. EXTENDS COVERAGE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO 26TH BIRTHDAY THROUGH PARENTS’ INSURANCE – Requires health plans to allow young people up to their 26th birthday to remain on their parents’ insurance policy, at the parents’ choice. Effective 6 months after enactment.

This one just baffles me. Should we really be disincentivizing kids adults to get good jobs where they might be covered? I can understand an exemption for people on the 7+ year college program (hopefully grad school, not this guy), but if your offspring is 24 and not in school, it seems to me that it’s not your employer’s problem to provide them with health insurance (since it’s usually the cheapest method). Perhaps this *IS* actually a cost-control measure, since most 23-25 year olds are healthy and will add to the risk pool. But even so, I can imagine “Employee + Family” or “Employee + Children” plans increasing in premium, because they’re not usually charged based on how many kids are specifically enrolled.

14. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS—Increases funding for Community Health Centers to allow for nearly a doubling of the number of patients seen by the centers over the next 5 years. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

There’s short-run deficit cost here, but the goal is understandable. Clinics are likely a better way of treating immediate non-emergency medical needs than emergency rooms, so there may be some cost-reduction in the delivery method of care. Presumably not all of the supposed “doubling” of patients will be people whose only alternative was a regular doctor visit or ER visit, so there may be some gross increase in the total number of patients served. This one could go either way, and I’ll leave it to the statisticians to score it. But I’ll grant that there’s at least a possibility of cost-control here.

15. INCREASING NUMBER OF PRIMARY CARE DOCTORS—Provides new investment in training programs to increase the number of primary care doctors, nurses, and public health professionals. Effective beginning in fiscal year 2010.

Again, another big subsidy. Gives 10% bonuses to PCP and General Surgeons starting in 2011, and it’s unclear here what “new investment in training programs” really amounts to, but the early notes I’ve seen suggest it’s largely student loan repayment changes. I don’t see that much here that will blunt the existing trend for doctors to head into specialization rather than primary care. 10% is nice but it’s nowhere near the difference between a specialist’s salary and a primary care doctor.

16. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY—Prohibits new group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees. Effective 6 months after enactment.

This one is also somewhat vague. But usually when I hear about plans to avoid “eligibility rules” that “discriminate”, I think they’re trying to find ways to make it impossible to discriminate against bad health risks. Richer people tend to be healthier people, so it seems that if they accomplish their goal, it necessarily raises premiums.

17. HEALTH INSURANCE CONSUMER INFORMATION—Provides aid to states in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals. Effective beginning in FY 2010.

Ahh, a two-fer! First is the direct government subsidy to states to hire new “consultants”. The second is the premium increase by pushing harder against health providers regarding complaints and appeals, which will likely often be adjudicated by the external appeals boards mentioned in point 10.

18. CREATES NEW, VOLUNTARY, PUBLIC LONG?TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM—Creates a long?term care insurance program to be financed by voluntary payroll deductions to provide benefits to adults who become functionally disabled. Effective on January 1, 2011.

Voluntary? I wonder how long it will remain so. And how exactly does this different from the disability portion of Social Security? All I see here is a big new shiny bureaucracy, that will work as quickly as possible to entrench themselves by making this as involuntary as possible.

Conclusion:

So there you have it, folks. Of 18 highlighted points, most or all of them will increase payments made by government or increase health insurance premiums. This is “bending the cost curve”.

UPDATE 7:09 AM PDT: Welcome Instapundit, Powerline, and Tigerhawk readers! Feel free to take a look around to find out more about us, and we hope a few of you may come back from time to time.

A Must Watch on “Climate Change” from Climate Skeptic

Warren is local to me (he lives about three miles away actually), and runs both the excellent libertarian small business and economics blog CoyoteBlog, and the absolutely essential climate blog Climate Skeptic.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Just because people make bad choices…

…Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have any choice at all. The first freedom is the freedom to fail…

And when it comes to choosing our leaders in this country… whoooo boy have we failed big time, for a long time.

So fellow gunblogger Tam, being an Ovarian American, got a bit tweaked at a comment over at Travis Corcorans site (for those who don’t know, Travis is a somewhat radical libertarian… and for that matter so is Tam) t’other day:

“I think that female suffrage has been an unremitted disaster – all of the socialism that we’ve experienced in the US has happened since, and because women have been allowed to vote.”

Excluding snark, Tams comment boiled down to “correlation does not equal causation”; which normally I am one of the first to trumpet… but in this case there is a causative link… Or at least most major studies of voting demographics seem to show one.

The other part of her comment was that she (nor anyone) shouldn’t be denied the right to vote (which is not, in fact, a right; but a privilege as a member of society. It can be granted by society, taken away by society, and does not exist in any context without society, therefore is not a right.) because of the choices some might make.

And in that, I’m entirely with her.

But we really do need to look at why women, in the significant majority, vote for the nanny state; and on the larger scale in general, why people who vote for nannyism do so.

The three major events or major societal changes in 20th century that did more to advance the nanny government than all other events combined were:

1. World War 1
2. Womens suffrage
3. Massive expansion of university education

I note “directly” above, because indirectly the 16th and 17th amendments (income tax, and direct election of senators) may have had an even greater effect; and enabled and encouraged such nannyism… in fact the current nannystate would be impossible without them… but were not direct contributors to voting for nannyism.. In fact income taxes tend to push voting away from nannyism… at least for those who actually pay those taxes.

I’ve talked about point 1 before (along with about a hundred scholarly books, phd. dissertations etc…). By depriving most of Europe of a full generation of its healthiest, most aggressive, and most ambitious men; an environment was created that was dominated by the risk averse, and those who were hurting and suffering… and the entirety of Europe has never really recovered. Basically, the ’14-’18 war took the guts out of the continent, and they haven’t come back, (bar a minor resurgence for the second great war… and it sadly was a minor resurgence. Just look at England).

Everyone and their uncle has looked at point 3.

Point two though… it’s one of those third rail topics. You can’t talk about it publicly or you risk being eviscerated by… well by Tam for example, never mind the lefties.

So first things first. Point two is true, by all available statistics. Historically speaking, women vote for more nannyism at about 2/3 to 1/3.

HOWEVER, just because item two is true (and some rather exhaustive demographic studies have been done showing that it is) doesn’t mean women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

American blacks and hispanics are more likely to vote for leftists idiocy too (over 80% to 20% for blacks, hispanics are highly variable), that doesn’t mean they should be barred from voting either.

The first freedom is the freedom to fail. That includes the freedom to make bad choices; even if those bad choices effect other members of society (this is where the anarchists, Spoonerists, and Rothbardites usually jump up and down and start yelling).

The thing is this: It’s not that women, blacks, or hispanics are inherently more socialist than white males; or are less capable of making good political judgments. It’s that they perceive (I think, in general, wrongly) that their interest is better served with leftist policies.

In general, over the long term, and free of interference or distortion; people will vote their perceived interests.

The “more vulnerable” of society (which up until recently included the majority of women, blacks, and hispanics) will almost always vote for more “safety” than more freedom; because as I said above, the first freedom is freedom to fail, and they have historically been more likely to suffer under the negative consequences of failure, and therefore perceive the risk/reward metric differently than white males have historically.

Also, both the most wealthy, and most educated members of society (who believe either that the negatives impacts of leftism wont effect them greatly; or that they can benefit more from the “system” if more government control is in place, at the expense of the slightly less educated risk taking capitalists that would otherwise dominate), and the poorest and least educated members of society (who generally believe that they will not be able to succeed to a greater degree than the government would provide largess), generally, vote for more protectionism, socialism, leftism etc…

This is true even in rural “white” “bible belt” America, where protectionism, unions, government works projects and the like are seen as good business economically; even while voting for socially conservative policies and politicians.

Also, this split is by no means stable. As I said, people will tend to vote their perceived interests. Men will vote left and women will vote right, if the positions floated match their perceived interest. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected by landslide four times. Reagan was elected by landslide twice.

The problem then is not that women, minorities, and the poor vote left, or vote for socialism necessarily.

The problem is that they perceive (generally incorrectly) that their interests, and at least to some extent the interests of society, are better served by leftism.

So the task for us, is making the large majority of the people understand that leftism, even in the soft and limited forms of it like public works projects, job protection policies, tarrifs etc… is not in their interest, or the interest of society as a whole.

That’s a rather difficult task; because for someone who is naturally risk averse, capitalism (and specifically libertarian free market based capitalism) seems very risky… Heck, it IS very risky, that’s the point. You take risks, you fail, and you have the freedom to get back up and take more risks and succeed (or fail again).

Many people out there would happily vote for a “guaranteed” living, even if it was less than half what they could be making without a “guarantee”, and even if you could prove to them the “guarantee” was really false. It’s just the way they’re wired, and no amount of facts or logical arguments are going to convince them.

Many others are willing to accept a bit of risk, but they want a great big “safety net” underneath them for when they fall.

These people, even if they are shown it isn’t really true… they WANT it to be true bad enough, that they are willing to try and force that vision on the rest of us.

Those people (and by conventional estimate they make up about 40% of the population) are ALWAYS going to vote for the “safety and security” lie. They are going to vote for the nanny no matter what.

On the other hand, there are about 40% of the population who are always going to vote for the riskier path, that they can reap more reward from.

Even in Reagans 49 state landslide vs. Mondale, he only got 58.8% of the popular vote.

Nixon crushed Mcgovern 49 to 1 as well, and it was still a 60%/40% split.

Even in Roosevelts “New Deal” landslide against Hoover, he only got 57.4% of the popular vote (in ’36 against Alf Landon, 60.8%, the biggest landslide since the civil war. In ’40 against Wendell Wilkie, 54.7%. In ’44 against Thomas Dewey, 53.4%).

The 40% on either side is a pretty stable number; barring major events in society that temporarily distort it, like wars and disasters…. And even then, in the last 110 years, in every national election, the left has never had less than 35%, and neither has the right… And neither have had more than 60.8% either.

The fact is, some people will believe what they want to believe, or what they’re afraid to believe, over the truth; no matter how clear the truth is made to them.

It’s the remaining 20% that we need to get to, and teach them that it is ALWAYS a lie.

In a society where the government does not artificially force the private economy into failure, the government cannot possibly do better for you than you can do for yourself. Giving the government more power, and more control, is NEVER in your best interest, or in the interest of society.

Saying that “womens suffrage caused socialism” (which isn’t what Travis said exactly, but it’s certainly what a lot of people would hear from what he said) isn’t exactly helpful in that.

I am a cynically romantic optimistic pessimist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. I am a (somewhat disgruntled) muscular minarchist… something like a constructive anarchist.

Basically what that means, is that I believe, all things being equal, responsible adults should be able to do whatever the hell they want to do, so long as nobody’s getting hurt, who isn’t paying extra

Bruce Bartlett, May Your Chains Set Lightly Upon You

Ezra Klein quotes approvingly from Bruce Bartlett’s new book, The New American Economy: The Failure Of Reaganomics And A New Way Forward:

The reality is that even before spending exploded to deal with the economic crisis, the government was set to grow by about 50 percent of GDP over the next generation just to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits under current law. When the crunch comes and the need for a major increase in revenue becomes overwhelming, I expect that Republicans will refuse to participate in the process. If Democrats have to raise taxes with no bipartisan support, then they will have no choice but to cater to the demand of their party’s most liberal wing. This will mean higher rates on businesses and entrepreneurs, and soak-the-rich policies that would make Franklin D. Roosevelt blush.

Shorter: “Hey conservatives, you’ve completely and hopelessly lost the spending war. If you don’t play nice, you’re going to get even more screwed by the tax man than if you sit at the table.”

To which Samuel Adams might have responded: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”

In short, Bruce Bartlett has surrendered. He has taken the view “posit a giant welfare state — now what’s the best way to pay for it?” He suggests that if conservatives try to set the menu at — as Billy Beck would call it — the cannibal pot, that MAYBE they’ll just lose an arm and not the leg to go along with it.

All in all, Bartlett’s view is probably the calmest and most peaceful answer. But it gives us a nation that is so unlike America that I’m not sure I want a part of it. The peaceful way out is to accept that Democracy has given us a giant welfare state, that Democracy is never going to rescind it, and that therefore we might as well pay for it. He’s taking Mencken’s quote at face value:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

Bartlett is arguing that if we’re all to be slaves, it’s best to suck up and hope for the job of overseer, holding the whip rather than tasting its lash.

But I’m not ready to surrender.

Bruce Bartlett says that if we don’t find a way to pay for the monstrosity growing out of Washington, the whole system will come crashing down. I say I’d prefer that to the “success” of the system as the social democrats want it to exist.

Bruce Bartlett says that the “starve the beast” tactic doesn’t work, as the beast keeps on growing. Well consider me a cancerous tumor hoping to infect the populace into becoming an ever-growing resistance that eats away at the beast’s insides until it dies of rot.

Bruce Bartlett wants conservatives to make sure they have a seat at the table to divvy up the “spoils”. Well, if he wants to be a good little Tory, that’s his choice. He’s taken sides, and despite his pleas, the fight will rage on.

Somewhere deep inside, despite a century of statism trying to weaken it with bread and circuses, the spirit of America still exists. Until that’s no longer the case, I’ll take the side of Freedom.

On promises made and broken

In the lead up to the vote on H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America” Act (scare quotes intentional), Barack Obama offered this encouragement to legislators to vote for the bill:

“This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us,” Obama told reporters in the White House rose garden. “Even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard, this is our moment to deliver.”

Two-hundred and fifteen did live up to the trust we placed in them, while two-hundred and twenty failed to do the same. How exactly is that trust defined? In the oath of office taken by each and every United States Representative:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Each and every Representative took a solemn oath to “bear true faith and allegiance” to the Constitution. Each and every Representative who affirmed the House health care bill, with its threats of fines and prison for not buying “government-approved” health insurance, has forsaken that oath. The mandates contained in the Pelosi bill are a kludge, a poor attempt to graft a clearly unconstitutional power such as this on to the enumerated powers of the commerce clause and taxation.

To attempt such a thing, one cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. At best, those who attempted this hold the Constitution in the same regard that the 17-year-old script kiddie in his parents’ basement has for security measures–both are interesting challenges that require interesting solutions. At worst, they hold the Constitution in contempt and are actively working to debase the very core of the social contract between the government and the people.

In either case, it is now our turn as patriots to remind our Representatives that while they do not hold themselves to their oaths and promises, we do. In a little less than a year from now, voting booths across this great land will open again, and one of 435 representatives will be seeking your affirmation. If your representative has forsaken his or her oath to the Constitution, withhold it. It’s not about party affiliations or common views, it’s about holding legislators accountable for the promises they make to us.

Do your duty as a patriot. Refuse to support legislators who vote to abuse the Constitution or the People of the United States.

The House values Control over Health Care

So it is done: 220-215. Two-hundred and twenty United States Representatives put their support behind 20 pounds and 2,000 pages of abusive legislation in the form of innumerable mandates enforced by 110 new government agencies.

One of those mandates, though, cuts so violently to the core of our freedoms that it cannot go unanswered: Buy insurance or face the wrath of the IRS. From Representative Dave Camp:

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

Imagine being faced with the loss of a job. That is a rough event for anyone to go through. Now, under the Pelosi/Obama plan, you have the following choice: Buy insurance you likely can’t afford with far less income coming in, pay 2.5% of the income you do have coming in to the government for *nothing*, or go to jail.

That choice has no place in a bill about reforming our broken health care system. That choice is about criminalizing people for not behaving as the self-styled ruling class wishes them to. When it comes to undocumented immigrants, Democrats love to say that “no one is illegal”. When it comes to economic diversity, they tell us that those who will not be controlled are illegal.

The media says this is a bill about health care. So do the Democrats. They lie. This is a bill about control. The bill’s proponents want to control you. Whether or not you actually get health care is irrelevant.

Update: Coyote Blog links to a WSJ article detailing some of the high (low?) points of the legislation. Here’s what you must do under the Pelosi/Obama plan:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Think that’s bad? Go read the rest of it.

Update: Here’s a link to the roll call vote so you can see if your Representative is one of the 220 who wants to control you.

Quote Of The Day

Hugo (via Cato):

Every day I’m more of a revolutionary, every day I’m more socialist… I’m going to take Venezuela toward socialism, with the people and the workers…The revolution is not negotiable, socialism is not negotiable, because every day I’m more convinced that socialism is the kingdom of God on earth. That is what Christ came to announce.

My personal belief (that Christ may have been an anarcho-socialist) notwithstanding, I fail to understand how creating a system of mass oppression, malnutrition, and the rationing of electricity and water has to do with Jesus. Maybe he’s taking Jesus admonishment about the likelihood of a rich man entering heaven a bit too literally, and wants to ensure there are no rich men in Venezuela.

So I’ll leave it up to you, readers… Can you make sense of Chavez? Give it your best shot.

An HSA Isn’t Insurance

My old representative when I lived in Georgia, Tom Price, has offered competing health care legislation to the Democrats’ bills. I’m not a health-care wonk, so I’m not going to get into the meat of his proposal, but apparently one of the key points is limiting the employer-provided health insurance tax deduction and extending a tax deduction to individuals purchasing insurance. While painful, the only way to fix health insurance in this country is to break the link between employment and insurance (and not substitute “Gov’t” for “Employer”, of course).

What I am writing about, instead, is criticism of his position on health care, as offered by Ezra Klein:

In the interview, Price explained that he couldn’t abide by an individual mandate because it meant Congress would define what constituted insurance, and that would harm awesome products of the market like Health Savings Accounts and catastrophic policies. Defining insurance, Price said, is not a good role for Congress.

This is a weird argument given that Rep. Price voted for the legislation that created and defined HSAs.

HSAs are accounts that Congress has blessed with a special exemption from taxation. That means they were created by an act of Congress (the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, to be precise), and they are defined in legislation written by Congress. You can see the regulations here. Price is really saying that Congress shouldn’t define insurance in a way that harms other things that Congress has defined as insurance. But that makes for a rather worse soundbite. The argument here, however, is not a philosophical question about the reach of Congress. It’s an argument about what the minimum level of health-care insurance should look like.

There’s a problem with this criticism. Health Savings Accounts are not intended to be insurance. Health insurance premiums are amounts you spend every month to guard against having to pay huge amounts of money that you don’t expect to pay. Health Savings Accounts are tax-free accounts where you save money that you DO expect to pay. And fundamentally, the link Ezra provide explains this in a FAQ:

A Health Savings Account is an alternative to traditional health insurance; it is a savings product that offers a different way for consumers to pay for their health care. HSAs enable you to pay for current health expenses and save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis.

You must be covered by a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) to be able to take advantage of HSAs. An HDHP generally costs less than what traditional health care coverage costs, so the money that you save on insurance can therefore be put into the Health Savings Account.

An HDHP is insurance. An HSA is a savings account. An HDHP is a true insurance product — risk-pooling amongst a large group of people with the expectation that only a portion of them will develop claims which require payment, and thus all pay only a small portion in premiums of what those claims might actually pay. An HSA is not an insurance product, it is simply a way to pay for day-to-day health care expenses tax-free. There is no risk-pooling, and there is no contract to cover any costs beyond what the individual has saved in his HSA.

Compare this situation to automobiles. In the auto world, there are two common types of insurance — actual collision/liability insurance, and warranties. Collision/liability insurance is similar to an HDHP, in that you are protecting yourself from the financial liability not only for your own vehicle, but for property damage and injury to yourself and others in excess of the cost of your vehicle. Warranties are similar to tradition American full-coverage health insurance, in that they are risk-pooled ways to ensure that mechanical defect of the car does not cost you, the owner, huge sums of money to fix. It is a true insurance product in that the cost of the warranty does not usually approach the full expected cost of a large repair (i.e. new engine, transmission, etc), and thus protects you from large expense. In many warranties, this also shields against cost of small repairs (failure of power window motor, radio malfunction, etc) which might not reach the sticker cost of the warranty, but are included in coverage to attract buyers.

Very few warranties, however, cover daily expenses. They don’t cover filling your car up with gas. They don’t cover oil changes. They don’t cover tires or other wear-and-tear items. They don’t cover getting the car detailed. They don’t cover smog inspection or registration fees. They don’t cover new stereo systems or body kits. This is where an HSA would fit into the mix. If Congress decided that automobiles were as important as health care, they could easily build a Car Savings Account plan that covers your expected car spending. It would give you as an owner a way to build a small tax-free account to cover planned automobile expenses, and likely include some things which might not be covered by traditional insurance (OTC medicines, LASIK, fertility treatments, etc). And if you had a Car Savings Account, people would probably look at you funny if you described it as insurance.

Price was fighting against an individual mandate not because Congress doesn’t know whether to call X or Y insurance, but because he realizes that the individual mandate will likely force people out of HDHP’s and into “qualified” insurance products, which will be host to a bunch of coverage requirements that an HDHP will not. For Ezra Klein, this is a feature, not a bug, because he wants to see individuals who are young and healthy and might choose the HDHP route forced into subsidizing care for everyone else by joining risk pools that will charge them a premium far in excess of their risk profile. Price understood that it’s not about Congress “defining” insurance. “Insurance” is a pretty well-known concept, which HDHPs fit and HSAs don’t. Price understands that a mandate, however, puts politicians in the position of what floor a plan must meet to be a qualified insurance plan, and that Congress will set that floor in such a way to effectively outlaw HDHPs and make HSAs pointless. He sees that a lot of individuals choose these types of plans, and he doesn’t want to take that choice away.

Klein’s last statement is correct: “It’s an argument about what the minimum level of health-care insurance should look like.” Tom Price wants you to have a choice to pick a low-premium, high-deductible plan that only covers you for catastrophic events, and gives you the ability to save and negotiate prices for day-to-day costs which you’ll pay out of pocket. Klein wants to take that choice away and force you into a much higher premium, full-service plan, which you’re unlikely to actually use. A Congressional mandate says that you MUST have care and that it MUST conform to what Congress defines as insurance — thus destroying some products (HDHPs) available in the market as insurance products today. Lack of a mandate ensures that the market provides insurance products that people want to buy, and the fact that Congress chose to also offer HSAs is a tax cut, not defining an insurance product.

Quote of the Day: Unlearned Lessons of Failed Experiments Edition

Peter Suderman writing for The Wall Street Journal has written an excellent article about the (apparent) unlearned lessons of government run healthcare. But unlike many others who use Canada and the UK as examples, Suderman insists that we only need to look at states like New York, Massachusetts, Washington, and Tennessee for their respective failed experiments with some of the very reforms being proposed by Obama and the Democrat controlled congress.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously envisioned the states serving as laboratories, trying “novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” And on health care, that’s just what they’ve done.

[…]

Despite these state-level failures, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing forward a slate of similar reforms. Unlike most high-school science fair participants, they seem unaware that the point of doing experiments is to identify what actually works. Instead, they’ve identified what doesn’t—and decided to do it again.

Of course if government did learn lessons of failed government policy…it wouldn’t be government.

Read the whole article to learn what future all Americans have in store should President Obama and the Democrats have their way.

Hey Ezra, Strawman Much?

Ahh, the infamous strawman. Take one aspect of an argument, assume it is not part of a cohesive whole, and argue against it as if it negates everything else at hand. I.e. libertarians and conservatives argue that capping drug prices just MIGHT reduce drug innovation, and Ezra Klein acts as if we’d keep everything else equal in the system:

For a long time, I took questions about stifling innovation very seriously. So did a lot of liberals. But then I realized that the people making those arguments wanted to do things like means-test Medicare, or increase cost-sharing across the system, and generally reduce costs in this or that way, which would cut innovation in exactly the same way that single-payer would hypothetically cut innovation: by reducing profits.

I also found that I couldn’t get an answer to a very simple question: What level of spending on health care was optimal for innovation? Should we double spending? Triple it? Cut it by 10 percent? Simply give a larger portion of it to drug and device manufacturers? I’d be interested in a proposal meant to maximize medical innovation. I’ve not yet seen one.

It turned out that concerns about innovation weren’t really about innovation at all. They were just about attacking universal health care ideas of a certain sort. Which is why I stopped taking them seriously.

No libertarian in the world will argue that government spending can’t achieve certain goals. After all, government spending got us to the moon. If you set the goal of American society, as Kennedy did, as getting to the moon within a decade, then you forcibly take the money to pay for the goal [since Americans weren’t exactly going there of their own accord], you can probably get there.

Likewise, if government really put its mind to drastically advancing medical innovation, and threw out, say, $50B a year for drug research to stem the growth of most types of cancer, I’ll bet within two decades they might have results. While money doesn’t exactly solve everything, government subsidies can certainly accelerate development. Granted, that cancer research might be at the expense of heart disease research, and AIDS research, and diabetes research, and just about everything else [excepting penis enlargement research, of course, because that’s always a growth industry].

But now I’m getting away from the point. Why is this a strawman? Because opponents to gov’t healthcare view the death of medical innovation as one bad side effect of a wider bad policy, not the most important argument against gov’t healthcare.

Look at it this way. We don’t argue that there is no innovation in the digital music player industry because gov’t doesn’t spend enough. After all, we’ve got all different flavors of iPods, the new Zune, all manner of knockoff players and tiny upstarts, not to mention the fact that just about every new cellphone or car stereo can play MP3’s. Ten years ago, when I was in college, MP3’s were limited to those of us savvy enough to navigate Napster, hook our computers up to our stereos, and had a fast enough internet connection to make the whole deal worthwhile. Today MP3 players are ubiquitous and digital music threatens to destroy the entire existing business model of music production.

I’m not going to address the conservative rebuttals, but I’ll take a look at this from a libertarian perspective. Libertarians aren’t opposed to profits. We are not opposed to competition. We are not opposed to market-based prices that may, in some cases, not cover the costs of drug development. We don’t view medical innovation as a simple question of “should WE spend X or 2X or 3X?” Not because we don’t have an opinion on optimal spending — we may or may not — but because we oppose to the WE. We implies collective action, and usually implies forced collective action.

The WE, of course, has a lot of unintended consequences to it. If the WE becomes too large [cough]medicare[/cough], it tends to crowd out private spending. When private spending is crowded out, prices become opaque. They cease to be a clear sign of market value and cease to be a proper incentive for producers. As I said above, $50B a year in research money would entice quite a few drugmakers to focus R&D onto cancer. But is that the optimal amount to spend? Would that be useful or wasteful? What is the opportunity cost of pulling that money out of the economy through taxation and redistributing it through the government? All these questions distort the free market, and when you try to distort the free market you end up with problems.

There are two SIGNIFICANT government distortions specifically into drugs: the patent scheme and the FDA.

The FDA:

Simply put, the FDA’s job is to restrict access to medicine until in meets very stringent guidelines. The doctrinaire libertarian position on the FDA is that it needlessly delays medicine that has some efficacy and takes away freedom of choice from individuals who may wish to take personal risks by purchasing that medicine despite the FDA’s lack of recognition.

The doctrinaire libertarian position is a moral position on individual choice, but the economic case is much simpler and stronger. FDA regulation artificially raises the cost of creating new medicines. If your R&D division knows that of all the medicines they research, only 40% will be effective, and only 10% will be approved through FDA trials, you know that 75% of effective drugs they create cannot be purchased. This means that they must more than double the price of drugs to cover R&D on those which wouldn’t be effective, and then quadruple the price beyond that for those which would have been effective but not meet FDA approval. Prices charged for drugs are dependent as much on covering the cost of failure as the cost of success.

Patents:

From a doctrinaire libertarian perspective, you can go two ways on patents. First is that intellectual property isn’t property, and patents are simply government distortion into the market that should be distorted. I like the argument, but even as a doctrinaire libertarian, I’m not far enough behind the anti-IP program to defend it (see mises.org for that one). The opposite (yet still doctrinaire libertarian) argument is that intellectual property should not be arbitrarily time-limited by the government, and that the patent protection time is too short.

The second argument is an explanation for the price of drugs. When you develop a new drug, have to recoup the development & testing costs of that drug, need to recoup all the development costs of the failed drugs, you need to forecast the expected use of that drug between the time it launches and the time your patent expires. Once that patent expires, you’re fighting generics for market share. If you think that 10,000 people per year might need your drug, and you have patent protection for 5 years, you know what price you need to set to recoup your investment and make a profit. If your patent protection extends for 10 years, though, you can set the price at roughly 1/2 the level and still make your profit.

Either way, from an economic standpoint the extension of patent protection might reduce costs and improve pharmaceutical innovation. Reducing patent protection might increase short-term costs (reducing them long-term) but at the expense of pharmaceutical innovation. There are trade-offs and issues no matter what you do.

The solution:

Frankly, the solution isn’t to ask what WE should spend on health care or medicine, just as WE don’t ask what WE should spend for iPods, HDTV’s, heads of lettuce or pickup trucks. The difference is that in those products, we have a functional market. In a functional market, competition and choice lead to efficiency and an optimal mix of innovation vs. price.

The solution is NOT price controls. Economic history shows that price controls lead to shortages.

The solution is NOT rationing. Rationing doesn’t control prices but controls expenditures (unit volume). Rationing increases prices and/or leads to shortages.

The doctrinaire libertarian solution is to reduce the role of the FDA and put more responsibility on the individual to choose health care options, and to ensure that intellectual property laws are set optimally to protect innovation. The free market is known for reducing prices and increasing innovation. Perhaps we should have more of this “free market” thing.
» Read more

AARP Ad: Opponents of ObamaCare Oppose “Health Care Reform”

The “Ambulance Commercial” from AARP claims that the “special interest groups” are “trying to derail” the healthcare debate. Those who oppose “reform” are “spreading myths” about rationing of care. In case you’ve missed it, here’s the ad:

One of the things that really makes me angry about this debate is the way groups like AARP, the Obama Administration, and the Democrat Party use straw man arguments to characterize those of us who oppose government run healthcare are “anti-reform” or happy with the system the way it is. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I’m sure there are some who are GOP political hacks out there who oppose ObamaCare but would have no problem supporting RomneyCare or whatever variation of government healthcare McCain would have been pushing had he won the presidency. I get that. But despite what Rachel Maddow, Kieth Oberman, or any of these other Left-wing talking heads would have you believe, there actually are legitimate reasons to fear ObamaCare and not everyone who opposes it is not some sort of Right-wing lunatic.

So who is really spreading the “myths” about ObamaCare?

To be fair, I’m pretty sure it’s not the intention of Democrats to create healthcare rationing. Maybe proponents of the bill claim such things as “death panels” to be myths because such panels of bureaucrats are not part of the plan per se. Perhaps what the fans of big government do not understand is that rationing is inevitable, whether or not rationing is intended. If Red Lobster decided to serve steak and lobster for “free” to the general public every Saturday, one would imagine that there would be lines around the block and Red Lobster would run out of steak and lobster very quickly on Saturdays (and not everyone who stood in line would receive their free food).

The same is true for healthcare or any other product. If suddenly some 50 million uninsured individuals suddenly have access to “free” healthcare along with the remaining 250 million with no increase in the supply of healthcare providers, there will be shortages. Whenever there is a shortage of a product or service in a government controlled program, rationing is the only way to meet the needs for the greatest number. In other words, bureaucrats make the decision regarding who receives healthcare and who does not. The most likely choice will be that the elderly will be asked to sacrifice themselves for the good of “more productive” individuals (i.e. tax payers). This very phenomenon is already happening with vital organ transplants in the U.S. and around the world (with the notable exception of Iran of all places!).

But what is even more galling about the AARP ad than the complete ignorance regarding supply and demand is the notion that those who oppose ObamaCare are anti-reform. Just because some of us oppose ObamaCare does not make us anti-reform but simply anti-government healthcare. There are good free market approaches to health care reform; Cato Institute has an entire website dedicated to such approaches . I’m sure Dr. Ron Paul has some ideas and many other free market individuals as well but AARP, the Democrat Congress, nor the Obama Administration want to consider these approaches.

Couldn’t we just as easily say that they are anti-healthcare reform? If anyone is “derailing” the debate it would be AARP and their special interests.

If AARP believes “special interests” are obstacles to a quality healthcare system, just wait until they get their wish and politicians get between the patients and their doctors.

For those who would like to see the free market reforms Cato proposes, click on the banner below.

UAW = Unions Accepting Welfare

Hmm, I guess we can see once again that our Congress is not in any way trying to manage our car companies (and their unions) for political gain:

The latest example is the $10 billion taxpayers will be asked to shell out to prop up the United Auto Workers’ retiree health insurance program.

That provision is tucked deep into the bill passed by the House.

In effect, it would ask every taxpayer, regardless of whether they’ll have health insurance coverage themselves after they retire — and most won’t — to chip in to maintain the UAW’s coverage, which even after the union’s givebacks is still better than what the average American worker receives.

The helping hand is a recognition by Congress that the union’s volunteer employee benefit association, or VEBA, can’t possibly stay solvent if it is asked to cover all of the union workers taking early buyouts from the Detroit automakers.

So the union’s supporters added language to the House’s gargantuan health care bill that requires the federal government to pick up most of the cost of catastrophic claims for union retirees age 55 to 64.

The biggest beneficiary would be the UAW, which got $60 billion from the Big Three in exchange for taking on the obligation for retiree health care.

I don’t suppose I’ll be getting a gift basket from the UAW thanking me for my generosity. I’ll bet quite a few Congressmen will, though.

Hat Tip: John Stossel

The Battle Between the Right to Medical Care vs. Government ‘Medicine’

For decades the cost of medical care has risen relative to prices in general and relative to people’s incomes. Today [1994] a semi-private hospital room typically costs $1,000 to $1,500 per day, exclusive of all medical procedures, such as X-rays, surgery, or even a visit by one’s physician. Basic room charges of $500 per day or more are routinely tripled just by the inclusion of normal hospital pharmacy and supplies charges (the cost of a Tylenol tablet can be as much as $20). And typically the cost of the various medical procedures is commensurate. In such conditions, people who are not exceptionally wealthy, who lack extensive medical insurance, or who fear losing the insurance they do have if they become unemployed, must dread the financial consequences of any serious illness almost as much as the illness itself. At the same time, no end to the rise in medical costs is in sight. Thus it is no wonder that a great clamor has arisen in favor of reform – radical reform – that will put an end to a situation that bears the earmarks of financial lunacy.

Thus begins an essay that noted Objectivist economist George Reissman penned during Clinton’s efforts to ‘reform’ health care.

Given the current debate, it’s a good essay to reread, and the folks at the Mises Institute have obliged by posting it on their fine website.

Reisman argues against many of propositions that are assumed to be true by proponents of govenrment medicine, economic ideas that are based on primitive emotions and have no basis in actual economics: » Read more

I am an anarcho-capitalist living just west of Boston Massachussetts. I am married, have two children, and am trying to start my own computer consulting company.

Kevin Drum Astonished That People Disproportionately Like Subsidized Stuff

Satisfaction levels of Medicare beneficiaries are pretty high. This surprises Kevin Drum:

There’s a pretty obvious political dynamic that’s responsible for this. Seniors, who actually use Medicare, know perfectly well that it’s a good program. They can see any doctor they want, they get care when they need it, and the quality of service is high. So why do younger Americans have such a negative attitude toward Medicare?

Answer: because conservative politicians have been bellowing for years about what a terrible program it is. And since younger workers don’t actually use it themselves, the bellowing works. They figure it must suck.

In reality, Medicare works fine. Not perfectly, but fine. It offers service at least as good as private insurance despite serving the highest-risk population there is, and it does at least as good a job of reining in costs — slightly better, in fact. Sure, it could be improved, but it’s already probably better than the employer insurance that you have right now. I’d switch in a second if I could.

Medicare isn’t a bad system at providing medical care. Most doctors/hospitals accept it, as they typically know that they’re not going to get into fights with the government over whether or not they’ll get paid. Seniors thus don’t have a lot to worry about — they can go to the doctor whenever they need and get the care they require.

All that, for a Medicare Part B premium of a mere $96.40 per month. That’s roughly 1/10th of the premium my [large multinational] employer pays for my healthcare, and smaller than the additional portion I pay out-of-pocket for coverage of my wife and kids.

Does anyone think that the $96.40 premium covers the cost of insuring the average senior? I don’t think so. If it did, we wouldn’t be calling it an “entitlement” or worrying about the unfunded liabilities of Medicare going out over the next few decades. We wouldn’t be getting hit as workers with 2.9% of our incomes taken in taxes to pay for the Medicare system.

So are seniors pleased with the system they have? They get cheap premiums and adequate care, all on the backs of the taxpayers. Who wouldn’t be pleased?

1 2 3 4 10