The Health Insurance Mistake We're Going to Make

In any market, there has to be the freedom not to participate. Without that freedom, there is far less downward pressure on prices, and less incentive to compete.

What the Democrats will do instead is to enforce price controls on the market. They will say, as they do now with Medicare and other services, that a doctor must bill the government no more than what they bill other insurers for a given procedure or service.

That will cause doctors to do what every other regulated group has ever done: they will find ways around the regulations. They will find new services to provide -- or new labels for old services -- and bill whatever the market will bear. Prices will zoom out of sight.

In addition, if everyone has insurance, everyone will go to the doctor. People with head colds will line up for treatment, which will not be forthcoming. But they will still show up, and insist on being fixed.

I know this, because I've been to a hospital emergency room.

Sphere: Related Content

A Nation of Slaves

Now comes Barack Obama, with his vast experience as a mortgage broker, corporate CEO, Chairman of the Board, and Wall Street investment analyst, to

• Adjust mortgages negotiated by lenders and borrowers,
• Set executive salaries
• Tell us all that unless we completely reorder our society, culture, and most of all our economy, all three are irretrievably bound for unmitigatable disaster.

Have we, a once proudly free people, accepted the premise that we need the government to run our economy, our business, our very lives?

Notice the strings attached to the TARP, after companies accepted money from the government, often under duress: "You have taken our money, now you must run your business to suit us. No longer can you offer incentives to salespeople to accel. No longer can you structure executive pay as you wish. Now you are our slaves, and will do as you are told."

Can there be any other result with the other bailouts that are coming? States, beware. Car makers, you know who will run your companies already.

And you, slave, you accepted a loan. How dare you smoke on these premises? How dare you purchase that foreign-made vehicle, while you sit in this home we bought you? And that thermostat setting on the in the home we bought you -- do you not know how much carbon dioxide you are venting into the public's air?

Do as you are told, slave.

Sphere: Related Content

Nannyconomics

We have reached the point in the US at which pain is treated not as a useful spur for individuals to accel, but as a barrier to be avoided or defeated.

The trouble is that economic problems are not fixed objects. If the government tries to cure the problem of increased home foreclosures by borrowing money to give to lenders or borrowers, the only possible results are increased home prices and a worse problem in the future.

A collapse in home prices, or a glut of homes on the market, make homes more affordable. Isn't affordable housing what the liberals claim to want? Home prices will fall until people start to buy houses. They won't fall while the government is promising to subsidize prices.

More generally, any time the government offers money for people to buy something, look for prices of it to increase to match the offer.

Sphere: Related Content

Democrats' Three Favorite Words

Spend, Spend, Spend.
Via AoSHQ

Sphere: Related Content

Bottom-up, or Craniorectal Inversion?

During this year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama posited that the economy should grow not from the top down, but "from the bottom up".

After the election he is showing his true big-government beliefs in action. Only government can solve our problems, he says.

Clearly, he's a top-down kind of guy.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Universal Health Insurance Is a Bad Idea

First, it's an expansion of government into an area that it has no business running, which is our health. Once the government funds or controls insurance, it is not just a slippery slope but a fait accompli that the government will dictate who gets how much health care -- and who is cut off.

Secondly, one of the benefits of competition in the marketplace is that some people have the choice not to buy a product or service. All of the market is trying to get them to buy, and it must provide enough benefits at a low enough price to entice them to buy whatever product or service is offered. If everyone is compelled to have health insurance, the clumsy and ineffective alternative of price controls will have to be employed, and it will fail.

Therefore, people must be given the opportunity to opt out and save some money. Let people decide if their health is good enough, or the risk to them great enough, to choose health insurance over some other priority.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama To Save Millions of Jobs; Hamas to Save Millions of Israelis

Over at The Minority Report, Mike DeVine says:

Obama first promised to create 2 million jobs in two years, then said he would create or “save” three million. Currently, over 154 million Americans are employed. We do not believe that even the disastrous policies of Obama and the Democrats will force more than 151 million out of work. At the end of 2009 and even 2010, more than three million jobs will have been “saved”.

Similarly, by having such keen grasp of the military arts, the geniuses at Hamas have cleverly avoided hitting very many Israelis with the hundreds of rockets they have fired at Israel. Thus, in a display of unprecedented liberality, they have spared millions of Israelis.

And yet, still I side with Israel.

Sphere: Related Content

It's A Dreadful Life

At Yahoo! (w/t Dan Collins), Barbara Curtis writes about her year downsizing and discovering that happiness is learning to appreciate what you have.

But here is this quote:

For many, 2008 marked the end of our American Dream of home ownership. Faced with houses worth less than we owed, we had to backtrack. No bailout for us, but plenty of lessons to be learned.

The American Dream is not home ownership. That's just one minor, unnecessary part of it. The American Dream is that here we can make of ourselves whatever we desire, whether that is running a fruit stand to make enough money to buy vodka, or rising to become a captain of industry or President. Home ownership is a tangible sign that we are living that life, but it is not the Dream.

The politicians with their lies of ensuring the American Dream have actually stolen the dreams of millions. By giving people stuff, they have robbed their victims of the chance to make it on their own. It's despicable.

Sphere: Related Content

Immigration

In her 2006 bid to unseat John Murtha, Diana Irey said,

I want a tall fence with a wide gate.

That line resonated for me, and still does.

Because I want to believe in America as the beacon of hope, the shining city on a hill.

But there are two parts to that phrase: the shining city and the hill on which it sits. The hill, from time immemorial, was the place to build a city if you wanted to defend it from attack. The hill made entering the city marginally more difficult to approach for peaceful commerce, but a great deal more difficult to invade.

The hill also makes the shining city more visible, and more attractive as real estate for other reasons. Who doesn't like a nice view? Who doesn't appreciate good munipal use of hydrodynamics?

I want to know that everyone who lives in the United States is a citizen. I want no underclass, barred by reason of citizenship from engaging in any but the duties of their assigned caste, herded about under the watchful eye of some Congressional committee.

America must call for immigrants to come. We must demand that they be allowed to come. If necessary, we must plead with them to come, to see what they can do here.

We must not adopt the zero-sum belief that limited resources imply limited population. Our population is our greatest resource.

And likewise, we must not allow them to be enticed by governmental handouts, which are indeed limited, despite the current tendency to spend money we don't have.

Instead, we must fight tooth and nail against the notion that people -- and corporations -- who are able to support themselves deserve support from the government to retain a specific lifestyle. Restore the image of America as a place where only diligence and discipline are rewarded, and sloth is discouraged.

We must build a tall fence, and watch it with an eagle's eye. We must deport anyone found here without legal reason. We must punish those who lure people here in denial of our laws.

And then we must with just as much vigor beg immigrants to come in through the wide gate, to pledge with us to defend our nation with their calloused hands, vibrant minds, and sacred honor.

Sphere: Related Content

Detroit CEOs: Beatings to Continue Until Morale Improves

These guys should not be in Washington, asking for money. They should be in Detroit, making it.

Actually, they should be standing in front of a judge, asking for Chapter 11 protection from the unions bankrupting them. They plan to do some of that, according to this unreliable source, but not enough.

General Motors Corp., Ford and Chrysler LLC said they would refinance their companies’ debt, cut executive pay, seek concessions from workers and find other ways of reviving their staggering companies.

The only thing they need to be asking Congress to do is to drop the stupid CAFE standards and let the naturally rising gas prices influence which kind of cars people buy.

Now Ford is promising to boost fuel economy across its fleet by 14% this year. But they can't keep that promise, because it again depends on which cars people buy. For Ford to make the effort means that they are pursuing something other than the long-term viability of their company, which will inevitably lead to a suboptimal result.

Further, the car companies are expected to put a moratorium on incentive pay for salaried workers. Rather than reward success, the companies are going to punish failure.

And by selling airplanes, restructuring operations, and undergoing other cost-saving changes, they are simply nibbling along the edges of their problem, which is that because of their high labor and tax costs, they can't make money selling fuel-efficient cars..

Selling 14% more of something is not a recipe for success when you lose money selling each one.

Sphere: Related Content

Paulson Playing Whackamole With Economy

Michelle calls it "Borrow. Spend. Panic. Repeat."

There is no clear policy, and seemingly no rhyme nor reason to the decision over which institutions are bailed out, which ones are forced into sale, and which ones are left to their own resources.

In the absence of a clear policy, or even a murky policy, or even a vague pattern of behavior, people (meaning the banks) are putting their money in the proverbial sock drawer, holding on to it until such a time as conditions are more stable.

And that's a good thing. When borrowing individuals, families, companies, or governmental units realize themselves vulnerable to debt risk, the prudent thing for them is to pay down that debt, not to incur more. Similarly, when lenders realize that they are vulnerable to too much of the wrong kind of debt, the prudent thing is not to lend. The signs are that most people are working to limit the amount of debt they have.

It should be remembered that all of this Nanny State pain avoidance is being done with money we don't have.

And by bailing out companies in this erratic fashion, no one knows which companies are at risk and which ones are safe. The current practice merely prolongs the inevitable pain.

Paulson's borrow-and-loan game is killing the credit market in the short term, and by ballooning government debt it will destroy the economy in the long run.

And nowhere does this kind of power appear in the Constitution.

I would call for Henry Paulson to resign, effective immediately, but his clever boss appears to be even more clueless as to the danger his actions pose to the economy, and the republic itself.

Sphere: Related Content

Bailout Bank Boycott

I intend not to do business with any of these people.

w/t BeyondBailouts

Sphere: Related Content

Why Is It So Hot?

And why are we in this handbasket?

The government response to the credit crisis is going to destroy our economy. It may unravel the nation itself.

These companies should have been allowed to fail. It's not PC to say I don't care about the people involved losing their jobs, but I don't care about the people involved losing their jobs.

I've lost jobs before. Sometimes you find another, sometimes you declare personal bankruptcy, sometimes you start your own business. You never die from it, and you are always better for it.

We have lost the freedom to fail. Without failure, there is no success -- just a lifelong muddling. We're to be a civilization of muddlers.

But the direct consequences are to be just as bad. In order to fight the specter of deflation, the government is pumping money into the economy right off the printing press -- except without even the need to actually mint anything. They're pretending that they have the money.

Eventually, someone is going to demand that they show it. When that happens, they'll lose their credit rating, and the ability to borrow along with it.

Without the ability to borrow, the US Government goes bankrupt.

Sphere: Related Content

Government is the Devil's Evil Twin

Over at Power and Control, Simon says:

The government IS the Devil. Not metaphorically. Really.

Everything you get from government will have a price much larger than the value of the object gained. Some times the price will not be extracted from you. Sometimes it will be from your children, your grand children, or ten generations hence. But the full price the government wants will be extracted at compound interest.

We are still paying the price for trying to be a free people while holding slaves. My great great grand parents lived on another continent when all that went on. And yet the price is being extracted from me.

I think I blogged a generalization of this a while back, but maybe I just thought of it and never did. Ah, found it, in that link.

Government creeps. Given power in one area, it will keep that power as leverage to extend its reach into another.

You cannot deficit spend without an eventual tax increase -- or the lack of an otherwise obvious decrease.

You cannot say that drunk driving (without actually harming anyone or breaking any traffic laws) is illegal without eventually losing the right to take any other risky action.

You cannot have Roe v Wade and not later get Kelo.

And you cannot grow a bureaucracy big enough to manage the health care system without surrendering your right to criticize the government. You watch.

At least the devil lets you enjoy the crap you sold your soul for. Government doesn't even give you that.

Government is not the Devil -- it's the Devil's evil twin.

Sphere: Related Content

Health Care Is Not A Right

If health care is a right, then anyone who knows you lack perfect health is obligated, on some level, to provide you with care.

Bad personal hygiene, grooming, and sexual repression are all negative health factors.

So if you need a haircut, manicure, or sex, any person who is skilled in the work of caring for you in that area is obligated to provide you with service.

"But", you say, "it's our right to health care, not that stuff you mentioned."

OK, so you know a doctor, and he knows you are sick. If health care is a right, he is obligated to provide it, for free. He is your health care slave.

"But no", you say, "he deserves to be paid".

How much? Minimum wage?

"Well, clearly, at least minimum wage."

Suppose he wants more, say, to care for your annoying case of tuberculosis than for my pleasant tinnitis.

"Why should he get more?", you ask.

Well, I suppose if health care is a right, he should be required to charge all patients the same.

So if he wants more than minimum wage, what are his options?

"He can petition the government for more money."

And if he finds he can make more delivering pizzas, should he do that?

"Well, I suppose he could do that."

But health care is your right, which he would be violating.

"Yes, he must be a doctor, and not a pizza man."

Suppose he wishes to sleep. You said he should get minimum wage, so should he also not have an 8-hour day, or 40-hour week?

"Yes, clearly."

What if a patient becomes ill and our doctor has worked his 8 hours. Should he treat the patient?

"Of course. The patient has rights."

What if he's worked 80 hours in a week already. Should he go home to bed?

"Not if there are patients to serve."

In that case, I think we must repeal the 13th Amendment.

Sphere: Related Content

The $700 Billion Paulson Scam

The $700 Billion Henry Paulson claimed he needed to rescue the financial sector wasn't necessary. As proof, I point out that it hasn't been used.

This governmental manhandling of the economy is going to lead to nowhere good.

I agree with Maggie Gallagher: No More Bailouts.

Sphere: Related Content

Prediction: GM, Ford, Chrysler Get Bailout, Then Go Bankrupt As Well

Do I really need to explain why?

• The former Big Three are hemorrhaging cash, which an infusion will not stop.
• They'll have a larger debt load.
• Strings attached to the bailout will include limits on executive compensation and, possibly, government mandates to produce smaller, more efficient cars.

Since the Big Three lose money making smaller, more efficient cars, making more of them in itself won't help profitability. Since a big problem with the automakers has been poor management, limits on executive compensation will only cause the best managers to leave for more pastures which are perhaps less green, but more golden.

Only bankruptcy followed by fundamental changes in the labor environment can help American automotive manufacturing.

Sphere: Related Content

Coming Out of Short-Lived Depression

Me, that is, not the economy.

I still feel a twinge of denial that the elections really went as badly for the cause of freedom as they did, and that the Nanny State did so well. But there it is, and I must recognize it.

I take comfort only in the suspicions that my countrymen were deceived by a charlatan and a willing media, caught up in the symbolism of it all.

And now there is a great work ahead of me, ahead of us. There are many huge battles to fight.

We must convince the American public that the ideals of liberty, national sovereignty, and freedom of thought are worth more than life itself.

We must convince the American public that it's as wrong to vote oneself money from the Treasury as it is to steal from a neighbor.

We must convince the public that prosperity comes from capitalism, not from the Nanny.

We must convince the American public that we must be one people, with one language and primary loyalty only to each other, not to foreign lands.

We must dismantle the government-run education system. It is far too dangerous to liberty to have the government tempted to indoctrinate, which we have seen it do with increasing abandon.

All of these are hard, because of our own self-doubt and the easy smear to which each one of those points subjects us.

Is not life paramount, and isn't it convenient to risk the life of another?

Have you never accepted money from the Government -- even a tax credit? Don't you care about the poor children?

Do we really expect immigrants to know our language, when that has never been our way? In the past, immigrants abandoned their old land. Now they are a short journey away. It makes things difficult.

And the entrenchment of the public education system is so thorough, its stamp placed so firmly on the fabric of American society, that I don't hold much hope for its dissolution.

Sphere: Related Content

Would Someone Please Tell Michelle Catalano That She is an Idiot?

Writing at PJM, Michele Catalano struggles valiantly against her horrible straw-foe, the idea that community service is the same as slavery, or variously, Marxism.

Another name for slavery is "involuntary servitude". Is "compulsory service" the same thing?

"Involuntary" is clearly a synonym for "compulsory".

Do I need to explain the link between "service" and "servitude"? I think I do, because while the root word is the same, the meaning is different, and it has confused you.

"Service" in this context means two things: performing duties at the behest of the government and for the benefit of someone who (it is hoped) will be helped by those duties. A connotation of service is one of learning by humility the positive blessing of helping others.

But learning by humility implies that a person lowers himself to perform some action or to be receptive to a teaching moment. That is not possible, or at least is contraindicated, when an outside force such as the government is mandating the action. Context in this case is indeed king.

Compelling service is also making the same mistake as when we take the personal virtue of liberality and apply it to government. Liberality is seeing the best in others and giving to them regardless of their worthiness, in the hopes that our selflessness will improve them, or at least show our own goodness and lack of greed. When government does it, the virtue is lost, if only because giving requires the government first to take.

So even if we grant as totally positive the nature of the actual services to be performed, and ignore any possible negative consequences or side effects of this massive undertaking, being forced to give service to others is involuntary servitude, slavery by another name.

But here is some really sloppy thinking from Michelle Catalano:

It’s interesting how many right-leaning blogs are frowning upon the community service idea, though some are being thoughtful about it. Generally, people on the political right tend to belong to churches, and churches are big proponents of community service. So why the negativity? Many blogs are also equating Obama’s community service pitch with Rahm Emanuel’s:

When you choose to serve — whether it’s your nation, your community, or simply your neighborhood — you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That’s why it’s called the American dream.

This is not socialism. This is not Marxism. This is the mark of a country that knows it needs to rely on those who can to help those who can’t. It’s the mark of a country that knows it needs to depend on its citizens to make their communities flourish. It’s taking the “ask not what your country can do for you” attitude and transforming it into smaller clusters, where we ask what we can do for those we live with and around, instead of waiting for people to do for us. It’s how communities become stronger, how they grow, and how a strong, giving community makes for a strong, giving nation.

So because we want churches to do it, we should be okay when the government does it? That is exactly the problem! We want churches and individuals to do community service, on their own, without the government being involved. If the government starts funding community service, no one else will do it. And individuals, of their own sense of charity and liberality, are the best judges of who should get the help -- and who should not.

Repeating: we like community service. We don't like the government to fund it.

As for the equivalence of paid community service and Marxism, let's first establish one thing: under Marxist/socialist regimes, there is universal paid community service. Under some hypothetical minimalist, libertarian anti-Marxist government, there would be no paid community service.

Rahm Emanuel pitches community service as the way to ensure the American Dream, but it's a total non sequitur. The American Dream is the any of us can start with nothing and succeed by our own merits, without the government's help. We don't need the government.

Needing the government is what Marxists do.

Sphere: Related Content

Someone Please Tell David Brooks He Is An Idiot

Writing to accelerate his newspaper's fall into negative net worth, David Brooks says:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

I don't care if the majority will not support shrinking government. It's the right thing to do.

I don't take Global Warming seriously. I don't believe:

• It is happening
• It is Man's fault

If it were happening, I would not believe:

• It would be bad
• There would be any way to fix it

Addressing inequality? That's not the purpose or function of government. Punish people who hurt others, but don't try to make sure they're all equally successful.

Middle-class income anxiety? Call out demagogues like Obama for their class-envy tripe. There, anxiety fixed.

w/t FrankJ

Sphere: Related Content