Blunting the Costs of Healthcare Reform

States of Personal Privilege
10/09/09 - WSJ Opinion by by Kimberley A. Strassel

Quip: This bill is vital to our country and will save a lot of money. We just don't want to depend on it.

[edited]

Powerful senators have avoided the most costly provisions of healthcare reform for their own states. They want "reform" for the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage the people who support or vote for them.

• The Baucus bill vastly expands state Medicaid programs, requiring the states to pay an additional $37 billion.

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is worried about losing his seat next year. He has arranged for the federal government to pay Nevada's increased Medicaid expenses for the next five years. This applies to only three other states: Oregon, Rhode Island, and Michigan, because they "are suffering more than most."

• The Baucus bill would tax expensive insurance plans at 40%, so that those with "luxury" health insurance help to pay for the poor. But states like New York and Massachusetts have a lot of those plans, having a lot of union members with great benefits, and high-cost insurance mandated by state regulations.

  New York Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want angry, overtaxed voters, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal to reduce the tax on 17 states, mostly with Democratic politics.

• The Baucus bill taxes pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that they are filthy rich and involved in health care.

  But, New Jersey boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." Its Sen. Menendez has a deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.

• Many Dems assure us that the Baucus bill will "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry aren't counting on it. They included $5 billion in the bill to reduce costs for union members.

So, health-care "reform" is good, smart, and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it.

Most senators are saving up their special demands for the Senate floor. Then, we'll know how much change Democrats truly believe in.

-----
Baucus Bill Bull: The Hypocrites In DC Are Trying To Pass a Doozy
10/14/09 - PJTV: Medically Incorrect (video 3 minutes)

A video opinion of the Baucus bill by Dr. Peter Weiss.

Dr. Weiss is an OB/GYN at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, the Medical Director of Rodeo Drive Women's Health Center and Rodeo Drive Dermatology and Aesthetics, and an Assistant Clinical Professor at the UCLA School of Medicine.

-----
Obamacare Bails Out Medicare
09/12/09 - Easy Opinions by Andrew Garland
"Healthcare Reform" is a huge tax hike plus rationed medical services.

Leading the People

Leading The People
If You Don't Agree Now, You Will Later
08/30/08 - EasyOpinions by Andrew Garland

My post from a year ago still applies. Here are two excerpts:

Brad said that his movement would become stronger, and eventually I would agree with him. I asked, what if I didn't agree with him, even later? He flashed anger and told me that if I didn't agree on my own, he would make me agree. I saw that as the end of the discussion.

Brad's Friends want to be elected, then use that power to make your life better, and you better, whether you agree or not. Brad's Friends are not motivated by respect for their fellow citizens or a regard for the truth. They want to produce a grand experiment to make a better world. Eventually, they will make you agree with them.

The Actual Role of Government

Michael Moore Gets It Wrong
07/11/09 - John Stossel

Everyone is greedy, it is how you organize things that matters.

Socialists
The government is a caring institution that has been taken hostage by big business. We can free it by making it big enough to resist these businesses. Then the government can give the citizens a fair and prosperous world.

Libertarians
The government is a regulatory oppressor with a big sign in neon "Buy your favors and loopholes here". The back room has a high cover charge, a gambling casino, and rooms for sleeping with legislators. The front room is musty, with slow service and dirty glasses. The cardboard sign reads "We will improve service after we raise our prices".

Capitalists
The simple ones just want to make and sell things. The sly ones see the government as an opportunity which they can't resist. They all have to find a way around the regulations, mostly by paying to stay in business.

Reformers
Everyone is a reformer. The front room is obviously bad, and there are many speeches about fixing it up. Winners go to the back room, where they go along to get along, and work on the problem of not being poor at the end of their elective careers.

----------
How do you see the government? Caring mother held hostage, or corrupt ruler selling favors?

Obama Can Win The Chicago Way

Quote of the Day . . 07/08/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Jonathan
Minus Five . . 07/08/09 - Belmont Club by Richard Fernandez

Life Of The Mind commented on Obama's declining polls and his re-election prospects if this trend continues. Despite any development, Obama plans to win.

[edited] Soros, Axelrod, and Obama know what they are doing. They won't cancel elections or do anything spectacular that will rally resistance. I don't expect them to worry much about sagging poll numbers.

They intend to win the next election, despite 15-20% unemployment and inflation in 18 months. They intend to do it the Chicago way, to buy it with your money.

• The Democrats will have $500 billion of slush funds ready to pump out for the 2010 election.
• Acorn and an army of hacks will push to hold onto Congress in 2010.
• The census will be cooked to deliver the Congress in 2012.
• The declining economy will drain resources from the opposition.
• The carping left will discover a new discipline that Republicans could never threaten them with. Recalcitrant academics and think tanks will be defunded, and media jobs will be increasingly under the control of Obama aligned conglomerates.
• Immigration reform will complete the picture for Obama’s reelection.

Much of this will be technically illegal and corrupt. But, they will not resort to violence or attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment before 2012.

People should stop assuming that Obama will make a mistake and do something overtly revolutionary. This hope puts people in a passive, reactive mode. Some expect that his birth certificate or college transcript will magically appear and then somehow force someone to invalidate the election.

Anyone thinking that way needs to have Cher slap him in the face and yell "Snap out of it". Can we win this battle? Yes, but it will take hard sustained work.

Newspaper Influence Peddling

A Question That Needs to be Asked
07/06/09 - ChicagoBoyz by James R. Rummel

Newspapers influence public opinion, and that influence is quite valuable. It seems that some newspapers are selling that influence. Do you still trust your newspaper?

[edited] The Washington Post salon scandal reveals that publisher Katharine Weymouth invited people to pay up to $25,000 USD in order to have dinner at her house.

For that money, the movers and shakers at the newspaper would personally introduce you to the movers and shakers at the White House, as well as the reporters who covered them. Pay them cash, and the good folks at the WaPo would create an instant handshake relationship with the people who are shaping the future of the country, and the reporters who shape public perception. This was irresistible to special interest groups, corporations, and lobbyists.

This is done all the time by newspapers with their foot in the door of the White House press room. But, this time it was jsut too blatant to pass the smell test.

David Bradley is chairman of the board at Atlantic Media. He emphasized that there can be no influence/access peddling going on, because everything that happens at the get-togethers is strictly off the record!

Idiots rarely work their way up to become ultra-rich, and dumb inheritors rarely hang on to wealth for long. They were not idiots. They expected good value for their bucks, and they must have received that value because they kept coming back for more.

Gaining Power Through Public Policy

Social Science and Public Policy
07/03/09 - EconLog by economist Arnold Kling

[edited] Political Economy is the science of obtaining and retaining power. The pollster, the fundraiser, and the media expert supply expertise to the operation. The public policy expert is for decoration. If you want to be an economic policy adviser, my advice is to learn how to put a good spin on the methods used by leading politicians to obtain power.

Is Health care reform about health, the stimulus about recovery, cap and trade about global warming, or TARP about the financial system? No, they are about seizing and retaining power.

The social scientist's role is to say, "X is a problem. Government must solve X. Here are some solutions." The solutions that rationalize seizing and retaining power will bubble to the top.

Suppose you believe that regulators cannot possibly have the wisdom to direct human activity, and that politicians spending other people's money tend to choose unwisely. Keep those beliefs to yourself, if you want to get anywhere as a public policy adviser.

My Fantasy Beats Your Reality

Reality Versus Leftist Fantasy
06/03/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love

[edited] Leftists claim that every economic crisis shows the failure of the free market, and assume that they would never have economic crises. Leftists have a wildly exaggerated sense of their own understanding of the economy and everything else.

The left doesn’t actually have a developed system of thought regarding the economy. They can’t actually explain why the real world political process will make better decisions than the free-market. Instead, they point to any reversals in the real economy, regardless of cause, and assert that in their imaginations leftist politicians could have done better.

Leftists create elaborate fantasies. Then everyone else must argue for reality against the fantasies. The real-world system always comes out worse.

Alternative-energy advocates feel entitled to paper over any shortcomings of their favored technology by evoking future technological breakthroughs. But, they won’t let you postulate future technological breakthroughs that would make current energy sources even more attractive.

If you point out that wind and solar power is unreliable to the point of near uselessness, proponents will breezily respond that future technological breakthroughs in power storage or distribution will overcome the problem.

However, if you point out that developments in nuclear technology could create power systems that would completely recycle their waste, they respond that we should not plan for nuclear power unless we have absolutely proven that the technology works. And, let’s cut funding for the research that would prove it works.

There are More Ways to Go Wrong Than to Go Right
06/19/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love

Many leftists debate in this style: “I have an idea and you don’t, therefore I must have the best plan”.

I see this in debates about energy. Some believe fossil fuels cause global warming and nuclear power is too dangerous, so solar and wind power must be viable technologies. Unfortunately, the fact that one specific technology has problems has nothing to do with whether another unrelated technology will work.

The urge to do something, anything, to solve a problem can backfire badly. People immersed in politics begin to think that because there are only two major divisions in our politics, there must be only two altnerate solutions to any problem.

They begin to think that if the idea of one side is bad, then the idea of the other side must be good. If we think that any idea is better than no idea at all, we are more likely to do more harm than good. There are more ways to go wrong than to go right.

Will universal healthcare control costs?
06/16/09 - The Atlantic by Meang McArdle

There have been promised cost reductions for Medicare in the past. Why haven’t they happened, and what has changed to make them feasible now? When I ask this question, I get angry demands that I put forward my plan for cost control, rather than merely critiquing everyone else’s. This seems rather like demanding that I put forward my design for a perpetual motion machine before I am allowed to point out problems in the US energy market.

+ + + +
Magic Power
Could the nerds give us cheap power if they wanted to?

Problems With Green Energy
"Honey, please go up on the roof and sweep off the solar panels."

More on Energy choices ...

Obama Thanks Himself Reading Teleprompter

The truth about Barack Obama's Irish teleprompter "gaffe"
03/24/09 - Telegraph.co.UK by Toby Harnden

Well, it seemed a bit fishy to me and there was no video. And upon further investigation - Obamaphobes and dittoheads brace yourselves for a big disappointment - I can confirm that there was no gaffe by the president.

Harnden reports that Obama's remarks were a joke, following up on Brian Cowen's minor mistake in reading a few words of Obama's speech from the teleprompter. There is really nothing here but a simple mistake and good humor all around.

-----------
The following was my take on what was reported.

Obama Reads Teleprompter and Thanks Himself
03/18/09 - Fox News via AP

There is now strong evidence that some politicians are "replacements". They have been kidnapped by aliens and replaced with lifelike but imperfect substitutes. (smile)

[edited] Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen gave a speech at a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House. It was the second time that evening he would give the same speech to two different groups.

Cowen was 20 seconds into his second presentation when it dawned on him that he was reading word for word the speech that Obama had just read from the same teleprompter.

Cowen stopped and looked back at the president to say "That's your speech."

Obama laughed and returned to the podium to offer some remarks. It seems that he then read some of Cowen's remarks from the Teleprompter. In doing so, President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.

So, politics isn't so hard. Just read from the little screen. Probably this is why politicians have been chosen as the first to be replaced. Few of the public will notice.

Thankfully, the replacements do not think ahead. "Obama" knew that the Teleprompter had just shown the wrong speech. You would think that he would be wary of what was displayed. But, he automatically read what was there.

Fellow humans, the replacements have weaknesses, and we have some hope in our fight to regain the world.

Publicly Challenge Politicians

Congressman McClintock Urges Opposition to Climate Change Legislation
03/09/09 - Business & Media Institute by Jeff Poor

[edited] Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) advised how to fight the good fight against Draconian climate change legislation.

Don’t write officials a letter. Write that same letter to the local newspaper, or put it on a blog. Mention them by name and ask how they’re voting, and other inconvenient questions.

Don’t visit them in their office. Visit them at a public meeting where you can hold them accountable in front of their constituents. Call them on a local talk show, not at their office.

Leftist Arguments: A or B

Leftist Dual Models
02/05/09 - ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love [edited, restated]

The Left has different arguments for different purposes.

Tobacco Taxes:

A: It is right to tax tobacco companies.

Tobacco use is the fault of evil tobacco companies, and smokers are their hapless victims. (1) Tobacco is highly physically addictive. People are largely powerless to stop smoking. (2) Marketing makes smoking so desirable that it subverts the choice not to smoke.

So, the companies are rightly paying billions (to state governments, not smokers) in compensation and are forced to stop brainwashing people with advertisements.

B: It is right to tax smokers.

Individuals freely choose to do something destructive to themselves and others. They can stop anytime they wish. Taxing them helps the smoker by inducing him to quit, and it compensates society for the harm that smokers choose to inflict on the community.

Social Security (SS) and Payroll Taxes:

A: Government payments to the retired are proper repayment of what was contributed.

SS represents a solid “investment” for workers. The compulsory payments are “contributions”, the same term used for private pension payments. Workers will reliably receive a higher rate of return than they can with private plans, because the government guarantees payouts. A worker will get back every dime he puts into Social Security plus interest. SS payouts are fair because they depend on how much a person contributes over his working life. SS is simply a compulsory government pension system whose benefits go to contributors.

B: Workers should get tax refunds based on their SS taxes.

SS is a regressive "tax" system that forces workers to carry the burden of supporting the elderly and disabled while getting nothing in return. The worker’s contribution to SS should be considered part of the general taxes he pays. These are not “contributions”, they are regressive taxes.

The analysis:

The only constant in these dual-model arguments is in who benefits. For tobacco, leftists get money to pay for votes and to increase the public’s dependency on government.

The SS arguments demand lower contributions and greater payouts, using contradictory statements.

Leftists choose which model to advance at any given time depending on how it benefits them, the politicians, and the particular political groups they identify with.

The People Versus Politicians

The People Versus Politicians
01/11/09 - BaltimoreExaminer.com By Walter E. Williams
via InstaPundit

[edited] Without the rich for whipping boys, we might be able to concentrate on what's best for the 99.5% of the rest of us.

Legalized corruption is widespread, the job of 35,000 Washington D.C. lobbyists earning millions of dollars. They represent America's corporations, labor unions, foreign corporations, and unions. They are spending billions of dollars for favors at the expense of some other group of Americans.

Chairmanship or a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee is coveted. For a price, a loophole can be inserted into tax law, saving a company tens of millions of dollars, as in the Rangel scandal. At state levels, governors can award public works contracts to a generous constituent. At local levels, mayors can provide subsidies for stadiums and convention centers. Politicians can give favors, and they will find buyers.

Pelosi Silences the Republicans

Pelosi Moves to Erase Prior House Rules and Silence the Republican Minority
01/05/09 - Gateway Pundit

[edited] Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority will have no influence on legislation. Democrats are ready to assemble legislation in secret, then push it through Congress without debate or amendment. The proposals are draconian and polarizing. Any bipartisan cooperation with Obama will be rendered impossible before he takes office.

These rule changes will reverse the fairness rules of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America" made in 1995. Those reforms opened to public scrutiny a secretive House legislative process that had developed under decades of a Democratic majority.

The Republican reforms included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen to end decades-long fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorizing House audits, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees that the minority party could offer amendments to legislation.