Play often; you could be dead before you win!
Originally found here; believed to have been created by Jerry Ballard USNRet.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
HEALTH CARE LOTTERY
Why our congresscritters won't commit to the public plan.
Play often; you could be dead before you win!
Originally found here; believed to have been created by Jerry Ballard USNRet.
Play often; you could be dead before you win!
Originally found here; believed to have been created by Jerry Ballard USNRet.
PLEASE REPORT ME
The White House is disturbed that disinformation about its "ObamaCare" reform is being bandied about the internet.
Since it's almost certain that the White House will believe that I have posted, or linked to, disinformation about Obama's healthcare - oops, excuse me, health insurance - program, it follows that I should be reported. In order to make things easier, here are some of my posts that should be reported to the White House:
Please report me; I need the traffic.
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Since it's almost certain that the White House will believe that I have posted, or linked to, disinformation about Obama's healthcare - oops, excuse me, health insurance - program, it follows that I should be reported. In order to make things easier, here are some of my posts that should be reported to the White House:
WRONG,
BUT FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONSl
THE
POTEMKIN PRESIDENCY
HEALTH
CARE AGAIN
AGAINST
OBAMACARE? IN AUSTIN?
PAJAMAS
MEDIA HEALTH CARE FORUM – THE VIDEOS
FIX
MEDICARE FIRST
OBAMACARE?
MANASSAS
INDEPENDENCE DAY TEA PARTY
AN
INTRODUCTION TO OBAMACARE
Please report me; I need the traffic.
OBAMA IN TROUBLE?
Some anecdotal evidence. Driving down the freeway into work this morning, I was passed by another car. Nothing interesting about that; I drive slowly enough for that to be common.
But as the car passed me, the driver waved, stuck his hand out the window, and gave an enthusiastic "thumbs-up" signal. I have a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party and a "I miss W" (as in George W. Bush) sticker on the back bumper.
In Washington D.C.
But as the car passed me, the driver waved, stuck his hand out the window, and gave an enthusiastic "thumbs-up" signal. I have a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party and a "I miss W" (as in George W. Bush) sticker on the back bumper.
In Washington D.C.
WRONG, BUT FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS
From an editorial in our local newspaper:
Denise Oppenhagen, the editorialist, “supports universal health care,” believes that such will lead to “healthier communities,” argues there needs to be “a buy in of all parties,” and that it should be “fair.” Sounds reasonable enough. Then there’s this:
Umm ... does Ms. Oppenhagen realize that that is exactly the purpose of insurance – to spread the risk? Otherwise it isn’t insurance; it’s prepaid medical care. Prepaid medical care was the rationale for health maintenance organizations (HMO’s); which have mostly crashed and burned.
“Long waits” are a form of rationing. Is it fair to deny medical care solely because someone can afford to pay? And is it fair to force Ms. Oppenhagen to pay for someone else’s care (e.g., via taxation) and thus deny herself care that she could otherwise have afforded?
Well, something I can almost agree with – but doesn’t personal responsibility include the responsibility for paying for one’s own health care?
So the solution for personal responsibility is coercion (by the government) or bribery (by the insurance companies)?
So what does Ms. Oppenhagen recommend?
But if we’re all personally responsible and healthy, doesn’t that obviate the need for general practice physicians?
But the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings is peanuts in the grand scheme of health care. And mostly unnecessary.
Huh? Paying doctors more lowers premiums? Not in any economic system I’m familiar with.
And I’m going to go to my doctor and say I’m a fat, smoking, drunk; I want to pay more? Again, Ms. Oppenhagen misses the difference between insurance and prepaid medical care.
See above; coercion and bribery.
At least the last sentence is right.
Look, it’s health insurance, for chrissake. Insurance. You pay a fee in order to reduce the risk of something catastrophic happening and pray the money paid is wasted. Routine stuff you pay out of pocket.
That’s the responsible approach - and it doesn't involve the government.
Denise Oppenhagen, the editorialist, “supports universal health care,” believes that such will lead to “healthier communities,” argues there needs to be “a buy in of all parties,” and that it should be “fair.” Sounds reasonable enough. Then there’s this:
Right now, insurance companies charge a set price for everyone that gets insured. That means it costs the same for a company to insure the young, healthy, health-conscious worker as it does the older, sedentary, smoking worker .... [T]he insurance company is doing is having the healthy person pay for the unhealthy one [which isn’t fair].
Umm ... does Ms. Oppenhagen realize that that is exactly the purpose of insurance – to spread the risk? Otherwise it isn’t insurance; it’s prepaid medical care. Prepaid medical care was the rationale for health maintenance organizations (HMO’s); which have mostly crashed and burned.
[And then there’s] Canada [which] does have universal health care. Do I want to go the Canadian route? Not a chance. While it’s great that everyone gets coverage, there is a long wait to get seen for the most routine of matters. [T]alk of universal health care goes hand in hand with talk of rationing .... I cringe at the idea of rationing health care. [I]s it fair that someone with the financial resources to pay for medical services on their own gets treated for a disease that someone without the resources would have to do without?
“Long waits” are a form of rationing. Is it fair to deny medical care solely because someone can afford to pay? And is it fair to force Ms. Oppenhagen to pay for someone else’s care (e.g., via taxation) and thus deny herself care that she could otherwise have afforded?
All the talk of expanded coverage for health care ignores one critical aspect: personal responsibility.
Well, something I can almost agree with – but doesn’t personal responsibility include the responsibility for paying for one’s own health care?
There is no reward system in place for being healthy. Insurance companies are starting to acknowledge personal responsibility in that some are paying for gym memberships or weight loss services for the overweight.
So the solution for personal responsibility is coercion (by the government) or bribery (by the insurance companies)?
So what does Ms. Oppenhagen recommend?
First, reward general practice physicians. That would create a greater supply of doctors providing basic care.
But if we’re all personally responsible and healthy, doesn’t that obviate the need for general practice physicians?
Then, insure everyone at a basic rate. Include in that rate the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings for blood pressure, cancer and diabetes — the things that a perfectly healthy person would need to stay healthy.
But the cost of an annual physical and routine screenings is peanuts in the grand scheme of health care. And mostly unnecessary.
Reimburse the doctor at a rate that allows them to spend time with their patient. That should make premiums low enough for everyone.
Huh? Paying doctors more lowers premiums? Not in any economic system I’m familiar with.
Then add a surcharge, if you will, for unhealthy habits — smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, etc. This way the people who will statistically use more services are paying their fair share.
And I’m going to go to my doctor and say I’m a fat, smoking, drunk; I want to pay more? Again, Ms. Oppenhagen misses the difference between insurance and prepaid medical care.
And if someone is overweight, for example, the insurance company can offer incentives if the person agrees to engage in healthier activities, such as paying for a dietician to follow an eating plan.
See above; coercion and bribery.
This column has nowhere near enough space to discuss all the little nuances that would be involved. It is also one that the government needs to spend time on doing right, not just doing for the sake of doing.
At least the last sentence is right.
Look, it’s health insurance, for chrissake. Insurance. You pay a fee in order to reduce the risk of something catastrophic happening and pray the money paid is wasted. Routine stuff you pay out of pocket.
That’s the responsible approach - and it doesn't involve the government.
THE POTEMKIN PRESIDENCY
With respect to healthcare, Roger Kimball calls it the Potemkin Presidency – “It has an impressive façade, propped up by some high-gloss rhetoric and a formidable public relations machine. But at bottom, President Obama and his ideological confrères are totally out of their depth.”
In his assessment of President Obama’s “public option” for health insurance, Kimball quotes Greg Mankiw, an economist and former Bush adviser:
What leads anyone to believe that the U.S. government (in Kimball’s words,”the granddaddy of all insurance companies”) would be more honest, or efficient, than the 1300 or so companies that now compete for your business?
Continuing to quote Kimball, “It may sound noble to say, ‘Damn economics, let us build up a decent world’ — but it is, in fact, merely irresponsible.”
If only, they reason, they can turn over enough of the productive capacity of the country to the government, then (so they think) they will be in a position to eradicate the age-old irrationalities and inequities that have beset our capitalist society from the beginning.
In his assessment of President Obama’s “public option” for health insurance, Kimball quotes Greg Mankiw, an economist and former Bush adviser:
An important question about any public provider of health insurance is whether it would have access to taxpayer funds. If not, the public plan would have to stand on its own financially, as private plans do, covering all expenses with premiums from those who signed up for it.
But if such a plan were desirable and feasible, nothing would stop someone from setting it up right now. In essence, a public plan without taxpayer support would be yet another nonprofit company offering health insurance. The fundamental viability of the enterprise does not depend on whether the employees are called “nonprofit administrators” or “civil servants.”
What leads anyone to believe that the U.S. government (in Kimball’s words,”the granddaddy of all insurance companies”) would be more honest, or efficient, than the 1300 or so companies that now compete for your business?
Like so many “community organizers” before him, Obama is a friend of humanity. He wants to make the world a “better place” — better, that is, according to his lights. The problem is, he knows almost nothing about the way the world actually works.
Continuing to quote Kimball, “It may sound noble to say, ‘Damn economics, let us build up a decent world’ — but it is, in fact, merely irresponsible.”
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
They never really mended it, so they may be forced to end it. California has proposed the previously and supposedly unthinkable: ending welfare.
The state’s political establishment and social services bureaucracy have resisted the reforms of 12 years ago at nearly every possible turn, as shown here.
And yet in a recent speech on energy policy, President Obama chose an especially odd example:
I recall California’s "rolling blackouts" in 2000-2003. Today, with unemployment approaching 12%, California's economy is hardly "keeping pace" with the rest of the country.
The fact is that California should serve as a warning to Washington political elites, as well as to the rest of us, about the efficacy of big government.
Under welfare reform [in 1996], the country’s bloated caseload dropped very quickly. In its first four years, about 2.5 million families came off the dole ... This unprecedented mass transformation is an important but underappreciated element of the prosperity of the late 1990s.
The state’s political establishment and social services bureaucracy have resisted the reforms of 12 years ago at nearly every possible turn, as shown here.
And yet in a recent speech on energy policy, President Obama chose an especially odd example:
In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies. Over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. And today, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average--which, over time, has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. Think about that. California--producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country.
I recall California’s "rolling blackouts" in 2000-2003. Today, with unemployment approaching 12%, California's economy is hardly "keeping pace" with the rest of the country.
The fact is that California should serve as a warning to Washington political elites, as well as to the rest of us, about the efficacy of big government.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
THE BERSERK EDITORIALIST
Eugene Robinson, a columnist with the Washington Post really should lay off the Kool Aid.
Writing about "birthers" - those people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama is ineligible by reason of birth to be President of the United States, Robinson opines: "If there's been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I've missed it."
Uh, Eugene, how did you miss Dan Rather (remember him?} on former President Bush's National Guard service? It was in your own newspaper. Or Andrew Sullivan writing about Trig Palin? Or the Post's own treatment (also see comments) of Palin mockery?
And this: "Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?"
Only if it's from the right; liberals can't be paranoid.
[Update and bumped] Jonah Goldberg comments. I had completely forgotten the 9/11 "truthers."
Writing about "birthers" - those people who have convinced themselves that Barack Obama is ineligible by reason of birth to be President of the United States, Robinson opines: "If there's been a more clinically insane political phenomenon in my lifetime than the "birthers," I've missed it."
Uh, Eugene, how did you miss Dan Rather (remember him?} on former President Bush's National Guard service? It was in your own newspaper. Or Andrew Sullivan writing about Trig Palin? Or the Post's own treatment (also see comments) of Palin mockery?
And this: "Is this what our national discourse has come to? Sheer paranoid fantasy?"
Only if it's from the right; liberals can't be paranoid.
[Update and bumped] Jonah Goldberg comments. I had completely forgotten the 9/11 "truthers."
WHAT HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?
Er, climate change? It’s as if it was last year’s – or last decade’s – fad.
And be sure to read the comments.
And be sure to read the comments.
“SAFE” GUNS? OR GUN CONTROL?
In an earlier post I noted (with some surprise) that a majority of Americans support concealed carry. That reminded me of a Pajamas Media post on the bureaucratic method of gun control: “safety” certification.
Guns for me, but not for thee ....
California created its own test, both to drive up the cost and because a manufacturer has to pay for the test. If the manufacturer is out of business (not implausible for some older handguns), there’s no way for that gun to be certified — and therefore, no way to sell it in California. Some of the standards were also designed rather obviously to prohibit inexpensive handguns ... [an] effort to disarm a certain class of persons who are a bit too dark for ... liberals to trust with firearms.
Guns for me, but not for thee ....
IF YOU LIKE "CASH FOR CLUNKERS"
You'll love ObamaCare.
[Update] The video below is from GatewayPundit at a Cash for Clunkers rally in St. Louis.
Congressman Russ Carnahan was clobbered by tea party protesters who disagreed with Carnahan. a co-sponsor of the original piece of legislation to get the cash for clunkers program started.
Protestors were forced outside of the dealership where the rally took place.
BODY LANGUAGE
“In my own dealings with the wealthy and powerful, I have always found that the way to quickly capture the moral essence of a person is to watch how they treat those who are less powerful. “
“Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?”
From Don Surber, a comparison with a former President.
These photos seem to have struck a raw nerve on the Left (here and here).
“Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own. So who is compassionate? And who is so self-involved and arrogant that he is oblivious?”
From Don Surber, a comparison with a former President.
These photos seem to have struck a raw nerve on the Left (here and here).
CALIFORNIA BAFFLES VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
In Thoughts on a Schizophrenic Society, Dr. Hanson admits he’s baffled by his home state (pages 2 &3 of the post).
And who is at fault? “They” are:
Read it all.
State government is far too large. Employees enjoy pensions and compensation far above that found in private enterprise. Spending exceeds the rate of growth and inflation. Plentiful oil is not drilled; rich farmland is taken out of production; available timber is not always logged; nuclear power is shunned; key roads are delayed; natural wealth is considered nature’s, not man’s; yet men are not to live natural lives.
And who is at fault? “They” are:
This weird “they” is what killed California, the notion that somewhere in a room a group of plutocrats sits on bags on ill-gotten gold and can be dragged out and forced to cough up bullion in tough times. Do we believe that the Big Four of Huntington, Stanford, Hopkins, and Crocker are still around, hoarding half of the state’s resources?
Read it all.
A SUBSTITUTE FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN
A Senate vote to kill funding for the spent fuel repository in Nevada shows the Democratic Party and this administration aren't serious about energy independence, economic growth or environmental protection.
But Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily has the ideal solution - empty and lead-lined.
But Michael Ramirez at Investor's Business Daily has the ideal solution - empty and lead-lined.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
ALL THE "NEWS" DEEMED WORTHY TO PRINT
The Washington Times has a series of articles on mental illness in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. The first article is here, the second is here; the third is yet to be published. In a similar vein, the Washington Post today has an article on one family's unemployment resulting from the current recession.
Published as "news" stories, both are dishonest,thinly-guised editorials in favor of more government-funded intervention.
The Times' series is striking for what does not appear (at least not yet) - any assessment of pre-Katrina mental illness. What was the state of mental health (both illness and treatment) in New Orleans pre-Katrina? Despite the bleakness of the article(s), my sense is that pre-Katrina, things were worse. Not from what was written, but from what was not written.
The Post article is somewhat more honest in that from the vignette, the reader can see that the wounds were self-inflicted. Not that that's any consolation to the family profiled.
Two questions arise.
First, are either of these news? Personally, I don't think so, but I'm open to differing opinion.
Second, and more important, should public policy be based on anecdote? This one I'm firm on - absolutely not. No policy is ever perfect; there are always consequences; and policy-makers must err on the side of the public good even when individual anecdotes are compelling ("Not Yours to Give").
Published as "news" stories, both are dishonest,thinly-guised editorials in favor of more government-funded intervention.
The Times' series is striking for what does not appear (at least not yet) - any assessment of pre-Katrina mental illness. What was the state of mental health (both illness and treatment) in New Orleans pre-Katrina? Despite the bleakness of the article(s), my sense is that pre-Katrina, things were worse. Not from what was written, but from what was not written.
The Post article is somewhat more honest in that from the vignette, the reader can see that the wounds were self-inflicted. Not that that's any consolation to the family profiled.
Two questions arise.
First, are either of these news? Personally, I don't think so, but I'm open to differing opinion.
Second, and more important, should public policy be based on anecdote? This one I'm firm on - absolutely not. No policy is ever perfect; there are always consequences; and policy-makers must err on the side of the public good even when individual anecdotes are compelling ("Not Yours to Give").
VICTIMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The Senate begins debate on the Sotomayor confirmation.
My own feeling, based on her repeated “wise Latina” comments and the Ricci v. DeStefano decision (New Haven firefighter discrimination) reversing Sotomayor, is that she will become the first “affirmative action victim" appointed to the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama is, of course, the first “affirmative action victim” elected to be President.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor says she is a "perfect affirmative action baby," and that she was accepted to Princeton and Yale despite her lackluster test performance compared to other applicants.
She made these comments in a video dating back to "early '90s" that she submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as part of her Supreme Court nomination process.
Sotomayor admitted that her acceptance to the Ivy League schools would have been "highly questionable" if not for affirmative action.
"My test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale," she said on a panel for a nonprofit law organization.
My own feeling, based on her repeated “wise Latina” comments and the Ricci v. DeStefano decision (New Haven firefighter discrimination) reversing Sotomayor, is that she will become the first “affirmative action victim" appointed to the Supreme Court.
Barack Obama is, of course, the first “affirmative action victim” elected to be President.
NEWS?
Shepard Smith always starts the Fox Report with “The NEWS starts now!”
If that’s the case, then what was I watching on Special Report (just before I turned him off)?
If that’s the case, then what was I watching on Special Report (just before I turned him off)?
WHY IS JIMMY CARTER SMILING?
Failing at failure – from the comments at Grouchy Old Cripple: “So, He's going to fail at being the worst Prez ?”
Via Don Surber.
OBAMA APPROVAL INDEX
Former President Bush didn't hit a -30 approval rating in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll until the last full month of his presidency. President Obama appears to be on track to match that rating in the first full year of his first term.
Who said the man isn't capable?
[Update & Bump] From another comment thread: "Maybe he can now claim he has “inherited” Bush’s poll numbers too."
THE FOLLY OF HATE-CRIME LAWS
I rarely agree with Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, but this is a commentary with which I can agree. Writing on the murder of Holocaust Museum security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns by James von Brunn, an apparent consummate bigot:
Finally - an admission by a man of the Left that "hate crime" laws serve no purpose beyond political pandering.
Exactly.
Yes. And exactly the reason "hate crime" should be regulated to a historical footnote.
The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech.
Finally - an admission by a man of the Left that "hate crime" laws serve no purpose beyond political pandering.
[Stephen Tyrone] Johns is dead no matter what [James] von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it's not as if the crime is not being punished.
Exactly.
The added "late hit" of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.
Yes. And exactly the reason "hate crime" should be regulated to a historical footnote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)