The full weight of the new health care bill will not be hitting the economy immediately, but current effects of more taxes will be bad enough. The scope of embedded new regulations will only become known gradually. For instance there are apparently detailed requirements and regulations regarding hospital building and expansion. The complete take-over of student loans that is embedded in the bill has just recently been noted by the press. Who had heard of that until about a week before it was passed?
As destructive as this health care regulatory scheme is, there is more to come. Illegal immigrant amnesty, cap-and-trade will be coming, for instance.
An all-out legislative blocking campaign is the best plan for now. Zero new tax, zero spending except military. Just vote no. What comes after the fall elections, a search for some grounds for impeachment maybe?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Ronald Reagan Knew It Was Wrong
President Obama, in one of his innumerable sales pitches, stated that Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ted Kennedy all knew that government supplied health care was right. They may have said that, but that does not mean they knew what they were talking about. Common sense tells us that it is wrong. Ronald Reagan, in a speech made in the early 1960's, says what he thinks of the idea. He was staunchly and irrevocably against it. He gave the economic and political arguments why he so believed.
Today, Billy Cunningham says, is a day that will live in infamy. He was depressed but animated while discussing the health care bill that was passed in the House of Representatives, in a special Sunday session this evening. The guests on Mr. Cunningham's weekly Sunday show were Mark Levin (see Mark Levin Show), Dr. Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation), and a member of the Cato Institute (see cato.org). They talked about the tragic results this bill will have on American health and on the American economy. Mr. Cunningham says it is a bad night for great Americans.
This blog has discussed some of the reasons why this is a tragic outcome. Congressional adoption of this plan is a defeat for those who believe in the free market.
Mr. Cunningham brightened up the program by reading from an email. The sender states that Barack Obama is the greatest thing that has happened for this country in a long time. Among the reasons for this, he lists: BHO has destroyed both the Clinton and Kennedy dynasties and he has rejuvenated the Republican party.
Today, Billy Cunningham says, is a day that will live in infamy. He was depressed but animated while discussing the health care bill that was passed in the House of Representatives, in a special Sunday session this evening. The guests on Mr. Cunningham's weekly Sunday show were Mark Levin (see Mark Levin Show), Dr. Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation), and a member of the Cato Institute (see cato.org). They talked about the tragic results this bill will have on American health and on the American economy. Mr. Cunningham says it is a bad night for great Americans.
This blog has discussed some of the reasons why this is a tragic outcome. Congressional adoption of this plan is a defeat for those who believe in the free market.
Mr. Cunningham brightened up the program by reading from an email. The sender states that Barack Obama is the greatest thing that has happened for this country in a long time. Among the reasons for this, he lists: BHO has destroyed both the Clinton and Kennedy dynasties and he has rejuvenated the Republican party.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Root of the Health Care Crisis
Why is the health care “crisis” like the mortgage “crisis”? Both the medical industry and the mortgage industry were thrown so much money that they did not know what to do with it. This has resulted in bad loans and wasteful medical care.
In many ways, we have too much medical care, not too little. The large capacity to provide medical care has come about because of consumer demand for medical care. Why is there so much demand? Because we don’t have to pay for it. Government agencies or insurance companies pick up the bill. In actuality, we all foot the bill through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums, but we do not pay directly based on the level of services received. This large demand has resulted in growth in the medical industry to supply the care that people want. The point is that we would not want a significant portion of this care if we had to pay for it ourselves.
This is the problem that creates the so-called health care crisis. Often insurance companies are required to offer certain minimum levels of coverage. If they could offer less coverage, many people would prefer that and pay a lower premium. They would of course use less health care. A partial solution would be to let insurance companies offer and consumers have the coverage they prefer. This would limit the number of expensive procedures because consumers would have to pay for a larger portion of the bill themselves. That means less regulation, not more.
In the final analysis, there will be near unlimited demand for any free service. As the amount paid to providers by government and insurance companies shrinks, the supply of medical services will shrink. As the president says, this status quo is unsustainable. The problem with his proposal is that it makes the problem worse by offering more coverage to more people with less direct cost to consumers for the health care they receive.
The Democrats and Obama tell us that we can afford their plan. But why would we be more able to afford health care collectively when we can not afford it individually? Their plan is full of illogic and inconsistencies. For instance, why would anyone buy insurance for thousands of dollars a year if instead they can pay the government fine of a few hundred dollars instead? Since insurance companies could not refuse coverage, even for diagnosed illnesses, we could wait until we wanted an expensive procedure and then purchase insurance. I am sure a black market for basic primary care would develop. Trouble with that plan is that only the seriously ill would get insurance and the insurance companies would fold or have to be bailed out. That would eventually result in a total government take-over.
We have seen that government can not keep the costs of Medicare down. There are fundamental economic reasons why the government can not do what the free market does: it balances supply and demand and provides just the level of care that people want. This blog attempts to explain and references others who attempt to explain why socialism does not work.
Tell your representative that you do not want the government take over of health care. Along with the government take overs of banking, automobiles, etc., with hhealth care, it would control about 50% of the economy. Mark Levin and others list the representatives who have not announced the way they will vote.
Apparently the number to call the House of Representatives is: 1-877-SOB-U-SOB. That says it all.
In many ways, we have too much medical care, not too little. The large capacity to provide medical care has come about because of consumer demand for medical care. Why is there so much demand? Because we don’t have to pay for it. Government agencies or insurance companies pick up the bill. In actuality, we all foot the bill through higher taxes and higher insurance premiums, but we do not pay directly based on the level of services received. This large demand has resulted in growth in the medical industry to supply the care that people want. The point is that we would not want a significant portion of this care if we had to pay for it ourselves.
This is the problem that creates the so-called health care crisis. Often insurance companies are required to offer certain minimum levels of coverage. If they could offer less coverage, many people would prefer that and pay a lower premium. They would of course use less health care. A partial solution would be to let insurance companies offer and consumers have the coverage they prefer. This would limit the number of expensive procedures because consumers would have to pay for a larger portion of the bill themselves. That means less regulation, not more.
In the final analysis, there will be near unlimited demand for any free service. As the amount paid to providers by government and insurance companies shrinks, the supply of medical services will shrink. As the president says, this status quo is unsustainable. The problem with his proposal is that it makes the problem worse by offering more coverage to more people with less direct cost to consumers for the health care they receive.
The Democrats and Obama tell us that we can afford their plan. But why would we be more able to afford health care collectively when we can not afford it individually? Their plan is full of illogic and inconsistencies. For instance, why would anyone buy insurance for thousands of dollars a year if instead they can pay the government fine of a few hundred dollars instead? Since insurance companies could not refuse coverage, even for diagnosed illnesses, we could wait until we wanted an expensive procedure and then purchase insurance. I am sure a black market for basic primary care would develop. Trouble with that plan is that only the seriously ill would get insurance and the insurance companies would fold or have to be bailed out. That would eventually result in a total government take-over.
We have seen that government can not keep the costs of Medicare down. There are fundamental economic reasons why the government can not do what the free market does: it balances supply and demand and provides just the level of care that people want. This blog attempts to explain and references others who attempt to explain why socialism does not work.
Tell your representative that you do not want the government take over of health care. Along with the government take overs of banking, automobiles, etc., with hhealth care, it would control about 50% of the economy. Mark Levin and others list the representatives who have not announced the way they will vote.
Apparently the number to call the House of Representatives is: 1-877-SOB-U-SOB. That says it all.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Dream Team 2012
Tonight Billy Cunningham showed himself again to be an uncompromising conservative. He has long been encouraging Sean Hanity to be a candidate for president in 2012. He also proposes Mark Levin as attorney general and himself as Sean's first Supreme Court appointment. The way the Democrats are imploding by implementing their increasingly communistic agenda, a Republican victory of unprecedented scope would be a possibility. To expand on some of Billy's premature ideas, I would add Sarah Palin as vice president. She sounds very good to me, in spite of her recent endorsement of John McCain. It is hoped that will be her last concession to the McCain style Republicans.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Mark Levin Wrong (but is Still Right)
Mark Levin is correct that Section 7 of Article I of the Federal Constitution states, "[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States..." Of course, section 1 states, "[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates..." In other words, under the constitution, only congress can make laws and the way they make them is by both houses passing a bill (that is, the same bill). Then the president has the power to approve or reject the bill before it becomes a law. Section 7 further provides for the presidential veto and congressional override of that veto. That is the part where the the statement is made that the name of each member voting must be entered on the journals of the respective houses: for the vote whether or not to override the presidential veto. Mark Levin is not correct when he says that the constitution requires the names to be entered on the journals for votes on all bills.
The names on the journal part is a minor point. The point is that the bill has to be passed by both houses, not deemed passed. Mark Levin is still 99.9% right all of the time. That puts him a little ahead of Rush Limbaugh.
With some exceptions, a roll call can be demanded by any member of the House or Senate on any vote. Apparently, with a large enough majority, this rule can be waive. During the first years of the FDR administration, there were large enough Democrat majorities to deny requests for roll calls. The result of that was that constituents could not find out how their congressional members voted. When the Republicans won more seats, they could and did demand that a roll be taken of every vote. Roosevelt's control over congress started to slip at that point.
When the final vote came to send Roosevelt's Judicial Bill adding more justices back to committee, a Republican Senator moved for a roll call vote. Republicans further demanded to know exactly with what instructions the Bill would be remanded to committee. The instructions were that it would not deal at all with the supreme court. The Republicans wanted to make sure the bill was good and dead and that everyone knew it. Burt Wheeler had refused to compromise, be bought out, or intimidated.
(For reference regarding the FDR era congress, see: "Will War in Europe Save Roosevelt?" by Fredrick L. Collins; Liberty magazine, November 11, 1939. Mr. Collins says, "He surrounded himself with erratic and inexperienced theorists." Sound familiar? )
The names on the journal part is a minor point. The point is that the bill has to be passed by both houses, not deemed passed. Mark Levin is still 99.9% right all of the time. That puts him a little ahead of Rush Limbaugh.
With some exceptions, a roll call can be demanded by any member of the House or Senate on any vote. Apparently, with a large enough majority, this rule can be waive. During the first years of the FDR administration, there were large enough Democrat majorities to deny requests for roll calls. The result of that was that constituents could not find out how their congressional members voted. When the Republicans won more seats, they could and did demand that a roll be taken of every vote. Roosevelt's control over congress started to slip at that point.
When the final vote came to send Roosevelt's Judicial Bill adding more justices back to committee, a Republican Senator moved for a roll call vote. Republicans further demanded to know exactly with what instructions the Bill would be remanded to committee. The instructions were that it would not deal at all with the supreme court. The Republicans wanted to make sure the bill was good and dead and that everyone knew it. Burt Wheeler had refused to compromise, be bought out, or intimidated.
(For reference regarding the FDR era congress, see: "Will War in Europe Save Roosevelt?" by Fredrick L. Collins; Liberty magazine, November 11, 1939. Mr. Collins says, "He surrounded himself with erratic and inexperienced theorists." Sound familiar? )
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Obama vs. the Constitution
There is a recent book titled, "FDR vs. The Constitution." It is the political history of FDR's "Court Packing" plan. He intended to undermined the separation of powers in the constitution by appointing hand-picked justices to the supreme court. In 1933 and 1934, five of the nine justices generally blocked his New Deal legislation. Because they were appointed for life, he couldn't remove them but he planned to appoint up to six more justices who would vote his way. With an overwhelming Democrat majority in congress, FDR planned to get his court plan enacted by congress. Only principled Democrats, led by Senator Burton Wheeler, of Montana, defeated his plan.
Are there similarly principled Democrats in Congress now? That remains to be seen. Obama's legislative plans involve getting the health care bill adopted by unconstitutional means. This may be necessary for him and his central committee because the House does not have a majority that supports the Senate bill. The Senate cannot pass a bill acceptable to the House because the recent election of a Republican to replace the late Teddy Kennedy gives the Republicans enough votes to use the filibusterer to stop any bill. Therefore, Obama, Ried, and Palosi have to adjust the procedural rules. They may do this by "passing" the bill in the house without actually voting on it but with a rule change. This violates the US Constitution which states that a bill, "which shall have been passed," by both houses is presented to the president for his signature to become law.
This actually should not work if the members of the House of Representatives who object to the bill realize that by voting for a rule change, they would really be voting for the bill. I guess they could kid themselves, but not their constituents. This is reminiscent of the situation a few months ago when Olympia Snow and the other Maine Republican voted for the Senate bill because they said they really were not voting for the bill but for "discussion of the health care issue." This blog and others stated at the time that they were opening the door to this sort of procedure to make a health care bill law.
The senate created the filibusterer rule to avoid passing significant legislation without substantial support in congress, and, as in this case, without popular support of the people of the country. Reagan realized that his plan for a line item veto did not meet this test of substantial congressional support and that his plans to override the regular procedure was unconstitutional. He dropped his plan. His legal advisers and others made the constitutional case against it. Reagan saw that the constitution was more important that his plans, so did Senator Wheeler. Not so FDR or BHO.
(Mark Levin has been and will be discussing the constitutional issues extensively.)
Are there similarly principled Democrats in Congress now? That remains to be seen. Obama's legislative plans involve getting the health care bill adopted by unconstitutional means. This may be necessary for him and his central committee because the House does not have a majority that supports the Senate bill. The Senate cannot pass a bill acceptable to the House because the recent election of a Republican to replace the late Teddy Kennedy gives the Republicans enough votes to use the filibusterer to stop any bill. Therefore, Obama, Ried, and Palosi have to adjust the procedural rules. They may do this by "passing" the bill in the house without actually voting on it but with a rule change. This violates the US Constitution which states that a bill, "which shall have been passed," by both houses is presented to the president for his signature to become law.
This actually should not work if the members of the House of Representatives who object to the bill realize that by voting for a rule change, they would really be voting for the bill. I guess they could kid themselves, but not their constituents. This is reminiscent of the situation a few months ago when Olympia Snow and the other Maine Republican voted for the Senate bill because they said they really were not voting for the bill but for "discussion of the health care issue." This blog and others stated at the time that they were opening the door to this sort of procedure to make a health care bill law.
The senate created the filibusterer rule to avoid passing significant legislation without substantial support in congress, and, as in this case, without popular support of the people of the country. Reagan realized that his plan for a line item veto did not meet this test of substantial congressional support and that his plans to override the regular procedure was unconstitutional. He dropped his plan. His legal advisers and others made the constitutional case against it. Reagan saw that the constitution was more important that his plans, so did Senator Wheeler. Not so FDR or BHO.
(Mark Levin has been and will be discussing the constitutional issues extensively.)
Obama and Big Government: The Bandito Business
Like high pressure salespeople, Obama and his Democrats in Congress, just want us to sign on the dotted line. They can then transfer the funds directly from our account, that is to say from the US Treasury. What we get in return is really irrelevant to them. They will put a chief bureaucrat in charge who will set up an organization with millions of other bureaucrats. It is guaranteed to be highly dysfunctional but that’s OK. In fact it is good because it gives Obama and his Party two things they want: money and power. When the system proves to be dysfunctional, they will ask for and receive more power and more money.
This is not only the formula for the currently proposed healthcare program, but for virtually all big government programs. The bigger the better – more money and more power. People have gone along because they are promised something for nothing. When it is apparent that the cost of a proposal will hit home, they eventually balk. If the press can spoon feed us with lies, the public may never find out. The Obama Squads are his henchmen and groups that believe they will be recipients of the money and power. They are starting to make threats and twist arms, won’t they always?
The current health care proposal will be bad for health care and it will be bad for the economy. People are beginning to see this because we have loud voices in opposition to the Government Controlled Lame-Stream Media. We can expect more loud opposition. Be prepared for more attacks from the Obama Squads against Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glen Beck, Barbara Bachman, Michael Savage, Laura, Billy, Sean, Michael, etc.
Thank God for these usual suspects.
This is not only the formula for the currently proposed healthcare program, but for virtually all big government programs. The bigger the better – more money and more power. People have gone along because they are promised something for nothing. When it is apparent that the cost of a proposal will hit home, they eventually balk. If the press can spoon feed us with lies, the public may never find out. The Obama Squads are his henchmen and groups that believe they will be recipients of the money and power. They are starting to make threats and twist arms, won’t they always?
The current health care proposal will be bad for health care and it will be bad for the economy. People are beginning to see this because we have loud voices in opposition to the Government Controlled Lame-Stream Media. We can expect more loud opposition. Be prepared for more attacks from the Obama Squads against Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Glen Beck, Barbara Bachman, Michael Savage, Laura, Billy, Sean, Michael, etc.
Thank God for these usual suspects.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Obama Health Care Looters
Socialism has been described as killing the goose that laid the golden egg, with capitalism being the goose. Tonight, Mark Levin referred to Bastiat's description of the fruits of socialism as plunder. What happens when there is nothing left to plunder? Mr. Levin also used the metaphor of locust stripping a field of grain. When there is no more grain, what do the locust socialists propose to do?
I think of socialism as legalised looting. What happens when the looters have broken all the windows and taken all the merchandise? Will the store restock the shelves so that the looters can come back for more? I don't think so, nor will factories continue to produce just so their production can be taken from them. The socialists think nothing of attacking corporations who produce most of the world's goods. They do not know how they will continue to produce without corporations but they seem to think they can do it. Actually, they do not seem to have even thought ahead that far. We have said it before: capitalism is the most efficient way to provide for the most urgent needs of mankind.
Senator Murry again treated us to the story of Marcelas Owens whose mother died because she lost her health insurance. I have not heard the press explain this story in any more detail. It seems to me that the mother could have obtained emergency life saving care if she had sought it out. Both the states and charities provide ample free care for the needy. What is instructive to me in this story is this: Hypothetically, the mother required some advanced procedure that was available in this country. The reason that the procedure was available is because our health care system with its corporations and insurance companies provided that procedure. They did the research and development, which was financed by investors who believed that through insurance and other means, consumers would be able to pay for their service. If our health care had been socialised years ago, the procedure would not even exist. Even if she had state supplied coverage, the procedure would never have been produced so she, and the rest of us, would be out of luck.
It is hard for the victims of socialist propaganda to see the error in their ways. It would require the ability to envision what might and could have been.
I think of socialism as legalised looting. What happens when the looters have broken all the windows and taken all the merchandise? Will the store restock the shelves so that the looters can come back for more? I don't think so, nor will factories continue to produce just so their production can be taken from them. The socialists think nothing of attacking corporations who produce most of the world's goods. They do not know how they will continue to produce without corporations but they seem to think they can do it. Actually, they do not seem to have even thought ahead that far. We have said it before: capitalism is the most efficient way to provide for the most urgent needs of mankind.
Senator Murry again treated us to the story of Marcelas Owens whose mother died because she lost her health insurance. I have not heard the press explain this story in any more detail. It seems to me that the mother could have obtained emergency life saving care if she had sought it out. Both the states and charities provide ample free care for the needy. What is instructive to me in this story is this: Hypothetically, the mother required some advanced procedure that was available in this country. The reason that the procedure was available is because our health care system with its corporations and insurance companies provided that procedure. They did the research and development, which was financed by investors who believed that through insurance and other means, consumers would be able to pay for their service. If our health care had been socialised years ago, the procedure would not even exist. Even if she had state supplied coverage, the procedure would never have been produced so she, and the rest of us, would be out of luck.
It is hard for the victims of socialist propaganda to see the error in their ways. It would require the ability to envision what might and could have been.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Free Free Market vs. The Party
The recent health care summit tells the whole story of what this administration is all about: a quest for authoritarian, dictatorial power. The president pressured Republican congressional leaders to attend a meeting with him and Democrats. The Republicans were reminded that they must address BHO as President Obama or Mr. President. Yet he addressed them by first name. What ever happened the the co-equal branches of government? After months of stating that the Republicans had proposed no health care ideas of their own, he summarily dismissed their proposals as unacceptable. He then lectured the Republicans for using "talking points" and for "campaigning." In point of fact, his and the Democrat's only arguments against the Republican proposals were that they could not be passed by Congress. In other words, they would vote against them. That is precisely why the republicans don't have bills being considered in congress. Since they are a minority and the Democrats are not in a bipartisan mood, any Republican bill is dead on arrival. BHO and the Democrats have constantly claimed that the Republicans have no ideas. One Democrat, who was quoted for a week in the press, stated that Republicans' only health care plan was that if you are sick, you should die. These types of statements by BHO and the Democrats are in fact only propaganda, campaigning talking points. Just because the press didn't point it out, does not mean it isn't so.
The Republican ideas include removing state regulations so individuals can shop for any type of health insurance policy that they want. Income tax deductible of individual health care and insurance should remove the bias in favor of employer provided coverage and promote portability. Insures would be required to participate in high risk pools to take pre-existing conditions and other high risks at a predetermined rate. For those who cannot afford available coverage, the state would subsidise care on a sliding scale. Private charities could also play a roll. Private insurance companies and all types of providers would be in constant competition to provide the best and lowest cost care. Some providers would of course contract with insurance companies to provide specialised care for certain expensive cases. The roll of the state could be minimal. Consumer protection agencies could closely police any violations of the contractual responsibilities of the parties involved. This would augment normal legal remedies. Tort lawyers would play the roll that they currently do of obtaining compensation for those who are seriously injured by negligently shoddy care or by breaches of contract. As far as tort reform, some sort of limits on judgements could be set. Judges and juries do a fair job of doing this already. The benefit of this type of tort reform would be to keep down the number of expensive tests. This would happen by reducing defensive medicine and by reducing expensive procedures preformed under the pretense of defensive medicine.
There are many market refinements possible that would need only minimal and probably no new types of government involvement. What is needed is less regulation to let the efficiencies of the market do the job, not the bureaucrats. This is what Republicans, at least the conservatives, want. This is what Democrats, at least the Progressives, Communists, and Socialists do not want. With little or no government involvement, we would not need them.
The Republican ideas include removing state regulations so individuals can shop for any type of health insurance policy that they want. Income tax deductible of individual health care and insurance should remove the bias in favor of employer provided coverage and promote portability. Insures would be required to participate in high risk pools to take pre-existing conditions and other high risks at a predetermined rate. For those who cannot afford available coverage, the state would subsidise care on a sliding scale. Private charities could also play a roll. Private insurance companies and all types of providers would be in constant competition to provide the best and lowest cost care. Some providers would of course contract with insurance companies to provide specialised care for certain expensive cases. The roll of the state could be minimal. Consumer protection agencies could closely police any violations of the contractual responsibilities of the parties involved. This would augment normal legal remedies. Tort lawyers would play the roll that they currently do of obtaining compensation for those who are seriously injured by negligently shoddy care or by breaches of contract. As far as tort reform, some sort of limits on judgements could be set. Judges and juries do a fair job of doing this already. The benefit of this type of tort reform would be to keep down the number of expensive tests. This would happen by reducing defensive medicine and by reducing expensive procedures preformed under the pretense of defensive medicine.
There are many market refinements possible that would need only minimal and probably no new types of government involvement. What is needed is less regulation to let the efficiencies of the market do the job, not the bureaucrats. This is what Republicans, at least the conservatives, want. This is what Democrats, at least the Progressives, Communists, and Socialists do not want. With little or no government involvement, we would not need them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)