Healthcare is next

Steve Forbes on the coming fight over socialized medicine:

Let's clear up some of the myths. Both Medicare and Medi-caid are heavily subsidized by privately insured patients, to the tune of $90 billion a year. Federal reimbursement in these two programs is far below cost, which is why an increasing number of doctors are refusing to treat or are substantially cutting back on the number of Medicare and Medicaid patients they see.

Medicare and Medicaid are rife with fraud. Unlike private insurers, the government refuses to spend real resources on routing out the wrongdoing: overbilling, overtesting and charging for visits not made or tests not given.

The health care industry is 17% of our economy, and we are about to turn it over to the government. The results will be a substantial decline in quality of care, long waits for treatment of chronic or terminal illnesses (if you get treated at all), and a decline in innovation. The Forbes editorial brings up the excellent point that in our current medicaid system, treatment for medicaid patients is often subsidized by patients with private insurance. Medicare/medicaid does not pay market value for treatment, and usually makes these payments late. The result is that health care providers are forced to charge more overall for services -- meaning people with private insurance cover not only their own treatment, but the gap between medicaid and reality.

Another facet of reality that gets ignored when liberals start talking about socialized medicine is that European socialized health systems are in fact subsidized by the US taxpayer through our military involvement abroad. The US heavily subsidizes European defense. Most EU countries have little or no capability to defend themselves and they rely on the US military to do it for them. Yugoslavia in the 90's is the prime example of Europe's military impotence. Instead of spending money on their military, they dump vast sums into various welfare programs.

Forbes does a good job of outlining a free market solution, that not only would provide more people with care, but would improve the overall quality of care for everyone:

--Allow mandate-free insurance policies. True catastrophic health insurance--not the current dollar-for-dollar coverage--is very affordable.
--Permit people to buy health insurance across state lines. Removing such barriers would sharply increase competition.
--Make it easier for small businesses to buy insurance in a pool, whether through trade associations or other kinds of affiliations.
--Equalize the tax treatment of premiums. Companies get a tax deduction for health insurance premiums, as do the self-employed. Why not give that break to employees who choose to buy their own individual policies? They would get a deduction or a refundable tax credit (meaning if they don't have a tax liability they'd get an actual check from Uncle Sam). Many small businesses offer no insurance, or those that do may offer policies some workers find unsatisfactory. These folks should have the ability to easily get their own alternatives.
--Raise limits on contributions to HSAs and on permissible deductibles.

Ultimately we have to foster a culture of responsibility when it comes to health. The effects of a great many health issues - obesity, type II diabetes, heart conditions - can be substantially mitigated, if not eliminated through diet, exercise, and healthy life style choices. Without a sense of personal responsibility towards our health, otherwise avoidable health problems could quickly overwhelm any health care system.

Still messing with the font

I know; I'm a nerd.

States' rights, WOOT!

On Tea Party day here in Texas, Governor Rick Perry caused quite a stir. Drudgereport and HotAir reported that he had suggested Texas might succeed. The quote they are referring to:

There's a lot of different scenarios. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot.

Normally, I think HotAir's analysis are pretty spot on, but in this case, I think AP is hyperventilating. Secession talk is pretty typical around here, and it is all really tongue-in-cheek. The annual, and largest, biker rally in Austin is called the "Republic of Texas Rally." Texans are famously loyal to and proud of their state; any wise political is going to heed that sentiment. If it sounds "awful" to out of state ears, then they can go suck an egg for all I care. Personally, I am glad to see someone from our state standing up to D.C. That is his duty as governor. If fending off a challenge from Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the next gubernatorial election is his motivation; it works for me.

There was definitely a strong emphasis on states' rights. "Texans know how to run Texas" as Gov. Perry said. If critics want to interpret that as secession ism, then let 'em. What are they going to do? Have the UN send a strongly worded letter?

Here is the video of his Austin speech:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1530363-rick-perry-at-the-austin-tea-party

Tea Party! Yay.

I went to my local tea party; it was a blast. IT looks like nation wide they were a smashing success, though CNN, CNBC and others would like to discount them.

So far Michelle Malkin is the best source with regular updates:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/15/massive-tax-day-tea-party-usa/

Gulp

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism

Fox News in Decline

The ratings may be up, but the quality of the content seems to be on the way down.

From Victor Davis Hanson:

Footnote. The once insightful Fox News is rapidly devolving into a sort of entertainment circus. That is a tragedy, since the network for years has done wonders in offering an antithesis to the supposedly non-biased biased network news. Each news show now interviews hosts from the other Fox news hours (To save money? Free publicity?). Hawking books (written in short, breezy style, without much analysis) is done on the air rather than as commercials. Anchors show old clips of themselves and invite in analysts to praise their on-air interviews (are they going to be invited back if critical?).

The hosts now constantly blare out their own ratings. Murder and rapine often headline the news in the manner of the local 6PM affiliates. Quiz shows are part of the news; female analysts are almost always either young or blond or usually both, rather than simply insightful. The sober and judicious Brit Hume’s presence is missed. Take away a few top-notch correspondents, and Charles Krauthammer’s sagacity and depth of thinking, and there is increasingly not a lot there. (but I like Neil Cavuto’s business hour and Dennis Miller’s op-eds) All in all, an unfortunate development, since there is no disinterested counterpart to a 60 Minutes or NBC News, and for years Fox offered an invaluable alternative in airing real news deliberately ignored by the mainstream networks.

What is a news junkie to do?

New format

What do you think? Yeah, I am still tweaking the colors a bit. Is it easier to read?

What the heck is Corporatism?

Arguing over whether the "change" we are now experiencing is socialism or corporatism feels like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, but, then again, what else are you going to do while waiting for a spot to free up on the lifeboats? So here is a thought provoking column from today's RCM on the subject:

Obama and the Reawakening of CorporatismBy Steven Malanga

But we are entering quite a different age right now, one in which the President of the United States and his hand-selected industrial overseers fire the chief executive of General Motors and chart the company’s next moves in order to preserve it. Conservative critics of the president have said that the government’s GM strategy is one of many examples of an America drifting toward socialism. But President Obama is not a socialist. If his agenda harks back to anything, it is to corporatism, the notion that elite groups of individuals molded together into committees or public-private boards can guide society and coordinate the economy from the top town and manage change by evolution, not revolution.

In a rapid, real time illustration of how badly this social/corporate/whateverism is going to crash and burn, GM (henceforth known as Government Motors) teamed up with Segway to produce the first government concept car. HotAir dubs it the Depressionmobile.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A 200cc 1970's Vespa gets around 80mpg and a top speed in the neighborhood of 60mph. It is 40 year old technology that would kick this things ass. Talk about a giant leap backwards.

Foie Gras Update

Why Won't Geithner Take TARP Repayments?By Investor's Business Daily

Bailouts: Didn't Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner say that it was not the administration's intent to control private companies? Then why is it reportedly reluctant to accept TARP repayments from some banks?

The Ayn Rand Factor

I can't get enough of this topic. Here is an insightful column:

Atlas Shrugged Sales Overturn Policy Calculations
By Robert Tracinski

But the sales figures for Ayn Rand's magnum opus tell us an opposite story. In the midst of this crisis, hundreds of thousands of people are turning to a book that glorifies capitalism.

Meanwhile, where are all of the socialist books on the bestseller lists?

Thus, while Obama has launched the de facto nationalization of two whole industries—finance and automobiles—his administration remains oblivious to the depth and strength of public resistance to socialism in America.

Foie Gras de Banker

“My administration,” the president added, “is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

Wow, Obama firing GM CEO, Rick Wagoner, made headlines last week, but he was also busy intimidating financial executives. Less then a week after AIG exec's publicly endured death threats and ACORN mobs being bussed to their houses, Obama is threatening bank exec's with pitchforks. Nice, so much for rule of law. Realising they had made a Faustian deal, some of them even tried to give the TARP money back, and Obama refused it. Politico has behind the scenes details of the meeting:

Inside Obama's bank CEOs meeting

Dimon also insisted that he’d like to give the government’s TARP money back as soon as practical, and asked the president to “streamline” that process. But Obama didn’t like that idea — arguing that the system still needs government capital.

The president offered an analogy: “This is like a patient who’s on antibiotics,” he said. “Maybe the patient starts feeling better after a couple of days, but you don’t stop taking the medicine until you’ve finished the bottle.” Returning the money too early, the president argued could send a bad signal.

A bad signal for whom, Mr President? Might taxpayers be a little annoyed if they found out that TARP money was being crammed down the throats of banks that didn't want it? Let me offer an analogy:

Several CEOs disagreed, arguing instead that returning TARP money was their patriotic duty, that they didn’t need it anymore, and that publicity surrounding the return would send a positive signal of confidence to the markets.

Sorry guys. He's gotcha where he wants ya.

$3.6T shopping spree!

The House and Senate approved largely identical versions of the President’s $3.6 trillion budget with hardly any cuts -- except in defense. The good news is they dropped the idea of taxing charitable giving and refused another $250B in bailout money.

Congress Approves Obama's $3.6 Trillion Budget

There was speculation last week that the Dem’s would have to choose between socialized medicine or cap-and-trade, but that no longer appears to be the case. A draft version of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” is working it’s way through House committees.

House Democrats release draft energy, climate bill

The bill by Reps. Henry Waxman of California and Ed Markey of Massachusetts would establish a cap-and-trade program curbing U.S. emissions 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, with a midcentury target of 83 percent reductions of the heat-trapping gases. It also creates a nationwide renewable electricity standard that reaches 25 percent by 2025, new energy efficiency programs and limits on the carbon content of motor fuels, and requires greenhouse gas standards for new heavy duty vehicles and engines.

Mathmatical modeling and global warming

Anyone who has worked with mathematical modeling knows it can be a great tool, but it has to be supported with hard data. That is the huge problem with global warming theories and why they amount to little more than superstitions. They rely solely on models, yet the models fail to produce predictions that support their accuracy.

American Thinker has a great essay with more details:

It's the Climate Warming Models, Stupid!
By Gregory Young

In addition to the difficulties mentioned above, is the late arriving Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) prejudice that has set the evolution of climate modeling back a few decades. Previously known and accepted climate components have been summarily stripped from the equation -- such as the dominant factors involving the Sun and the importance of water vapor in the atmosphere as the dominant greenhouse gas. This is because in the cause to acquire lucrative AGW-biased government grants, many scientists have opted to blatantly skew their climate models to amplify AGW-favoring evidence and amplify anthropogenic CO2 importance. In this manner, they then qualify to receive funding and ensure publication.

Describing the compounded inaccuracies of these Johnny-come-lately modelers who would rather be funded than scientifically astute, Dr. Tim Ball, a former climate scientist at the University of Winnipeg sardonically clarifies: "The analogy that I use is that my car is not running that well, so I'm going to ignore the engine (which is the sun) and I'm going to ignore the transmission (which is the water vapor) and I'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel (which is the Human produced CO2) ... the science is that bad!"

Then they came for middle management,

But I said nothing because I don't work in the financial industry.

Officials seek new power over financial companies

WASHINGTON – Pointing with dismay to the AIG debacle, the nation's top economic officials argued Tuesday for unprecedented powers to regulate and even take over financial goliaths whose collapse could imperil the entire economy. President Barack Obama agreed and said he hoped "it doesn't take too long to
convince Congress."

Yes, let's hurry up. Afterall, we wouldn't want there to be any time to debate all this. It might dawn on someone that it is unconstitutional.

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By Byron YorkChief Political Correspondent 3/31/09 (Hat tip HotAir)

It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

Lordy, just when I think it is safe to take off, the tinfoil hat, stories like this start spilling out of the internet. How long did it take them to go from CEOs to regular Joes? One week, at the most, how long will it take to make the leap from companies recieving bailouts to any company they feel like? I thought I was wading a bit far into the deep end of the pool when I posted this about manufactured crisis, but it is hard to think of a more perfect example of:

1. manufacturing a crisis
2. expanding government to deal with the fake crisis.

First, they bail out AIG. Geithner knows all about the bonuses, but he doesn't touch them. Next, people become outraged that exec's got bonuses. Obama anounces "we won't reward failure," and now we get all this legislation about limiting bonuses and salaries. If you just let failing companies fail, you don't need to federal legislation to regulate their paychecks, but that's not the idea.

They keep using the same play over and over again. This is exactly the same thing that is going on with global warming. They announce that the world is going to end, and the only way to save it is if they tax you within an inch of your livelyhood.

I am going to need more tinfoil.

More collectivism

Obama, the nation's CEO

An Obama administration official said the president’s hard-nosed approach will continue. “We’re not going to reward failure,” the official said. “We’re in an economic crisis, which takes shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. The only way that we will recover is if everybody puts a little skin in the game.” (Emphasis added)

Ummm ... excuse me if I am skeptical that we have a shared responsibility to bail out GM. Hard nosed approach, hmmmm, counting down until hardnosed approaches involve camps, out in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by barbed wire, 10...9...8. I hear there are some empty cells down at Gitmo. We all know who the REAL terrorists are.

Diagnosis ODS?

Obama Derangement Syndrome
By David HorowitzFrontPageMagazine.com Monday, March 30, 2009

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.

Speaking of this crowd, have you seen any “I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president's war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?

Conservatives, please. Let's not duplicate the manias of the Left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not exactly the anti-Christ, although a disturbing number of people on the Right are convinced he is.

I have recently received commentaries that claim that "Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history" and "never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people" and "Obama is a narcissist," which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.

Weeeellll, excuse me while I pick my nose -- guess which finger I am using. His speeches ARE unlike any political speech we have ever heard; they send tingles up the collective leg of the left. The difference between Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome will be determined by history. In the meantime there will be some elections, too. At the moment, Obama & Co. are busy socializing our financial and auto industries and erroding the value of the dollar. Down the road, if we are dealing with an energy crisis, rampant inflation, and looking the other way while Iran churns out nukes, that commentary won't look quite so deranged, will it?

I would love to be cured so I can sit back, chillax, sip my kool-aid, and enjoy the global socialist utopia with the rest of the happy global citizens of UN hemispheric district #6. Just for the record, I don't think Obama is Hitler, Stalin, or the anti-Christ; that is all giving him WAY to much credit. I also don't think he is Ronald F. Lincoln, as he has been marketing himself. I think he is the love child of Jimmy Carter and Hugo Chavez. Ewwww. Bad mental image just then.

Green! Like red but with a hipster cool vibe

Green! It's the new red. Yeah, I know, someone already made a bumper sticker. I said it first though, dammit! I have also been saying this:

EDITORIAL: Protect us from the EPA
There are lots of good arguments here. One good one:

Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people claim results from global warming.

Uhhg. But then there is this:

COP15, Copenhagen -- United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this year will be the moment in history when humanity can rise to the challenge and decisively deal with the issue. It is beyond the shadow of a doubt that greenhouse gas emissions must be radically reduced to prevent climate change from sliding into climate chaos.

Only the UN can save the world! Kyoto, Copenhagen, the IPCC -- this is all leading one place. The goal is to establish a precedent in which the UN has the authority to levy taxes. I don't recall voting for anyone in the UN. Why do Russia, China, France, etc. get to say what taxes we pay here in the United States? Sheesh. Talk about ye old taxation without representation.

They came first for the CEOs

Populist Democracy Declares War On CEOs

Belligerent unions are making it a practice to take CEOs hostage in France as police stand idly by. Tour bus operators are taking gawking populists past the homes of executives in Connecticut so they can hoot and take pictures. When and how this behavior progresses from hurling invective to lobbing bricks, as has already happened in England, depends on whether our civic leaders insist on throwing gasoline on the fire. What will it take, a Corporate Crystalnacht, to wake them up to the danger they’re fomenting?

But I didn't speak up because I am not a CEO...

Lhasa in the spring

Tibet reopens to foreign tourists

The Chinese news agency Xinhua quoted Tibet's head of tourism as saying the region was now "harmonious and safe". But there is still a heavy Chinese military presence in the area, and foreign journalists and human rights groups cannot operate freely.

Northern India, Nepal, and Tibet are near the top of my dream vacation list. Someday, I will have vacation time and money... at the same time. Yeah, dream on bitsyblogger.

Deep doo doo

How deep in the doo? Two depressing links on the growing debt:

Obama’s Doubling of National Debt in Pictures

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.

• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.

• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.

I was never a fan of "compassionate conservatism." There was nothing conservative, nor particullarly compassionate, about it, but Obama's budget radically amplifies the problem.

Obama's Fuzzy Math
A trillion here, a trillion there . . .
by Stephen Moore

Here are the unhappy totals: the debt is $6 trillion higher from 2010 to 2019 than Obama's forecast. In no single year over the next decade, even when counting the Social Security trust fund surpluses, does the budget deficit fall below $800 billion. The interest on the national debt rises to $850 billion a year by the middle of the next decade, which will be the largest single expenditure item in the budget--eight times more than we now spend on education and four times more than we spend on homeland security. Federal spending remains well over 25 percent of GDP and in some years creeps closer to 28 percent of GDP under the Obama budget, which ironically enough is entitled "A New Era of Responsibility."