I spend a lot of time at various public events manning what we call an OPH booth (Operation Politically Homeless). We ask people to take a short quiz and then use the results to place them on a chart that shows a political spectrum. Our point being that the simple left right line is totally inadequate to show most people. If interested, you can take the quiz online at www. self-gov.org.
I often hear the question-What is the difference between conservatives and libertarians? That question is getting harder and harder to answer because the definition of conservative is so fluid. It changed drastically during the administration of W.
Nevertheless, as a minimum we can say that Libertarians agree with conservatives on most economic issues and probably free speech and press. Beyond that, there is way to much variation among conservatives to make a definitive statement.
Do conservatives believe in due process. For the most part, sure but they were easily swayed to ignore that for alleged terrorists. Thus they gave a totally unacceptable power to government to name someone as a terrorist without the need to prove the facts. We still have hundreds of prisoners in GITMO and BAGRAM whose guilt is still unknown but whose time in prison is many years. Libertarians find this not just shameful but horribly dangerous.
How about gay marriage and all the other issues around homosexuality? Libertarians are true to the freedom philosophy here. Adults may make any living and/or loving arrangements they please without interference from the state. Conservatives apparently put their ideas of a proper society ahead of freedom on this issue.
The longest running debate is about the drug war. Libertarians have always advocated personal freedom. We recognize the massive damage done to people and society from attempting to prohibit the use of mind altering substances. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition all too well. Conservatives believe that they have a right to tell other people what they may use for enjoyment and apparently just refuse to learn from the alcohol prohibition disaster. Indeed, I am sure there are some that would want to try alcohol prohibition again, just with more police this time.
Right now, this looks like irreconcilable differences. One can only hope that people who are basically freedom lovers will realize that there is no compromise of freedom with tyranny possible.
If you would have freedom for yourself, you must grant similar freedom for all others!
Do you really think that your freedom to practice Christianity, for example, would survive if you allowed the government to ban some other religion that you found distasteful? Once such decisions are in the hands of the government, even a democratic one, the allowed religions become a matter for majority vote. That is definitely not commensurate with freedom.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Death Panels
Some have said that the phrase DEATH PANELS was a silly attempt to scare the daylights out of the public. The real problem is that it was immediately paired with a provision in the bill for end of life counseling. That muddied the water to where no one knows what anyone is talking about. Good trick for the media.
End of life counseling is not the provision that will cause the mass death of older folks with expensive illnesses. It will actually help them deal with things when that happens. The real problem comes from a provision for a study of "comparative effectiveness". Initially this will be a data gathering panel that will publish statistics on the cost and results (in terms of additional months or years of life) offered by many possible treatments. There are a bunch of problems with this.
First is the usual issue with anything done by government. It will not be updated very frequently and will not include newly developed treatments for years after they are available.
Secondly, and far worse is that it will become the standard of care. If it is shown that a particular treatment only buys an average of 12 months of additional life at a cost of more than some standard-let's use $20K per year, then it will be declared not sufficiently effective and be made unavailable under the government paid system. This will happen without regard to individual circumstances which might make it far more effective for you.
We know this is the intention of the plan. Obama has stated so. Howard Dean has stated so and our friends in England already do this in their wonderful public health plan. So, prepare to become like poor Bessy the cow who is too old to give milk anymore. Why should the farmer spend any vet money to keep her alive. When the government runs your health care, you are reduced to a farm animal who has to justify your continued life by productivity. If you can't work, no longer pay income tax, what is the point of spending money to keep you alive. After all, it is their money now.
Only idiots who think that are going to get something for nothing will give up this control of their lives.
End of life counseling is not the provision that will cause the mass death of older folks with expensive illnesses. It will actually help them deal with things when that happens. The real problem comes from a provision for a study of "comparative effectiveness". Initially this will be a data gathering panel that will publish statistics on the cost and results (in terms of additional months or years of life) offered by many possible treatments. There are a bunch of problems with this.
First is the usual issue with anything done by government. It will not be updated very frequently and will not include newly developed treatments for years after they are available.
Secondly, and far worse is that it will become the standard of care. If it is shown that a particular treatment only buys an average of 12 months of additional life at a cost of more than some standard-let's use $20K per year, then it will be declared not sufficiently effective and be made unavailable under the government paid system. This will happen without regard to individual circumstances which might make it far more effective for you.
We know this is the intention of the plan. Obama has stated so. Howard Dean has stated so and our friends in England already do this in their wonderful public health plan. So, prepare to become like poor Bessy the cow who is too old to give milk anymore. Why should the farmer spend any vet money to keep her alive. When the government runs your health care, you are reduced to a farm animal who has to justify your continued life by productivity. If you can't work, no longer pay income tax, what is the point of spending money to keep you alive. After all, it is their money now.
Only idiots who think that are going to get something for nothing will give up this control of their lives.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Obama's Goal
In politics, things are rarely done in a straight forward manner. By that I mean the goals stated are usually not the whole story. There is almost always another motive that they don't dare state. You have to divine this from the details of the proposal as it relates to the stated goals.
So for example, we are told that we need health care reform because we have 47 million uninsured. No discussion how many of those have made an intentional choice to save the premium costs. For the purposes of this discussion, let's take that number as correct. That is roughly 15% of the population. That means that 85% of the population is insured and probably satisfied with their insurance coverage.
So now, is the new plan the best and cheapest way to get that 15% insured. Clearly not!! The dictum "First do no harm" should be kept in mind always. It seems pretty foolish to upend the whole system and mess around with the satisfied 85% when we need only subsidize the 15% and be done. To understand what I am saying, think how we help those who cannot buy enough food. The government did not take over the food industry. They gave money to poor people who met certain criteria, via the mechanism of food stamps. They buy their food like everyone else, in a free market with all the efficiency and innovation that comes with it.
The equivalent method for health insurance is "HEALTH STAMPS. Just set up a needs based requirement for getting a voucher which I like to call health stamps and the stated problem is solved and the 85% are not affected or disturbed.
So the stated reason is not the true reason for this massive 'reform'. What might the true reason be? I am assuming that there are two driving forces for this. We know that Obama has spent his whole life espousing big government intervention and the Marxian dictum, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Apparently he wants a monstrously expensive system that will justify raining taxes even further on the already most taxed group of high income earners. When experience shows this as still inadequate, let's go after those comfortable middle class folks. Let's share every one's poverty. Socialists do not understand incentives and disincentives very well.
Rationing is also inevitable in an always cash short system so this will give the leaders the power of life and death over the populace. I hope that is not a driving force but it cannot be discounted.
In any case, the plan is idiotic since the problem can be solved much more simply with "health stamps".
Please don't take this as an endorsement of a broadening of the welfare state. I merely point out that health stamps would solve the problem without creating a disaster. A still better but longer term solution is eliminating the state and federal laws and rules that make health care more expensive than it needs to be. Thus I offer as an alternative the HEALTH STAMPS PLAN as a short term fix with a deregulation move to follow. That will have a goal of lowering the costs so that nearly everyone will be able to afford good insurance and fewer will need health stamps.
So for example, we are told that we need health care reform because we have 47 million uninsured. No discussion how many of those have made an intentional choice to save the premium costs. For the purposes of this discussion, let's take that number as correct. That is roughly 15% of the population. That means that 85% of the population is insured and probably satisfied with their insurance coverage.
So now, is the new plan the best and cheapest way to get that 15% insured. Clearly not!! The dictum "First do no harm" should be kept in mind always. It seems pretty foolish to upend the whole system and mess around with the satisfied 85% when we need only subsidize the 15% and be done. To understand what I am saying, think how we help those who cannot buy enough food. The government did not take over the food industry. They gave money to poor people who met certain criteria, via the mechanism of food stamps. They buy their food like everyone else, in a free market with all the efficiency and innovation that comes with it.
The equivalent method for health insurance is "HEALTH STAMPS. Just set up a needs based requirement for getting a voucher which I like to call health stamps and the stated problem is solved and the 85% are not affected or disturbed.
So the stated reason is not the true reason for this massive 'reform'. What might the true reason be? I am assuming that there are two driving forces for this. We know that Obama has spent his whole life espousing big government intervention and the Marxian dictum, "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs". Apparently he wants a monstrously expensive system that will justify raining taxes even further on the already most taxed group of high income earners. When experience shows this as still inadequate, let's go after those comfortable middle class folks. Let's share every one's poverty. Socialists do not understand incentives and disincentives very well.
Rationing is also inevitable in an always cash short system so this will give the leaders the power of life and death over the populace. I hope that is not a driving force but it cannot be discounted.
In any case, the plan is idiotic since the problem can be solved much more simply with "health stamps".
Please don't take this as an endorsement of a broadening of the welfare state. I merely point out that health stamps would solve the problem without creating a disaster. A still better but longer term solution is eliminating the state and federal laws and rules that make health care more expensive than it needs to be. Thus I offer as an alternative the HEALTH STAMPS PLAN as a short term fix with a deregulation move to follow. That will have a goal of lowering the costs so that nearly everyone will be able to afford good insurance and fewer will need health stamps.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 4
Today, let's talk about tactics. In the mid 1990s, when the Clinton clan decided to save the world from freedom, they presented their health care reform as a complete package. All the details were available with all the flow charts, payment methods and new crimes defined fully. They were so proud of their monstrosity, they published a book with all the details.
Obviously, this gave the opposition the opportunity to read, understand and explain the contents. A lot of people thought it was unstoppable, so they started making plans to live through it. Several entrepreneurs announced plans to build floating hospitals several miles offshore all around the US to treat people who could not or would not wait for the system to care for them. The main lesson that Obama took from this was to go lightly on the details. Sell it as a somewhat vague concept and maybe you will get it through. It is very difficult to fight a phantom plan that can change or redefine terms as the opposition attacks.
That is why I feel we need to battle the basic assumptions, not the details. Let us stress the basic idea that some bureaucrat will decide if we get a particular treatment based on our life expectancy is a horrible idea and no matter how they laugh, rationing is inherent in any government run system. It cannot be otherwise because all our money has been placed in one pot and it is not bottomless. It is suddenly of no consequence that we scrimped and saved all our working lives to have a comfortable retirement with good medical care. Our resources got thrown into that same pot with the person who was a spendthrift all his life and we will get the same care, for better or worse. We might point out that this puts us in the position of pets brought to a vet. The vet and the owner decide if the treatment is cost effective or if the patient should be put down. Is that how you would like to be treated-like a pet or farm animal?
Another important issue for us is to decide what alternate we propose. We could take the position that the Status Que is far better than this plan. This is true but the Status Que is not great. I have seen alternate plans from so-called conservatives that astound me. I have seen plans that include full price controls and mandated purchase of insurance actually suggested by these so called conservatives. I have seen a Republican plan that is mostly double talk, i.e. platitudes about taking care of yourself.
My favored solution is, of course, individual freedom. We know that the system currently suffers under reams of state and federal regulation that drastically increase the cost of medical care and medical insurance. The direction to go is to undo those regulations.
One other thought. Have you all noticed the logical contradiction that we hear all the time from the politicians pushing this? We have to pass this to control costs but we also have to raise taxes to pay for this cost saving improvement. Makes by cognitive dissonance (BS) alarm sound.
Obviously, this gave the opposition the opportunity to read, understand and explain the contents. A lot of people thought it was unstoppable, so they started making plans to live through it. Several entrepreneurs announced plans to build floating hospitals several miles offshore all around the US to treat people who could not or would not wait for the system to care for them. The main lesson that Obama took from this was to go lightly on the details. Sell it as a somewhat vague concept and maybe you will get it through. It is very difficult to fight a phantom plan that can change or redefine terms as the opposition attacks.
That is why I feel we need to battle the basic assumptions, not the details. Let us stress the basic idea that some bureaucrat will decide if we get a particular treatment based on our life expectancy is a horrible idea and no matter how they laugh, rationing is inherent in any government run system. It cannot be otherwise because all our money has been placed in one pot and it is not bottomless. It is suddenly of no consequence that we scrimped and saved all our working lives to have a comfortable retirement with good medical care. Our resources got thrown into that same pot with the person who was a spendthrift all his life and we will get the same care, for better or worse. We might point out that this puts us in the position of pets brought to a vet. The vet and the owner decide if the treatment is cost effective or if the patient should be put down. Is that how you would like to be treated-like a pet or farm animal?
Another important issue for us is to decide what alternate we propose. We could take the position that the Status Que is far better than this plan. This is true but the Status Que is not great. I have seen alternate plans from so-called conservatives that astound me. I have seen plans that include full price controls and mandated purchase of insurance actually suggested by these so called conservatives. I have seen a Republican plan that is mostly double talk, i.e. platitudes about taking care of yourself.
My favored solution is, of course, individual freedom. We know that the system currently suffers under reams of state and federal regulation that drastically increase the cost of medical care and medical insurance. The direction to go is to undo those regulations.
One other thought. Have you all noticed the logical contradiction that we hear all the time from the politicians pushing this? We have to pass this to control costs but we also have to raise taxes to pay for this cost saving improvement. Makes by cognitive dissonance (BS) alarm sound.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 3
It amazes me that this Health Care discussion has simply ignored the constitution. This is our founding document and creates the pact between the people, the state governments and the Federal government. In fact, this is what brought the federal government into existence. Its every word and phrase is designed to clearly limit the authority of the federal government to a short, explicit list of functions, leaving all else to the states or the people.
That short list, embodied in Article 1 Section 8 absolutely does NOT contain health care as a federal function. Of course, that has never stopped them from doing the myriad things they do under the "elastic" clause as they have misnamed the commerce clause. Most of the things they have done in this vein have been terrible for the nation and it is time we started demanding compliance with the founding charter of the government. A government that ignores its founding charter is not a legitimate government but just a gang of thieves writ large.
Are the following things appropriate for a nation that considers itself free?
1. Force, at gun point, all employers to buy health insurance for all employees or pay a large penalty fee based on payroll.
2. Force, at gun point, anyone not otherwise covered to buy a government approved health insurance policy or pay a penalty tax.
3. Take money from people, deemed to rich to complain, at gun point, extra taxes, over and above what everyone else pays to supply health insurance to others.
4. Prevent people, at gun point, from spending their own money to buy health care if refused by the government system. Refusal based on something called comparative effectiveness or, in effect, setting a maximum payout per year of extended life. (I think this is what Sarah Palin meant by death panels except there will be no panel to argue with. Just a bureaucrat with a calculator.)
That short list, embodied in Article 1 Section 8 absolutely does NOT contain health care as a federal function. Of course, that has never stopped them from doing the myriad things they do under the "elastic" clause as they have misnamed the commerce clause. Most of the things they have done in this vein have been terrible for the nation and it is time we started demanding compliance with the founding charter of the government. A government that ignores its founding charter is not a legitimate government but just a gang of thieves writ large.
Are the following things appropriate for a nation that considers itself free?
1. Force, at gun point, all employers to buy health insurance for all employees or pay a large penalty fee based on payroll.
2. Force, at gun point, anyone not otherwise covered to buy a government approved health insurance policy or pay a penalty tax.
3. Take money from people, deemed to rich to complain, at gun point, extra taxes, over and above what everyone else pays to supply health insurance to others.
4. Prevent people, at gun point, from spending their own money to buy health care if refused by the government system. Refusal based on something called comparative effectiveness or, in effect, setting a maximum payout per year of extended life. (I think this is what Sarah Palin meant by death panels except there will be no panel to argue with. Just a bureaucrat with a calculator.)
Government Run Health Care Part 2
Now let us assume you are adamant that the government must DO SOMETHING about the 10 or 15% of the population that does not have health insurance. Shall we revamp the entire system and put it all under government control, even for the 85% that is happy with what they have?
If we had followed that same plan when we were worrying about food security, we would have handed the entire food industry over to the government and then we would all get our food from government run warehouses. I am sure it would be delicious. Instead we gave money (via food stamps) to the poor and disabled so they could buy their food where everyone else does. We did not bother the self sufficient very much at all (except for the taxes) and did not interfere with normal market forces that create good quality and innovation.
The equivalent function in the health care realm already exists-Medicaid. It seems we should only be discussing changes to the qualifications to receive Medicaid.
Now I in no way endorse Medicaid, food stamps or any other aspect of the welfare state. I am just pointing out the total lack of necessity to revamp the whole system when small and comparatively cheap adjustments will meet the goal. The fact that the welfare state and the high taxes it causes is a self perpetuating disaster should be obvious to all. But that is how government grows. It messes things up with a foolish intervention and then uses the consequences of that intervention to justify the next. And so it goes on a spiral into fascist or socialist hell.
If we had followed that same plan when we were worrying about food security, we would have handed the entire food industry over to the government and then we would all get our food from government run warehouses. I am sure it would be delicious. Instead we gave money (via food stamps) to the poor and disabled so they could buy their food where everyone else does. We did not bother the self sufficient very much at all (except for the taxes) and did not interfere with normal market forces that create good quality and innovation.
The equivalent function in the health care realm already exists-Medicaid. It seems we should only be discussing changes to the qualifications to receive Medicaid.
Now I in no way endorse Medicaid, food stamps or any other aspect of the welfare state. I am just pointing out the total lack of necessity to revamp the whole system when small and comparatively cheap adjustments will meet the goal. The fact that the welfare state and the high taxes it causes is a self perpetuating disaster should be obvious to all. But that is how government grows. It messes things up with a foolish intervention and then uses the consequences of that intervention to justify the next. And so it goes on a spiral into fascist or socialist hell.
Sunday, August 09, 2009
The political goons at the Town Hall meetings
The Democrats just seem to know that all the demonstrators and Town Hall Attendees who think the health plan is a bad idea are all hired goons. Must be how they normally handle a problem.
The truth is that the people who are against the health care plan are in fear for their lives, and justifiably so. No one has to pay me to demonstrate against this health care plan. We have all the notice we need that rationing for older people will be a feature. It is already in place for Medicare and there is no other way to limit the spending when everyone is covered.
I have a passion for and a self interest in stopping this plan. I don't mind if some group helps to get all us political amatuers organized. We need all the help we can get finding where our congress Critters are hiding.
It has occurred to me that this might be part of the plan to cure the Social Security bankruptcy in our future-just knock off the Baby Boomers early by denying them care. The plan includes bureaucrats that will make decisions on denying care to older folks if the cost of keeping them alive exceeds some unnamed standard for the additional years of life. I want to make that decision. Otherwise, we are no better than farm animals where the farmer decides how much it is worth to keep Bessy alive after she no longer gives milk.
My preferred alternative is not just do nothing but rather undo all the regulations that make health care and insurance far more expensive than they need to be.
The truth is that the people who are against the health care plan are in fear for their lives, and justifiably so. No one has to pay me to demonstrate against this health care plan. We have all the notice we need that rationing for older people will be a feature. It is already in place for Medicare and there is no other way to limit the spending when everyone is covered.
I have a passion for and a self interest in stopping this plan. I don't mind if some group helps to get all us political amatuers organized. We need all the help we can get finding where our congress Critters are hiding.
It has occurred to me that this might be part of the plan to cure the Social Security bankruptcy in our future-just knock off the Baby Boomers early by denying them care. The plan includes bureaucrats that will make decisions on denying care to older folks if the cost of keeping them alive exceeds some unnamed standard for the additional years of life. I want to make that decision. Otherwise, we are no better than farm animals where the farmer decides how much it is worth to keep Bessy alive after she no longer gives milk.
My preferred alternative is not just do nothing but rather undo all the regulations that make health care and insurance far more expensive than they need to be.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Government Run Health Care Part 1
The prospect of health care reform brings up many issues. It will need to cover several blog posts to keep matters clear. Today we shall look at the basic assumptions involved. In future posts we will look at the economic forces on the rest of the economy and the constitutional issues.
It seems apparent that many of the people who voted for Obama thought they were going to get something for nothing. In their magical thinking, the health care system was going to be just like it is now, but FREE. Those of us who have grown up understand the first rule of reality: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!! (TANSTAAFL)
Medical care, in all its manifestations is a good in economic terms. Someone has to go to school for a long time, work, invest, take chances to create medical care. So, if we are not going to physically enslave all the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and steal all the capitol equipment used for health care, someone has to pay for it.
Shall the user of the medical service pay for it or shall the government use its guns to make someone else pay for it? That is the stark reality of the situation. Which is the moral and ethical choice?
Now, let's say that you decided for the use of government guns and you still want your "free" health care. How might this work? The government has to collect taxes from everyone under some rule or another. Maybe you will be in a less taxed group, maybe not but, in any case, the government will take a pile of money from us and then pay for our health care-right?
Well, they have a budget. For any given year they have a sum allotted to health care. There is, after all, a limit to what you can steal from a productive person before he decides to stop producing. What if the demand for services exceeds that budget amount? They have to deny services to someone. By what standards do people get denied and who decides? AYY-there is the rub. Your money has been taken from you. You no longer have it available to pay for care. Some government functionary decides who gets care and who doesn't.
In Canada, it is just waiting lists. Let's see if you survive with your 90% occluded coronary arteries until your name comes up on the list. Or maybe it will be something like they are already doing with Medicare patients. How many of the government's dollars is it worth to extend your life? Notice that money became their dollars now-not yours any longer. Is there anything more foolish than giving up control of your very life?
It seems apparent that many of the people who voted for Obama thought they were going to get something for nothing. In their magical thinking, the health care system was going to be just like it is now, but FREE. Those of us who have grown up understand the first rule of reality: THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!! (TANSTAAFL)
Medical care, in all its manifestations is a good in economic terms. Someone has to go to school for a long time, work, invest, take chances to create medical care. So, if we are not going to physically enslave all the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, technicians and steal all the capitol equipment used for health care, someone has to pay for it.
Shall the user of the medical service pay for it or shall the government use its guns to make someone else pay for it? That is the stark reality of the situation. Which is the moral and ethical choice?
Now, let's say that you decided for the use of government guns and you still want your "free" health care. How might this work? The government has to collect taxes from everyone under some rule or another. Maybe you will be in a less taxed group, maybe not but, in any case, the government will take a pile of money from us and then pay for our health care-right?
Well, they have a budget. For any given year they have a sum allotted to health care. There is, after all, a limit to what you can steal from a productive person before he decides to stop producing. What if the demand for services exceeds that budget amount? They have to deny services to someone. By what standards do people get denied and who decides? AYY-there is the rub. Your money has been taken from you. You no longer have it available to pay for care. Some government functionary decides who gets care and who doesn't.
In Canada, it is just waiting lists. Let's see if you survive with your 90% occluded coronary arteries until your name comes up on the list. Or maybe it will be something like they are already doing with Medicare patients. How many of the government's dollars is it worth to extend your life? Notice that money became their dollars now-not yours any longer. Is there anything more foolish than giving up control of your very life?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)