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.
Friday, August 14, 2009
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?
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Economic Crisis
People, please stop falling for all the excuses that the government and its subservient media is handing you. This is not a matter of too little regulation, greed, stupid homeowners or whatever.
Those are consequences of the root cause-excessive money and credit creation by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did this to keep interest rates artificially low in the face of massive government deficits and borrowing.
Normally, the borrowing, being so huge to finance both the welfare state and two nonsensical wars, would have driven interest rates very high. By creating new money, they bought back much of that debt and pushed interest rates back down.
The consequence of all that is a rapidly increasing money supply and higher prices for everything. Now how could an ordinary person not notice how the prices of real estate kept going up and interest rates stayed low. It was like manna from heaven and people took advantage of the situation to make money on a "sure thing". Tell me that you did not think that real estate only goes up in price.
This is the classical bubble described in text books for hundreds of years. It is an old game played by government that ALWAYS bursts giving drastically lower prices and bad debts.
The best solution is drastically reduce government spending so no new borrowing is needed, lower taxes and get out of the way. The economy will recover in a year or so.
But instead, our brilliant leadership (both the R and D kind) think that the hair of the dog is the solution. Let's spend even more and inflate the money supply even more to get things back where they used to be, Let's try to reinflate the bubble.
That can't work and never has though it has been tried. The 1930s was an example of further money creation (and they even raised taxes and tariffs) causing the economy to stay bad for a decade. That is right folks, the New Deal did not work. The New New deal will fail just the same.
If you don't learn from history, you get to repeat it!
Those are consequences of the root cause-excessive money and credit creation by the Federal Reserve Bank. They did this to keep interest rates artificially low in the face of massive government deficits and borrowing.
Normally, the borrowing, being so huge to finance both the welfare state and two nonsensical wars, would have driven interest rates very high. By creating new money, they bought back much of that debt and pushed interest rates back down.
The consequence of all that is a rapidly increasing money supply and higher prices for everything. Now how could an ordinary person not notice how the prices of real estate kept going up and interest rates stayed low. It was like manna from heaven and people took advantage of the situation to make money on a "sure thing". Tell me that you did not think that real estate only goes up in price.
This is the classical bubble described in text books for hundreds of years. It is an old game played by government that ALWAYS bursts giving drastically lower prices and bad debts.
The best solution is drastically reduce government spending so no new borrowing is needed, lower taxes and get out of the way. The economy will recover in a year or so.
But instead, our brilliant leadership (both the R and D kind) think that the hair of the dog is the solution. Let's spend even more and inflate the money supply even more to get things back where they used to be, Let's try to reinflate the bubble.
That can't work and never has though it has been tried. The 1930s was an example of further money creation (and they even raised taxes and tariffs) causing the economy to stay bad for a decade. That is right folks, the New Deal did not work. The New New deal will fail just the same.
If you don't learn from history, you get to repeat it!
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Meaning of Words
Words like liberal, conservative, progressive, change over time. Parties like Democrats and Republicans change their principles over time, sometimes by takeover by stealth, sometimes by natural evolution. The main lesson for us plain folks is to never get married to the name of a philosophy or a party, blindly following it after it has abandoned the principles that brought us to it in the first place.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
I decided that I was a conservative in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran for president. I recognized that, despite what I was told during my upbringing in New York City, it was not a good idea for poor folks to be Democrats and liberals. What was best for everyone was a small, unobtrusive government that let you keep the fruits of your labor. I registered Republican at the first opportunity (age 21 at that time). Today, I have noted that the Republican Party that nominated Barry Goldwater does not exist any longer. It has drifted into something very different.
A lot of folks who spent their lives saying they were conservative apparently did not notice when a group that called themselves neoconservatives took over their movement and changed it drastically. Today, when you say you are conservative, people don’t think of a freedom lover. Today, to be recognized as a conservative, you need to support the Iraq war and future wars that the neo-cons think is right and proper. You must stand silent to the violations of due process that are everyday doings of the Bush administration. You must be in favor of government interference in interpersonal relationships. Today, if you are against the war, you must be a liberal. If you think that the government should not tell people whom to love, you must be a liberal. And you certainly cannot be a conservative, if you think that sick people can use that devil weed, marijuana to ease their suffering.
Well, I am against the war and I am not a liberal (as currently defined). I believe that the most important value of this nation is its tradition of individual freedom. We have a constitution that protects that freedom. I will support a candidate who supports individual freedom and is obedient to the constitution, no matter what his party label. I will not support a candidate who thinks that obeying the constitution is optional, no matter what his party label.
I am a Libertarian now, because it is the only party that actually takes individual freedom seriously. To prevent long term drift of the party away from this basic principle, We require a simple pledge of new members-
I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
We also have a statement of principles that requires a 7/8 vote at convention to change. We are well aware of the danger of drift and infiltration and have taken steps to slow or prevent it. Apparently the Republicans did not.
I supported Ron Paul for president and I have joined The Hope for America Coalition because these actions help to further my desire for a restoration of the individual freedom that used to by the primary feature of this nation. I care about this because I want my kids to spend their lives in freedom, not in tyranny.
I urge you all who are conservative, to ask yourselves if the Republican Party deserves your support any longer. Please don't answer that the Democrats are worse. Choosing the lesser evil, election after election, gets you the evil that is happening today. Open your mind to the Libertarian Party and its principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)