"Now the country's got Obama as a partner. Any problems, we go to Obama. Trouble with a bill, we can go to Obama. Trouble with immigration, healthcare, retirement savings, we can call Obama. But now we've got to come up with Obama's money every week. No matter what. Business bad? Fuck you, pay me. Oh, you had a fire? Fuck you, pay me. The place got hit by lightning, huh? Fuck you, pay me. Also, Obama can do anything. Especially run up bills on the Country's credit. And why not? Nobody's gonna pay for it anyway. And as soon as the deliveries are made in the front door, you move the stuff out the back and sell it at a discount. You take a two hundred billion dollar program and you call it 'shovel-ready.' It doesn't matter. It's all profit. And then finally, when there's nothing left, when you can't borrow another buck from China or finance another Green Energy Boondoggle, you bust the joint out. You light a match."
- with apologies to Martin Scorsese (unless he voted for this crapola, in which case, he can bite me)
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
The parody of Lena Dunham's "First Time" ad really writes itself.
I'll never forget my first time... it was awful. I was sure I'd found the right guy. He told me about all the things he was going to do for me and OH MY GOD it was SO exciting. I pulled back those curtains and... I did it... I pulled the lever for him. He started right in with his stimulus and at first it was sooo good. But then came Obamacare, and then he got Fast and Furious and all of a sudden it was over. I was all like, "that's it!?" He said he was so sorry. He swore this had never happened to him before, that he just didn't realize how bad things were when he got started. He begged me for another chance, but the feeling was... it was just gone. I just wasn't that into him anymore.
Next time I'll be sure to pick a guy who can satisfy my needs and deliver on his promises.
Next time I'm voting for Mitt Romney.
Next time I'll be sure to pick a guy who can satisfy my needs and deliver on his promises.
Next time I'm voting for Mitt Romney.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
ARGO and rehabbing Carter
I saw Ben Affleck's new film ARGO last week. It's a great film about a small story at the center of a bigger one, the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980. I really can't emphasize enough how amazing this movie is, and every American should see it.
That said, there is a really odd coda at the end that I've spent the last week trying to wrap my brain around. At the end of the film, over photographs of the actual people involved in the true story, we hear a Jimmy Carter soundbyte which, for all I know, may well have been recorded recently, specifically for this film.
I'm going to paraphrase it because I can't remember it word-for-word. But he basically says "this was a great and heroic mission. I would have loved to have talked about it when I was President because it would have been nice to take the credit, but it was more important to keep it secret, and so that's what we did."
This is, in my opinion, a pretty amazing thing for the former President to say, and even more amazing that Ben Affleck, noted Democratic operative, would put it in his film. There are three things about this quote that struck me as I sat there in the darkened theater.
1) I was surprised that, all these years later, Ben Affleck would care about re-habbing the reputation of a light-weight President, especially one who is being compared favorably to the "Lightworker" currently inhabiting the White House. But Ben pushed his chips all in with the Democrats years ago, and I suppose I admire him for his loyalty... I guess.
2) I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever heard Jimmy Carter allude to the fact, even obliquely, that his Presidency was such a disaster that it would have been nice to have just one thing to crow about.
and 3) I was struck by how differently Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama think about sensitive classified information. I'll give Carter a ton of credit here...
(I'll pause a second so you can revive yourself... all good? OK).
The temptation for Carter to crow about this mission must have been overwhelming... and yet he did the decent and honorable thing. Knowing that exposing this mission and the people involved could have cost them or their families their lives, he sat on it. He kept the secret.
Obama on the other hand, began crowing about the Bin Laden raid before the body was even cold. One day later, Vice President Biden stood in front of the press and identified the SEALS as those responsible for the operation. And one month later, some of those same SEALS were dead... having been lured into an ambush by Al Qaeda as retribution for the death of their leader.
As Glenn Reynolds is so fond of saying... at this point, Jimmy Carter feels like a best-case scenario.
That said, there is a really odd coda at the end that I've spent the last week trying to wrap my brain around. At the end of the film, over photographs of the actual people involved in the true story, we hear a Jimmy Carter soundbyte which, for all I know, may well have been recorded recently, specifically for this film.
I'm going to paraphrase it because I can't remember it word-for-word. But he basically says "this was a great and heroic mission. I would have loved to have talked about it when I was President because it would have been nice to take the credit, but it was more important to keep it secret, and so that's what we did."
This is, in my opinion, a pretty amazing thing for the former President to say, and even more amazing that Ben Affleck, noted Democratic operative, would put it in his film. There are three things about this quote that struck me as I sat there in the darkened theater.
1) I was surprised that, all these years later, Ben Affleck would care about re-habbing the reputation of a light-weight President, especially one who is being compared favorably to the "Lightworker" currently inhabiting the White House. But Ben pushed his chips all in with the Democrats years ago, and I suppose I admire him for his loyalty... I guess.
2) I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever heard Jimmy Carter allude to the fact, even obliquely, that his Presidency was such a disaster that it would have been nice to have just one thing to crow about.
and 3) I was struck by how differently Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama think about sensitive classified information. I'll give Carter a ton of credit here...
(I'll pause a second so you can revive yourself... all good? OK).
The temptation for Carter to crow about this mission must have been overwhelming... and yet he did the decent and honorable thing. Knowing that exposing this mission and the people involved could have cost them or their families their lives, he sat on it. He kept the secret.
Obama on the other hand, began crowing about the Bin Laden raid before the body was even cold. One day later, Vice President Biden stood in front of the press and identified the SEALS as those responsible for the operation. And one month later, some of those same SEALS were dead... having been lured into an ambush by Al Qaeda as retribution for the death of their leader.
As Glenn Reynolds is so fond of saying... at this point, Jimmy Carter feels like a best-case scenario.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Why Americans overhwelmingly support Gun Rights
Every time some crazy walks into a public place and opens fire I see the same thing in the MSM op-ed pages. Why oh why won't Americans support stricter gun control? And every time I see those same whiny op-ed writers come to the same dumb conclusion.
It must be because the NRA is oh so powerful.
Wrong.
Support for gun rights has been growing among Americans for a generation and there is an explanation that is just simple enough to be obvious but not so simple that it lends itself to an easy explanation in the New York Times op-ed pages.
The problem with gun control is that, at its very core, gun rights are irrevocably linked to the most basic of all human rights... the right to be safe and secure in one's home. When Government says to us that they want to restrict our right to own or carry a gun, they are saying that average citizens cannot be trusted with a gun and that even if they could, Government can do a better job of protecting your life and property than you can.
So why aren't Americans buying this argument?
Because we don't trust Government. You see it over-and-over in the polls. It's hard to find an insitution more reviled than Congress, and Presidential approval has been hovering at or below 50% for the last 12 years and counting. When Government says "don't worry, we got this" Americans collectively call bullshit.
We look around and see that Government has failed, almost across the board, to successfully execute even the most basic functions for which it is responsible. Government can't even operate on a budget... and I mean the REALLY can't operate on a budget... as in the Democratic controlled Senate has flat out refused to even propose one for going on four years. Government can't even deliver the mail--which is something our government has been doing successfully for almost 300 years--without the post office going bankrupt.
Protecting the lives and property of American citizens is an incredibly complex and difficult undertaking, so if Americans look around and see Government failure everywhere we turn, in even the simplest and most basic functions with which we have tasked our political leaders, what on Earth makes them think we would ever trust them with our self-defense?!
No thanks. I choose to arm myself... well.
Remember kids, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
UPDATE: This is such a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. Is there a more damning sentence than "DAY 4: When Federal Authorities took over."
It must be because the NRA is oh so powerful.
Wrong.
Support for gun rights has been growing among Americans for a generation and there is an explanation that is just simple enough to be obvious but not so simple that it lends itself to an easy explanation in the New York Times op-ed pages.
The problem with gun control is that, at its very core, gun rights are irrevocably linked to the most basic of all human rights... the right to be safe and secure in one's home. When Government says to us that they want to restrict our right to own or carry a gun, they are saying that average citizens cannot be trusted with a gun and that even if they could, Government can do a better job of protecting your life and property than you can.
So why aren't Americans buying this argument?
Because we don't trust Government. You see it over-and-over in the polls. It's hard to find an insitution more reviled than Congress, and Presidential approval has been hovering at or below 50% for the last 12 years and counting. When Government says "don't worry, we got this" Americans collectively call bullshit.
We look around and see that Government has failed, almost across the board, to successfully execute even the most basic functions for which it is responsible. Government can't even operate on a budget... and I mean the REALLY can't operate on a budget... as in the Democratic controlled Senate has flat out refused to even propose one for going on four years. Government can't even deliver the mail--which is something our government has been doing successfully for almost 300 years--without the post office going bankrupt.
Protecting the lives and property of American citizens is an incredibly complex and difficult undertaking, so if Americans look around and see Government failure everywhere we turn, in even the simplest and most basic functions with which we have tasked our political leaders, what on Earth makes them think we would ever trust them with our self-defense?!
No thanks. I choose to arm myself... well.
Remember kids, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
UPDATE: This is such a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. Is there a more damning sentence than "DAY 4: When Federal Authorities took over."
Saturday, September 8, 2012
In which your first President goes full Debbie Downer
On the question of whether or not Obama will win re-election, I'm going to quote The Sundance Kid... "That's one possibility." And since I'm in a dark mood this morning, I'm going to tell you what I think that would mean.
You're not gonna like it.
The first thing that will happen is Obama will take the GOP to war over the Bush Tax Cuts. It may seem like the GOP is in a power position here, but they aren't. With no election to face, Obama won't hesitate to take us over the brink and let all the cuts expire. You could argue that even if he DID have another election to run he wouldn't care, since he will have survived 43+ months of 8% unemployment, miserable job growth, horrible GDP, a $16 trillion deficit, and a historic low in labor force participation... what could possibly scare him at this point? He's going to feel invincible... and the truth is, he very well might be.
The GOP will have two choices. Refuse to budge on Obama's desire to let the cuts expire only for the rich, or force Obama's hand and allow them to expire on everyone. If they let the cuts expire only for the rich, Obama gets to claim victory, and when (not if, when) those increased tax rates hammer the economy further, the GOP's votes to help make it happen will give Obama political cover.
On the other hand, if the GOP does the right thing and fights to keep all the rates the same, Obama will move quickly to the doomsday option and allow them all to expire. When the increased tax burden hits middle class families in January, Obama will take to the Rose Garden podium and argue that he wanted to save middle class families from increased rates but the nasty GOP, the party of the Rich, simply wouldn't go along with it unless their rich friends got a cut too. And the complicit media will back him up... the headlines will be "GOP sacrifices Middle Class to protect the Rich."
Having won this battle, an emboldened Obama will re-embark on his quest to increase the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government. And since every new program will be pitched as a "free" giveaway, the GOP will oppose those programs at their great peril. Again, if they go along, they provide Obama cover when the system implodes. If they fight, they lose the midterms and give Obama what he wants... control of all 3 branches of Government.
But that's just the next four years. What happens after that? Well that all depends on wether or not we've crossed a Rubicon where turning the ship around is no longer possible because too many Americans are dependent on the things Government now "gives" them.
Let's assume we have. What would that mean?
Well as entitlement spending and the cost of servicing our debt approaches/exceeds 100% of GDP there will be less and less money available for the basic functions of Government, like infrastructure spending. Even though we already have an aging electrical grid that is highly susceptible to major outages, whatever money is left for Infrastructure won't be spent there... it will be spent on things like roads and bridges, because as Centrally Planned Nation States fail, they tend to spend the bulk of their available funds on making things LOOK like they're not failing (it's called "hiding the decline")... and unlike roads no one can actually see the electrical grid.
So in ten years time, our grid might start to look like a 2nd World power grid, with major outages two or three times a year (think India). In twenty years we might be sitting on a 3rd World grid with minor outages almost every day (think Cuba or Viet Nam). And those outages will get more frequent and more severe precisely when people can least afford to be without power... during periods of severe weather... like heat waves and blizzards.
What happens if the entire Northeast is hit by a blizzard, the overtaxed grid fails, and the power goes out for a week or more? There simply wouldn't be any way that an over-stressed Government could do anything to help millions of stranded people. No way at all.
Could you survive a week in a freezing house without the ability to get to the store for supplies? Water purification pumps will cease to operate if the outage is massive enough and you may have to boil your water. But what if your stovetop is electrical? Do you have some other way to purify your water? Power outages would mean no refrigerator units at supermarkets (not that you could get to them anyway) or at your home. Do you have a week's worth of non-perishable food to eat after the stuff in your fridge rots?
Am I being overly dramatic? It happened in India a couple of weeks ago and it's going to happen in Greece soon (hell the Los Angeles city grid fails at least twice a summer). The difference is those countries are blessed with more temperate climates. And in the case of India, you've got a population used to making do with less. How does a pampered American society unaccustomed to harship or scarcity of any kind make do in this kind of scenario?
I fear the results would not be pretty.
UPDATE: A colleague alerted me to this great BBC mockumentary. It's a what-if that looks at vulnerabilities in the British transportation system, but it comes to a lot of the same conclusions I've come to in the piece above. Let's just say it didn't make me feel any better.
You're not gonna like it.
The first thing that will happen is Obama will take the GOP to war over the Bush Tax Cuts. It may seem like the GOP is in a power position here, but they aren't. With no election to face, Obama won't hesitate to take us over the brink and let all the cuts expire. You could argue that even if he DID have another election to run he wouldn't care, since he will have survived 43+ months of 8% unemployment, miserable job growth, horrible GDP, a $16 trillion deficit, and a historic low in labor force participation... what could possibly scare him at this point? He's going to feel invincible... and the truth is, he very well might be.
The GOP will have two choices. Refuse to budge on Obama's desire to let the cuts expire only for the rich, or force Obama's hand and allow them to expire on everyone. If they let the cuts expire only for the rich, Obama gets to claim victory, and when (not if, when) those increased tax rates hammer the economy further, the GOP's votes to help make it happen will give Obama political cover.
On the other hand, if the GOP does the right thing and fights to keep all the rates the same, Obama will move quickly to the doomsday option and allow them all to expire. When the increased tax burden hits middle class families in January, Obama will take to the Rose Garden podium and argue that he wanted to save middle class families from increased rates but the nasty GOP, the party of the Rich, simply wouldn't go along with it unless their rich friends got a cut too. And the complicit media will back him up... the headlines will be "GOP sacrifices Middle Class to protect the Rich."
Having won this battle, an emboldened Obama will re-embark on his quest to increase the size, scope, and power of the Federal Government. And since every new program will be pitched as a "free" giveaway, the GOP will oppose those programs at their great peril. Again, if they go along, they provide Obama cover when the system implodes. If they fight, they lose the midterms and give Obama what he wants... control of all 3 branches of Government.
But that's just the next four years. What happens after that? Well that all depends on wether or not we've crossed a Rubicon where turning the ship around is no longer possible because too many Americans are dependent on the things Government now "gives" them.
Let's assume we have. What would that mean?
Well as entitlement spending and the cost of servicing our debt approaches/exceeds 100% of GDP there will be less and less money available for the basic functions of Government, like infrastructure spending. Even though we already have an aging electrical grid that is highly susceptible to major outages, whatever money is left for Infrastructure won't be spent there... it will be spent on things like roads and bridges, because as Centrally Planned Nation States fail, they tend to spend the bulk of their available funds on making things LOOK like they're not failing (it's called "hiding the decline")... and unlike roads no one can actually see the electrical grid.
So in ten years time, our grid might start to look like a 2nd World power grid, with major outages two or three times a year (think India). In twenty years we might be sitting on a 3rd World grid with minor outages almost every day (think Cuba or Viet Nam). And those outages will get more frequent and more severe precisely when people can least afford to be without power... during periods of severe weather... like heat waves and blizzards.
What happens if the entire Northeast is hit by a blizzard, the overtaxed grid fails, and the power goes out for a week or more? There simply wouldn't be any way that an over-stressed Government could do anything to help millions of stranded people. No way at all.
Could you survive a week in a freezing house without the ability to get to the store for supplies? Water purification pumps will cease to operate if the outage is massive enough and you may have to boil your water. But what if your stovetop is electrical? Do you have some other way to purify your water? Power outages would mean no refrigerator units at supermarkets (not that you could get to them anyway) or at your home. Do you have a week's worth of non-perishable food to eat after the stuff in your fridge rots?
Am I being overly dramatic? It happened in India a couple of weeks ago and it's going to happen in Greece soon (hell the Los Angeles city grid fails at least twice a summer). The difference is those countries are blessed with more temperate climates. And in the case of India, you've got a population used to making do with less. How does a pampered American society unaccustomed to harship or scarcity of any kind make do in this kind of scenario?
I fear the results would not be pretty.
UPDATE: A colleague alerted me to this great BBC mockumentary. It's a what-if that looks at vulnerabilities in the British transportation system, but it comes to a lot of the same conclusions I've come to in the piece above. Let's just say it didn't make me feel any better.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
So you want to attack the Tea Party
Pro Tip for Liberals... I've got a lot of you in my Twitter and Facebook timelines and two things are obvious to me having read your posts all these years. One, you hate the Tea Party and want to attack it every chance you get. And two, none of you know the first damn thing about the Tea Party.
And so, since I'm a nice guy by nature, I'm going to help you out. what follows is a precis on everything you need to know about the Tea Party.
First we have to discuss what the Tea Party isn't, because frankly, this is where you guys really don't seem to get it. The Tea Party is not about race, religion, abortion, gay marriage, or Obama's birth certificate. So when you attack the Tea Party for its views on any of those five issues, be aware that no one knows what the hell you're talking about.
So what does the Tea Party believe? Well, the Teap Party is a Fiscal Conservative movement with two major platforms. These are:
1. Greater economic freedom through lower taxes and reduced regulation... and
2. Fiscal discipline through reduced deficits, simplified tax codes, entitlement reform, and reduction in the size and scope of Government.
That's it. It's that simple. Now you can go out into the world and attack away and no one will stare at you like you have a second head growing out of your ass.
You're welcome.
And so, since I'm a nice guy by nature, I'm going to help you out. what follows is a precis on everything you need to know about the Tea Party.
First we have to discuss what the Tea Party isn't, because frankly, this is where you guys really don't seem to get it. The Tea Party is not about race, religion, abortion, gay marriage, or Obama's birth certificate. So when you attack the Tea Party for its views on any of those five issues, be aware that no one knows what the hell you're talking about.
So what does the Tea Party believe? Well, the Teap Party is a Fiscal Conservative movement with two major platforms. These are:
1. Greater economic freedom through lower taxes and reduced regulation... and
2. Fiscal discipline through reduced deficits, simplified tax codes, entitlement reform, and reduction in the size and scope of Government.
That's it. It's that simple. Now you can go out into the world and attack away and no one will stare at you like you have a second head growing out of your ass.
You're welcome.
How It Works
Step 1: Romney says something... anything
Step 2: The Left reflexively screams RACISM!
Step 3: The op-ed writers set about figuring out how it's racist
Step 4: Everyone publishes/runs to the airwaves to explain.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit
Step 2: The Left reflexively screams RACISM!
Step 3: The op-ed writers set about figuring out how it's racist
Step 4: Everyone publishes/runs to the airwaves to explain.
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit
Friday, August 24, 2012
Paul Ryan, Natural Law, and Personal Liberty
If there's one thing the Left hates about Paul Ryan (and let's be honest, it isn't one thing, it's every thing) it's Ryan's belief that our Rights come from Natural Law and from God. "God" is Liberal Kryptonite of course, but you don't have to be religious to know that Ryan is right. I'm not particularly religious myself, but it seems obvious to me that basic Human Rights... y'know like Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness... are Rights that come standard with every Human Being right off the assembly line. Whether that means they come from God, I don't know and can't say.
Here's what I do know and will say...
They do NOT come from Government. We don't all wake up on our first birthday, march down to the the Government Rights Office, and receive our Government issued rights in a moving ceremony complete with medals, a marching band, and a cymbal-crashing monkey in a bejeweled vest. We had them the moment we were born.
Think about it this way. What if you and two other people got into a boat and sailed across the ocean until you found an unihabited island to live on. You'd grown disgusted with Government over the years and you and your two friends have decided to live off the land with no rules or regulations governing your behavior. You want to live without Government.
Does living without Government mean that you suddenly lose all of your basic human rights? Did you suddenly forfeit your right to your life and liberty because you chose to live without Government? Of course not. Whether you live under a "Government" or not, your two friends do not have the right to take your life or your Liberty. The only thing that's changed is that you may have to fight to protect your rights yourself. No one from Government is coming to back you up.
See what I did there? Government does not grant you any rights. All Government can do is protect those rights from other individuals or groups who would attempt to take them away.
We all know these things and yet there are an awful lot of very smart Lefties in the media who either do not to understand this basic fact of the Human Experience or are pretending not to understand it for Partisan advantage in a tight Election.
Here's Norman Lear arguing that Paul Ryan is a bad guy becaue he wants to use the idea of Natural Law and Religion to deny human rights to African-Americans and Gays. His proof? Well during the Civil Rights struggle, apparently, folks in the South used Religion to deny African-Americans their basic human rights.
Norman... sweetie... they didn't use Religon... they used Government. That's why they're called "Jim Crow Laws" and not "Jim Crow Psalms."
And then there's Melissa Harris-Parry whose job as an MSNBC contributor is to maintain a contstant state of incandescent outrage on behalf of Progressives. But even as she raced to the airwaves in the wake of the Paul Ryan VP announcement to denounce Ryan's views on Human Rights and Natural Law, she forgot one really important thing. She forgot to, y'know, actually disagree with him.
“The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence... When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man. When you sit in a body like mine as an African-American woman, you know that God and nature have in fact made us — inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we could not have them until there was a Civil War that allowed the federal government to impose those nature and God-given rights would actually be respected by our government."
For those of you who have trouble translating Liberal to English, she said "Our rights come from God but sometimes we need Government to protect those rights" which is exactly what Paul Ryan hs been saying in every single stump speech for the last two weeks.
But thanks for Playing Melisa.
So why is Paul Ryan saying these things if they are truths that are, you might say, self-evident? He's saying them because the Republican Party's goal this election season is to remind Americans that Government can only be of the people, by the people, and for the people if it is limited Government. That there are things that Government must do, and there are things that Government must NOT do is something we can all agree on. The argument starts when we begin to talk about those things that Government can do, but probably shouldn't... like telling people what size Coke they can drink.
See that's the thing about protecting basic Human Rights. Government doesn't always have to fight a Civil War to protect our rights, sometimes all they have to do, is nothing.
Here's what I do know and will say...
They do NOT come from Government. We don't all wake up on our first birthday, march down to the the Government Rights Office, and receive our Government issued rights in a moving ceremony complete with medals, a marching band, and a cymbal-crashing monkey in a bejeweled vest. We had them the moment we were born.
Think about it this way. What if you and two other people got into a boat and sailed across the ocean until you found an unihabited island to live on. You'd grown disgusted with Government over the years and you and your two friends have decided to live off the land with no rules or regulations governing your behavior. You want to live without Government.
Does living without Government mean that you suddenly lose all of your basic human rights? Did you suddenly forfeit your right to your life and liberty because you chose to live without Government? Of course not. Whether you live under a "Government" or not, your two friends do not have the right to take your life or your Liberty. The only thing that's changed is that you may have to fight to protect your rights yourself. No one from Government is coming to back you up.
See what I did there? Government does not grant you any rights. All Government can do is protect those rights from other individuals or groups who would attempt to take them away.
We all know these things and yet there are an awful lot of very smart Lefties in the media who either do not to understand this basic fact of the Human Experience or are pretending not to understand it for Partisan advantage in a tight Election.
Here's Norman Lear arguing that Paul Ryan is a bad guy becaue he wants to use the idea of Natural Law and Religion to deny human rights to African-Americans and Gays. His proof? Well during the Civil Rights struggle, apparently, folks in the South used Religion to deny African-Americans their basic human rights.
Norman... sweetie... they didn't use Religon... they used Government. That's why they're called "Jim Crow Laws" and not "Jim Crow Psalms."
And then there's Melissa Harris-Parry whose job as an MSNBC contributor is to maintain a contstant state of incandescent outrage on behalf of Progressives. But even as she raced to the airwaves in the wake of the Paul Ryan VP announcement to denounce Ryan's views on Human Rights and Natural Law, she forgot one really important thing. She forgot to, y'know, actually disagree with him.
“The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence... When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man. When you sit in a body like mine as an African-American woman, you know that God and nature have in fact made us — inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we could not have them until there was a Civil War that allowed the federal government to impose those nature and God-given rights would actually be respected by our government."
For those of you who have trouble translating Liberal to English, she said "Our rights come from God but sometimes we need Government to protect those rights" which is exactly what Paul Ryan hs been saying in every single stump speech for the last two weeks.
But thanks for Playing Melisa.
So why is Paul Ryan saying these things if they are truths that are, you might say, self-evident? He's saying them because the Republican Party's goal this election season is to remind Americans that Government can only be of the people, by the people, and for the people if it is limited Government. That there are things that Government must do, and there are things that Government must NOT do is something we can all agree on. The argument starts when we begin to talk about those things that Government can do, but probably shouldn't... like telling people what size Coke they can drink.
See that's the thing about protecting basic Human Rights. Government doesn't always have to fight a Civil War to protect our rights, sometimes all they have to do, is nothing.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
The Battle Of Chik-Fil-A
Unless you've been under a rock for the last weeek you know there's a war being waged over the right of an American company to do business in an American city. The Mayor of Boston has threatened to ban Georgia-based Chik-Fil-A from opening stores in the city because the owners of Chik-Fil-A oppose gay marriage.
I find this more than a little bit terrifying.
No one is accusing Chik-Fil-A of discriminating against actual gay people. They simply stand accused of donating money to political organizations that support the concept of Traditional Marriage... or, in other words, exercising their right to Free Speech. ***
Let's put it in stark terms. A Government of the United States is seeking to punish an American company for its political opinion. You know, I always thought the words "Congress shall make no law... abridging the Freedom of Speech" was pretty difficult to misunderstand, but apparently Boston Mayor Tom Menino needs a refresher course.
No means No, Tom.
The people of Boston are perfectly within their rights to boycott Chik-Fil-A stores that open there. In fact I encourage it. Knock yourselves out. But the Government of that City absolutely CANNOT get involved. And it's not just me saying that... it's the Constitution.
What Libs always seem to forget when they do crap like this is that it won't always be Democrats running their cities, states, or country. Eventually they are going to have to live under the yoke of a Republican and it seems to me that they ought to be smarter about the precedents they set with actions like this. Whatever new rules you put in place can eventually be used against you.
Regardless, I'm not hear to warn the Left that eventually they're going to have to sleep in the bed they are making. I'm here to offer a solution for Chik-Fil-A. A blueprint exists for dealing with this kind of Tyranny, and it was pioneered by the great state of Louisiana.
Twenty years ago, Lousiana based Brewer Dixie Brewing Company introduced a new beer... Blackened Voodo Lager. The State of Texas, in a fit of temporary insanity that seemed more like something Alabama might do, immediately banned the beer in Texas because, they said, Dixie had placed occult images on the label.
Uh-huh.
Anyway Louisiana immediately martialed a retaliatory strike in support of their hometown brewer. They announced a ban on Lone Star beer across the State. It took a couple of days but Texas eventually realized this was a can of worms best left unopened, and rescinded the ban on Dixie.
The war was won, and without a single law suit, or appeal to the Federal Government. This is how such wars should be fought, with good-natured ridicule and a modicum of cleverness. Federal Bureacrats need not apply. Louisana didn't need Washington's help, and frankly, they didn't want it.
Fast forward to the looming Chik-Fil-A disaster. Chik-Fil-A is a Georgia-based company, and if Georgia wants to defend their hometown business, it seems to me that Boston is a city rich in high-value retaliatory targets.
Might I suggest an immediate statewide-ban on Samual Adams Boston Lager?
This is not a fight you want Mayor Menino. It can't be won, and it shouldn't be won. The Constitution requires it.
*** obligatory note that I personally support Gay marriage, as well as your right to oppose it.
I find this more than a little bit terrifying.
No one is accusing Chik-Fil-A of discriminating against actual gay people. They simply stand accused of donating money to political organizations that support the concept of Traditional Marriage... or, in other words, exercising their right to Free Speech. ***
Let's put it in stark terms. A Government of the United States is seeking to punish an American company for its political opinion. You know, I always thought the words "Congress shall make no law... abridging the Freedom of Speech" was pretty difficult to misunderstand, but apparently Boston Mayor Tom Menino needs a refresher course.
No means No, Tom.
The people of Boston are perfectly within their rights to boycott Chik-Fil-A stores that open there. In fact I encourage it. Knock yourselves out. But the Government of that City absolutely CANNOT get involved. And it's not just me saying that... it's the Constitution.
What Libs always seem to forget when they do crap like this is that it won't always be Democrats running their cities, states, or country. Eventually they are going to have to live under the yoke of a Republican and it seems to me that they ought to be smarter about the precedents they set with actions like this. Whatever new rules you put in place can eventually be used against you.
Regardless, I'm not hear to warn the Left that eventually they're going to have to sleep in the bed they are making. I'm here to offer a solution for Chik-Fil-A. A blueprint exists for dealing with this kind of Tyranny, and it was pioneered by the great state of Louisiana.
Twenty years ago, Lousiana based Brewer Dixie Brewing Company introduced a new beer... Blackened Voodo Lager. The State of Texas, in a fit of temporary insanity that seemed more like something Alabama might do, immediately banned the beer in Texas because, they said, Dixie had placed occult images on the label.
Uh-huh.
Anyway Louisiana immediately martialed a retaliatory strike in support of their hometown brewer. They announced a ban on Lone Star beer across the State. It took a couple of days but Texas eventually realized this was a can of worms best left unopened, and rescinded the ban on Dixie.
The war was won, and without a single law suit, or appeal to the Federal Government. This is how such wars should be fought, with good-natured ridicule and a modicum of cleverness. Federal Bureacrats need not apply. Louisana didn't need Washington's help, and frankly, they didn't want it.
Fast forward to the looming Chik-Fil-A disaster. Chik-Fil-A is a Georgia-based company, and if Georgia wants to defend their hometown business, it seems to me that Boston is a city rich in high-value retaliatory targets.
Might I suggest an immediate statewide-ban on Samual Adams Boston Lager?
This is not a fight you want Mayor Menino. It can't be won, and it shouldn't be won. The Constitution requires it.
*** obligatory note that I personally support Gay marriage, as well as your right to oppose it.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Repeal and Replace
My brother emailed me to say, basically, maybe this Obamacare thing isn't so bad. Maybe it's the best of a bunch of shitty solutions to a serious problem... what do you think?
Well here's what I think... buckle up.
(NOTE: Katy is a friend of my brother's who has a baby with severe health issues. Bob is my brother. George is me. All names are fake.) ===========================================================
OK so here’s my thoughts on Obamacare. By the way, you don’t need to be an expert on healthcare to understand this stuff. You’re a businessman so you already know everything you need to know.
The first thing we have to agree on is that Healthcare is a valuable commodity and that its price is elastic. In other words, if someone needs life-saving heart surgery, they don’t care if it costs 10 dollars or a million dollars… they still want it. Given this fact, why does Katy’s insurance company cap her child’s expenses at 2 million dollars? It’s not because they’re evil, it’s because they have looked at actuarial tables and discovered that some percentage of their customers will require more than 2 million dollars of care. And that if ALL (or even MOST) of those customers actually USE more than 2 million dollars of care, then the company will no longer be able to stay profitable.
So is the profit motive evil? Maybe, we can debate that (I would say no) but it doesn’t really matter because the Government faces the exact same limitation, just in a slightly different way.
Government does not need to be profitable, but they still cannot spend more money than they take in. Or at least not for long. So while it’s possible that the Government can afford to pay 3 million instead of 2, there is still a limit to what Government can afford to pay for this valuable commodity without going bankrupt. So the biggest factor in any discussion of Healthcare must be cost. And the first question that must be asked of any Healthcare solution is “does this solution drive down the cost of Healthcare”?
It’s pretty easy to see that Obamacare does not drive costs down. And there are several reasons why.
THE SUBSIDY EFFECT
One of the things Obamacare does is use Government subsidies to offset the cost of private Healthcare plans. In other words, if a family is spending $10,000 a year for a plan and can’t afford it, the Government will step in and subsidize that cost. I think the subsidy number right now is something like 50%, but you can be sure that number will rise.
So what happens when Government subsidizes the cost of a valuable commodity? We have lots of example to choose from, but let’s just take one… a college degree. Almost no one goes to college without the cost being subsidized in some way by Government. Colleges love this because what it does is hide the actual cost of a degree. It also allows them to raise prices without anyone noticing, or caring much. Government just continues to write checks, they don’t look at the bottom line, and as long as the students and their families continue to get the subsidies, a minor increase in cost doesn’t matter much because the perceived value of a college degree is so high.
So what has been the result of 30 years of subsidies? College costs have risen off the charts. Harvard has a multi-billion dollar endowment sitting in bank accounts accruing interest. Enough to pay the tuition of every single incoming freshman for decades. And yet they continue to charge 50,000 dollars a year to attend their college. Why? Because they can. And they can because the cost of that 50K is guaranteed, in part, by Government.
Remember when you were in college and mom and dad offered to give you 300 dollars to buy a bike? What did you do… did you buy a 300 dollar bike? No, you spent 700 dollars thinking hey, I can get a much better bike now, and it will only cost 400 bucks, instead of 700. Did you do that because you’re a bad guy? No, you did it because you’re human and smart and you were looking to get the best available bike for the money you could afford to spend. You could only afford a 400 dollar bike, but you got a 700 dollar one.
But someone paid the 300 dollar difference.
The same will happen to Healthcare. The Government subsidy will reduce the effective cost of care for every American. In many cases it will reduce the cost to zero. And what do people do when the price of a valuable commodity is drastically reduced? Do they use more of it, or less? Of course they use more of it (especially if they don’t have to endure the increased costs of getting more). And more Healthcare costs more money. Costs go up.
THE TORT EFFECT
Why does it costs 500 bucks for your doctor to treat a sprained ankle? 30 years ago, the doctor would say “it’s a sprain, go home and keep your weight off it.” What happens now? Your doctor prescribes an MRI to make sure. Why does he do that? He knows it’s a sprain. He does it because there is a trillion-to-one shot that it’s not a sprain, that it’s something potentially life-threatening. And if he misses it, he’s on the hook for a massive malpractice award that will increase his malpractice insurance payment beyond what he can afford to pay (by the way, it certainly doesn’t hurt that he stands to make a couple thousand dollars performing the procedure, so the doctor is not 100% blameless here).
Now it just so happens that trial lawyers spend millions and millions of dollars every year to elect Democrats specifically because Democrats have opposed tort reform for medical malpractice cases. Those same trial lawyers have also consistently supported Obamacare… why? One reason is that Governments don’t go to court. In Los Angeles, if you sue a private corporation for malpractice, you’re going to get a face-full of high-priced lawyers. But if you sue the Government, you get a settlement. Almost every single time. And guess what… Corporations have deep pockets, but nothing even close to what Government has. It’s a great racket. And by the way, in Los Angeles, the city sometimes puts gag orders on these settlements so the taxpayers can never find out how much they just got hosed for.
Does Obamacare do anything to reduce the cost of medical malpractice suits, or medical malpractice insurance? No it does not. Doesn’t even address the issue (and with so much trial lawyer money flowing into Obama’s coffers, it’s no wonder why not). What it does do, on the other hand, is give potential litigants access to the massively deep pockets of the Federal Government. And those pockets are in the pants of politicians who have to face elections where sick kids put up in front of cameras could end their re-election hopes with a single press conference. They will pay every time. And they will pay huge.
THE RATIONING EFFECT
This is the scariest element of Obamacare in my opinion, and it’s something Sarah Palin touched on, and got torched for, when she started using the term “death panels.” But the truth is she wasn’t far off. Many of us believe that the costs of Obamacare are unsustainable and that in fact, this is the whole point. It has long been a holy grail of progressive politics that one day The US would have a “single payer” healthcare system. That is, a government funded and run healthcare system like the one in place in Canada. I’m going to leave the details of how that would work out of this discussion because they’re not really relevant right now. I’m going to stick to the basic economics.
Here’s what I believe is going to happen. I believe costs will continue to go up and up and at some point, the subsidies Government is providing to insurance companies will not be enough and some (eventually all) of those companies will decide that Healthcare insurance doesn’t make any sense as a business model. And those companies will simply stop selling insurance. When that happens, Government will have to step in. At some point in the not too distant future, government will be the only provider of Healthcare left and Obama (or his successor) will finally have the single payer system they’ve always wanted.
Then what?
This next sentence is the most important thing to take away from this essay… having a Single Payer system does not absolve the Government of economic reality. Healthcare will still be a valuable commodity that people will always want more of, not less. And costs will continue to rise. At some point costs will rise so high that Government will be paying out a multiple of what takes in. Right now our deficit is 16 trillion dollars. By the end of a second Obama term it could be 20 or even 30 trillion dollars. Think about that. A trillion is a number so big that some countries don’t even agree on how many zeroes are in it (this is true, I looked it up). There will be very little margin for error when the really big programs like Obamacare start to overrun their costs.
In fact, here’s a dirty little secret about Obamacare. Obama promised he would not sign the bill unless it was revenue neutral. He signed the bill, so it must be that the program is revenue neutral, right? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t but let’s assume that it is. How did he achieve this miracle? Well, he did it in a very clever (some would say dishonest) way. Taxes were immediately raised to pay for it the very second the bill was signed in 2010, but the law does not go into effect until 2014. So over the first decade of the bill, from 2010 to 2020, Obama care will spend for only 6 years (2014-2020) even though it will have been funded for the full 10 years.
That’s great for the first decade, but what happens in decade number 2?
Let’s say that in 2025 Obamacare is massively underfunded. More and more people are living longer and longer and using more and more healthcare and the Government has simply run out of other people’s money to pay for it… what will they do? I don’t see any other solution than to begin rationing care.
Which brings us back to your problem about the screws in your knee. Your insurance company calls those screws “experimental” because they need to control costs and they can’t have everyone going out and getting screws or they’d go out of business. Well Government is going to have essentially the same problem. I’ve already showed you how and why I think costs will continue to rise, so those screws won’t be any cheaper 10 years from now than they are today. How will Government deal with that? I can see two possibilities.
1) They could simply deny you the screws, or they could force you to wait for them… schedule the surgery so far out that it becomes unnecessary (some percentage of people who need them will die, others will just say “forget it, I’ll make do without the damned screws”). That’s rationing, and it’s one thing to ration knee screws, quite another to ration heart surgery or chemotherapy.
2) They could try to regulate the behavior that “caused” you to need those screws in the first place. You know what? When men over the age of 35 play aggressive contact sports like soccer, it results in injuries. This guy Bob has been to the hospital for multiple concussions, a broken collarbone, and knee surgery. His brother George broke a finger and needed a tetanus shot for a cut on his leg. Soccer injuries cost the system too much money. By law, men over the age of 30 are no longer allowed to play team contact sports that might result in injuries. Sound crazy? Any crazier than making cigarettes or alcohol or motorcycles illegal because of the increased costs of healthcare they cause? I don’t think so.
And if they choose rationing, that eventually gets us back to those “Death Panels” Sarah Palin talked about. We all know that the vast majority of Healthcare costs occur in the last few years of our lives. If Obamacare is sinking under exploding costs and a 90 year old woman is looking for a procedure that might give her another 6 months of life but costs a million bucks… what are the chances she’s going to get it? I say slim and getting slimmer every day. And who will decide whether she gets it? Lucky for us, the answer is already in the bill. A panel of Government bureaucrats who will help with “end of life” counseling. Sarah Palin may not have been a good VP candidate, but she was right about death panels.
THE VALUE OF CHOICE
Choice, also defined as competition, drives costs down. In any industry where there is robust competition, you would expect prices to be controlled by the fact that some companies will try to attract more customers by offering that product or service at a lower price. This is why monopolies are frowned upon by Governments… because they restrict access to goods and services and cause prices to rise. You see it in almost any business where competition is restricted… prices go up. More choice equals more competition which equals lower prices.
How does Obamacare effect choice? Well when it goes into effect, people who go out into the marketplace to get insurance will have to buy one of a few policies approved by the Government (and you can bet the companies who will be “approved” have contributed HEAVILY to Democrats the last 4 years). The number of approved policies will, by definition, be smaller than the number of policies currently available… and less choice equals higher prices.
Also, I’ve already argued that the economics of Obamacare will tend to drive Insurance companies out of the market. If I’m right, that will reduce choice even further. And less choice equals higher prices.
THE PROFIT MOTIVE AND INNOVATION
Forgetting for a minute about all of the vast structural problems with the American Healthcare system as it currently exists, I don’t think anyone would disagree that we have the best system in the world in terms of quality of care.
If you have a serious medical problem, the chances are that a solution exists in the US. And if it doesn’t, the chances are that when it’s found, it will be created here first and/or be available here first.
So what drives that reality? In short, that reality is driven by the free market and the profit motive. Why would a company like Pfizer spend a billion dollars on R&D for a cure for AIDS? Well they do it in part because they want to save lives, but at the end of the day, they do it because they know that a billion dollars spent now, will net them 10 or 100 billion dollars later, when they start to sell the cure. If they can’t make money on the R&D, they won’t do it. It’s a simple as that.
And now we’re back to your 2,000 dollar “experimental” knee screw. What if it was a 2,000 dollar pill that would cure Alzheimer’s or Cancer? Well everyone would want it of course but not everyone would be able to afford it… Government will have to step in and write a check. And if Government is going to pay for it, they’re going to have to limit the amount of money Pfizer can make selling it or they will quickly exceed Obamacare’s budget. They may decree that Pfizer can only sell the pill for 500 bucks instead of 2,000. So Pfizer will take a look at their P&L predictions and say “oh great, we spent a billion bringing this thing to market and the Government now says we can only make 900 million selling it. We might as well get out of the R&D business because it’s simply no longer profitable.”
See what happened there? The decision your Insurance company had to make to limit the cost of people wanting knee screws (their solution was to call it experimental and not cover it) is the EXACT SAME decision the government had to make. We just don’t call Government evil because somehow they’re not looking to “profit” off the cure.
So that’s the way I see it.
Right problem, wrong solution.
I’m with Mitt Romney. “Repeal and Replace.”
Well here's what I think... buckle up.
(NOTE: Katy is a friend of my brother's who has a baby with severe health issues. Bob is my brother. George is me. All names are fake.) ===========================================================
OK so here’s my thoughts on Obamacare. By the way, you don’t need to be an expert on healthcare to understand this stuff. You’re a businessman so you already know everything you need to know.
The first thing we have to agree on is that Healthcare is a valuable commodity and that its price is elastic. In other words, if someone needs life-saving heart surgery, they don’t care if it costs 10 dollars or a million dollars… they still want it. Given this fact, why does Katy’s insurance company cap her child’s expenses at 2 million dollars? It’s not because they’re evil, it’s because they have looked at actuarial tables and discovered that some percentage of their customers will require more than 2 million dollars of care. And that if ALL (or even MOST) of those customers actually USE more than 2 million dollars of care, then the company will no longer be able to stay profitable.
So is the profit motive evil? Maybe, we can debate that (I would say no) but it doesn’t really matter because the Government faces the exact same limitation, just in a slightly different way.
Government does not need to be profitable, but they still cannot spend more money than they take in. Or at least not for long. So while it’s possible that the Government can afford to pay 3 million instead of 2, there is still a limit to what Government can afford to pay for this valuable commodity without going bankrupt. So the biggest factor in any discussion of Healthcare must be cost. And the first question that must be asked of any Healthcare solution is “does this solution drive down the cost of Healthcare”?
It’s pretty easy to see that Obamacare does not drive costs down. And there are several reasons why.
THE SUBSIDY EFFECT
One of the things Obamacare does is use Government subsidies to offset the cost of private Healthcare plans. In other words, if a family is spending $10,000 a year for a plan and can’t afford it, the Government will step in and subsidize that cost. I think the subsidy number right now is something like 50%, but you can be sure that number will rise.
So what happens when Government subsidizes the cost of a valuable commodity? We have lots of example to choose from, but let’s just take one… a college degree. Almost no one goes to college without the cost being subsidized in some way by Government. Colleges love this because what it does is hide the actual cost of a degree. It also allows them to raise prices without anyone noticing, or caring much. Government just continues to write checks, they don’t look at the bottom line, and as long as the students and their families continue to get the subsidies, a minor increase in cost doesn’t matter much because the perceived value of a college degree is so high.
So what has been the result of 30 years of subsidies? College costs have risen off the charts. Harvard has a multi-billion dollar endowment sitting in bank accounts accruing interest. Enough to pay the tuition of every single incoming freshman for decades. And yet they continue to charge 50,000 dollars a year to attend their college. Why? Because they can. And they can because the cost of that 50K is guaranteed, in part, by Government.
Remember when you were in college and mom and dad offered to give you 300 dollars to buy a bike? What did you do… did you buy a 300 dollar bike? No, you spent 700 dollars thinking hey, I can get a much better bike now, and it will only cost 400 bucks, instead of 700. Did you do that because you’re a bad guy? No, you did it because you’re human and smart and you were looking to get the best available bike for the money you could afford to spend. You could only afford a 400 dollar bike, but you got a 700 dollar one.
But someone paid the 300 dollar difference.
The same will happen to Healthcare. The Government subsidy will reduce the effective cost of care for every American. In many cases it will reduce the cost to zero. And what do people do when the price of a valuable commodity is drastically reduced? Do they use more of it, or less? Of course they use more of it (especially if they don’t have to endure the increased costs of getting more). And more Healthcare costs more money. Costs go up.
THE TORT EFFECT
Why does it costs 500 bucks for your doctor to treat a sprained ankle? 30 years ago, the doctor would say “it’s a sprain, go home and keep your weight off it.” What happens now? Your doctor prescribes an MRI to make sure. Why does he do that? He knows it’s a sprain. He does it because there is a trillion-to-one shot that it’s not a sprain, that it’s something potentially life-threatening. And if he misses it, he’s on the hook for a massive malpractice award that will increase his malpractice insurance payment beyond what he can afford to pay (by the way, it certainly doesn’t hurt that he stands to make a couple thousand dollars performing the procedure, so the doctor is not 100% blameless here).
Now it just so happens that trial lawyers spend millions and millions of dollars every year to elect Democrats specifically because Democrats have opposed tort reform for medical malpractice cases. Those same trial lawyers have also consistently supported Obamacare… why? One reason is that Governments don’t go to court. In Los Angeles, if you sue a private corporation for malpractice, you’re going to get a face-full of high-priced lawyers. But if you sue the Government, you get a settlement. Almost every single time. And guess what… Corporations have deep pockets, but nothing even close to what Government has. It’s a great racket. And by the way, in Los Angeles, the city sometimes puts gag orders on these settlements so the taxpayers can never find out how much they just got hosed for.
Does Obamacare do anything to reduce the cost of medical malpractice suits, or medical malpractice insurance? No it does not. Doesn’t even address the issue (and with so much trial lawyer money flowing into Obama’s coffers, it’s no wonder why not). What it does do, on the other hand, is give potential litigants access to the massively deep pockets of the Federal Government. And those pockets are in the pants of politicians who have to face elections where sick kids put up in front of cameras could end their re-election hopes with a single press conference. They will pay every time. And they will pay huge.
THE RATIONING EFFECT
This is the scariest element of Obamacare in my opinion, and it’s something Sarah Palin touched on, and got torched for, when she started using the term “death panels.” But the truth is she wasn’t far off. Many of us believe that the costs of Obamacare are unsustainable and that in fact, this is the whole point. It has long been a holy grail of progressive politics that one day The US would have a “single payer” healthcare system. That is, a government funded and run healthcare system like the one in place in Canada. I’m going to leave the details of how that would work out of this discussion because they’re not really relevant right now. I’m going to stick to the basic economics.
Here’s what I believe is going to happen. I believe costs will continue to go up and up and at some point, the subsidies Government is providing to insurance companies will not be enough and some (eventually all) of those companies will decide that Healthcare insurance doesn’t make any sense as a business model. And those companies will simply stop selling insurance. When that happens, Government will have to step in. At some point in the not too distant future, government will be the only provider of Healthcare left and Obama (or his successor) will finally have the single payer system they’ve always wanted.
Then what?
This next sentence is the most important thing to take away from this essay… having a Single Payer system does not absolve the Government of economic reality. Healthcare will still be a valuable commodity that people will always want more of, not less. And costs will continue to rise. At some point costs will rise so high that Government will be paying out a multiple of what takes in. Right now our deficit is 16 trillion dollars. By the end of a second Obama term it could be 20 or even 30 trillion dollars. Think about that. A trillion is a number so big that some countries don’t even agree on how many zeroes are in it (this is true, I looked it up). There will be very little margin for error when the really big programs like Obamacare start to overrun their costs.
In fact, here’s a dirty little secret about Obamacare. Obama promised he would not sign the bill unless it was revenue neutral. He signed the bill, so it must be that the program is revenue neutral, right? Maybe it is, and maybe it isn’t but let’s assume that it is. How did he achieve this miracle? Well, he did it in a very clever (some would say dishonest) way. Taxes were immediately raised to pay for it the very second the bill was signed in 2010, but the law does not go into effect until 2014. So over the first decade of the bill, from 2010 to 2020, Obama care will spend for only 6 years (2014-2020) even though it will have been funded for the full 10 years.
That’s great for the first decade, but what happens in decade number 2?
Let’s say that in 2025 Obamacare is massively underfunded. More and more people are living longer and longer and using more and more healthcare and the Government has simply run out of other people’s money to pay for it… what will they do? I don’t see any other solution than to begin rationing care.
Which brings us back to your problem about the screws in your knee. Your insurance company calls those screws “experimental” because they need to control costs and they can’t have everyone going out and getting screws or they’d go out of business. Well Government is going to have essentially the same problem. I’ve already showed you how and why I think costs will continue to rise, so those screws won’t be any cheaper 10 years from now than they are today. How will Government deal with that? I can see two possibilities.
1) They could simply deny you the screws, or they could force you to wait for them… schedule the surgery so far out that it becomes unnecessary (some percentage of people who need them will die, others will just say “forget it, I’ll make do without the damned screws”). That’s rationing, and it’s one thing to ration knee screws, quite another to ration heart surgery or chemotherapy.
2) They could try to regulate the behavior that “caused” you to need those screws in the first place. You know what? When men over the age of 35 play aggressive contact sports like soccer, it results in injuries. This guy Bob has been to the hospital for multiple concussions, a broken collarbone, and knee surgery. His brother George broke a finger and needed a tetanus shot for a cut on his leg. Soccer injuries cost the system too much money. By law, men over the age of 30 are no longer allowed to play team contact sports that might result in injuries. Sound crazy? Any crazier than making cigarettes or alcohol or motorcycles illegal because of the increased costs of healthcare they cause? I don’t think so.
And if they choose rationing, that eventually gets us back to those “Death Panels” Sarah Palin talked about. We all know that the vast majority of Healthcare costs occur in the last few years of our lives. If Obamacare is sinking under exploding costs and a 90 year old woman is looking for a procedure that might give her another 6 months of life but costs a million bucks… what are the chances she’s going to get it? I say slim and getting slimmer every day. And who will decide whether she gets it? Lucky for us, the answer is already in the bill. A panel of Government bureaucrats who will help with “end of life” counseling. Sarah Palin may not have been a good VP candidate, but she was right about death panels.
THE VALUE OF CHOICE
Choice, also defined as competition, drives costs down. In any industry where there is robust competition, you would expect prices to be controlled by the fact that some companies will try to attract more customers by offering that product or service at a lower price. This is why monopolies are frowned upon by Governments… because they restrict access to goods and services and cause prices to rise. You see it in almost any business where competition is restricted… prices go up. More choice equals more competition which equals lower prices.
How does Obamacare effect choice? Well when it goes into effect, people who go out into the marketplace to get insurance will have to buy one of a few policies approved by the Government (and you can bet the companies who will be “approved” have contributed HEAVILY to Democrats the last 4 years). The number of approved policies will, by definition, be smaller than the number of policies currently available… and less choice equals higher prices.
Also, I’ve already argued that the economics of Obamacare will tend to drive Insurance companies out of the market. If I’m right, that will reduce choice even further. And less choice equals higher prices.
THE PROFIT MOTIVE AND INNOVATION
Forgetting for a minute about all of the vast structural problems with the American Healthcare system as it currently exists, I don’t think anyone would disagree that we have the best system in the world in terms of quality of care.
If you have a serious medical problem, the chances are that a solution exists in the US. And if it doesn’t, the chances are that when it’s found, it will be created here first and/or be available here first.
So what drives that reality? In short, that reality is driven by the free market and the profit motive. Why would a company like Pfizer spend a billion dollars on R&D for a cure for AIDS? Well they do it in part because they want to save lives, but at the end of the day, they do it because they know that a billion dollars spent now, will net them 10 or 100 billion dollars later, when they start to sell the cure. If they can’t make money on the R&D, they won’t do it. It’s a simple as that.
And now we’re back to your 2,000 dollar “experimental” knee screw. What if it was a 2,000 dollar pill that would cure Alzheimer’s or Cancer? Well everyone would want it of course but not everyone would be able to afford it… Government will have to step in and write a check. And if Government is going to pay for it, they’re going to have to limit the amount of money Pfizer can make selling it or they will quickly exceed Obamacare’s budget. They may decree that Pfizer can only sell the pill for 500 bucks instead of 2,000. So Pfizer will take a look at their P&L predictions and say “oh great, we spent a billion bringing this thing to market and the Government now says we can only make 900 million selling it. We might as well get out of the R&D business because it’s simply no longer profitable.”
See what happened there? The decision your Insurance company had to make to limit the cost of people wanting knee screws (their solution was to call it experimental and not cover it) is the EXACT SAME decision the government had to make. We just don’t call Government evil because somehow they’re not looking to “profit” off the cure.
So that’s the way I see it.
Right problem, wrong solution.
I’m with Mitt Romney. “Repeal and Replace.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
