On NPR yesterday the morning show host interviewed yet another Ivy League professor on the merits of health care reform, under the accepted premise that not only is it inevitable but absolutely necessary. At one point in the discussion the professor made the statement that the prime motivator needs to be cost reduction, as recent history has shown a dramatic increase in the average cost of care per capita in this country.
If he had stopped there I could have agreed with him - the evidence is overwhelming, and on the face of it a person with lackluster deductive ability and a bug in his ear might assume that this is some sort of effort on the part of the industry to gouge customers. Such was the professor's premise. He continued that without reform and government controls, costs would continue to escalate and become cost prohibitive for anyone but the super rich.
This point of view is obnoxious and demonstrates again that those mired in establishment academia have little contact or concept of the real world outside. The obvious problem with his argument is that health care is a private sector business entity, not some monster that exists to consume wealth. As I detailed in my very first post, Organizations in the business of health care exist to make money, and although it may seem to someone who's health care is paid for by the same Americans he turns his nose up at that that goal is accomplished by continually raising prices without regard to its customers ability to pay, that's simply not how successful businesses operate.
Health care providers must balance prices against costs while tip-toeing the line on government regulations and requirements unique to its sector. Its a herculean task, and many of these businesses do fail. But if a hospital increased prices just for the sake of making more profit, they would quickly price out many of their customers, who would then find a less expensive source for similar services.
THAT'S HOW CAPITALISM WORKS!
I know this is hard for most of academia to understand, but it is regulation and government interference limiting competition that leads to out of control costs and price inflation. If we could roll back a substantial amount of the taxes that get funneled through the health care sector and which escalate cost, and then charge people based on need instead of what's fair (with some easily identifiable exceptions), the average cost of health care would be lower, and the mean would be substantially less.
If 95% of health care costs are accrued by the elderly and the overweight, then why do I need to support people who either planned poorly during their lives or led a self-destructive lifestyle. That's the real problem, so call a like it is; old is old and fat is fat, and they can figure out for themselves whether they can afford the treatments they need to live or let live, but leave my paycheck out of it.
There's your thesis, professor.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Firmly Applied Hammer
The White House has let it leak out that Bama has decided to give McChrystal his 40,000 troops, but will not do it quickly. The full buildup will take between one and two years, as opposed to the 60,000 men deployed to Iraq in less than 6 months under President Bush.
Bama's decision is not so much a surge as a gentle swell, and whereas the Iraq surge proved to be extremely effective, the results in Afghanistan I expect to be mixed. Try this analogy:
When you want to drive a nail with a hammer you have to swing the hammer, building up momentum and force and energy so when the hammer strikes the nail all that energy and force is communicated to the nail and the board below it. The nail is driven into the board in a decisive stroke. That's how Bush did it in Iraq. Now take the same hammer, the same nail, and the same board, and place the hammer gently on the head of the nail and gradually increase the downward force. Eventually you may be able to push the nail a short distance into the board, but force generated over time does not compare to the force applied to the nail in an instant.
The media will say Bama is being firm but measured, and will couch the decision as some kind of masterstroke and people will buy it because they don't understand anything about war or media, but this is really a political decision that makes Bama look tough on terror while giving him the opportunity to pull the plug at anytime.
He's clearly attempting to please everyone, and as always happens, he'll please no one. Imagine the message to the troops. A decisive build up says, "Here are the resources, here's the goal, now go get it done and come home safe." It establishes that there is a beginning and an end to the mission. A trickle of a build only says, "Get ready to be there for a while."
That was the mistake Bush made early on in Iraq, and it was the one he remedied with the surge. Bama is merely repeating old mistakes and doing it such a way that appears he is delivering dynamic solutions. It's all a charade.
Whatever happens, Afghanistan is Obama's war now. He owns it and everything that happens there going forward. I don't want to here him crying about some conflict he inherited or some mess he has to clean up. This mess is his doing now. If his gentle swell succeeds, I'll give him credit, otherwise he needs to get fired in 2012; we'll know the outcome by then.
Bama's decision is not so much a surge as a gentle swell, and whereas the Iraq surge proved to be extremely effective, the results in Afghanistan I expect to be mixed. Try this analogy:
When you want to drive a nail with a hammer you have to swing the hammer, building up momentum and force and energy so when the hammer strikes the nail all that energy and force is communicated to the nail and the board below it. The nail is driven into the board in a decisive stroke. That's how Bush did it in Iraq. Now take the same hammer, the same nail, and the same board, and place the hammer gently on the head of the nail and gradually increase the downward force. Eventually you may be able to push the nail a short distance into the board, but force generated over time does not compare to the force applied to the nail in an instant.
The media will say Bama is being firm but measured, and will couch the decision as some kind of masterstroke and people will buy it because they don't understand anything about war or media, but this is really a political decision that makes Bama look tough on terror while giving him the opportunity to pull the plug at anytime.
He's clearly attempting to please everyone, and as always happens, he'll please no one. Imagine the message to the troops. A decisive build up says, "Here are the resources, here's the goal, now go get it done and come home safe." It establishes that there is a beginning and an end to the mission. A trickle of a build only says, "Get ready to be there for a while."
That was the mistake Bush made early on in Iraq, and it was the one he remedied with the surge. Bama is merely repeating old mistakes and doing it such a way that appears he is delivering dynamic solutions. It's all a charade.
Whatever happens, Afghanistan is Obama's war now. He owns it and everything that happens there going forward. I don't want to here him crying about some conflict he inherited or some mess he has to clean up. This mess is his doing now. If his gentle swell succeeds, I'll give him credit, otherwise he needs to get fired in 2012; we'll know the outcome by then.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Victimizing A Murderer
It should be no surprise that today the media is rushing to make the murderer at Fort Hood into a victim.
This morning on NPR they were extrapolating that because Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist he was probably working with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress as a result of their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a result he himself suffered the stress . Apparently among shrinks this is a common problem - that nobody is there to help the professional. The entire conversation was conjecture and not at all based on reported fact, nevertheless they ran with it.
Then the AP reported the Major was "harassed" for his Muslim beliefs. What does that mean - was he being teased for being Muslim? I remember Columbine, and the two teenagers who were reportedly teased by school bullies, prompting their rampage, yet those two white kids were never offered such generous treatment for their horrible response, nor should they have, but the media is desperate to report that a full grown man was subjected to insults concerning his faith and that contributed to him becoming a killer.
Based on that logic, I would think the media would want to be nicer in their daily commentary about Christians.
And then we learn that the Major was about to be deployed to the Middle East theaters, and that put him over the edge. The mainstream media expects that Americans will be sympathetic to this situation, since we're all so disgusted with the wars over there - who wouldn't take a rifle and shoot up a hospital?
We need to see this guy for what he is - a truly messed up individual who's fanatic beliefs allowed him to justify his actions. Americans know that most Muslims are not this extreme, and this shouldn't affect how most people think about that segment of our society. But the media is only fueling the fires by its extreme vicitmization of this guy. He deserves the maximum punishment the military can offer - execution.
I'm sure that will be a circus too.
This morning on NPR they were extrapolating that because Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a psychiatrist he was probably working with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress as a result of their deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and as a result he himself suffered the stress . Apparently among shrinks this is a common problem - that nobody is there to help the professional. The entire conversation was conjecture and not at all based on reported fact, nevertheless they ran with it.
Then the AP reported the Major was "harassed" for his Muslim beliefs. What does that mean - was he being teased for being Muslim? I remember Columbine, and the two teenagers who were reportedly teased by school bullies, prompting their rampage, yet those two white kids were never offered such generous treatment for their horrible response, nor should they have, but the media is desperate to report that a full grown man was subjected to insults concerning his faith and that contributed to him becoming a killer.
Based on that logic, I would think the media would want to be nicer in their daily commentary about Christians.
And then we learn that the Major was about to be deployed to the Middle East theaters, and that put him over the edge. The mainstream media expects that Americans will be sympathetic to this situation, since we're all so disgusted with the wars over there - who wouldn't take a rifle and shoot up a hospital?
We need to see this guy for what he is - a truly messed up individual who's fanatic beliefs allowed him to justify his actions. Americans know that most Muslims are not this extreme, and this shouldn't affect how most people think about that segment of our society. But the media is only fueling the fires by its extreme vicitmization of this guy. He deserves the maximum punishment the military can offer - execution.
I'm sure that will be a circus too.
Warren Buffet Is For Sale
I'm sure I wasn't the only person who thought it was strange that Warren Buffet started throwing his considerable prestige behind Democrats a few years back, and was eventually appointed Bara Bama's fiscal advisor during the 2008 campaign.
Well, somehow the media managed to not report that Buffet owns a wind farm company that is rapidly expanding its operations and stands to gain tremendously at taxpayer expense thanks to Bama and his energy policy.
How can this possibly be ethical? Buffet gained not only a strategic advantage, but set himself up to receive billions in taxpayer dollars to fund the growth of his company, which stands to profit from this growth while all we get is his wonderful power. It's not like just anyone can afford to own a share Berkshire-Hathaway, you know.
Also, this speaks to the incredible hypocrisy of Bama, who pledged to not have lobbyists as part of his administration, all the while he had perhaps the most influential covert lobbyist in the country trumpeting his economic proposals.
I don't fault Buffet, although this behavior certainly reveals a duplicitous side that is at odds with his high and mighty philanthropic image. But it once again shows that Bama has always just been a shameless politician who says one thing while blatantly doing another.
Well, somehow the media managed to not report that Buffet owns a wind farm company that is rapidly expanding its operations and stands to gain tremendously at taxpayer expense thanks to Bama and his energy policy.
How can this possibly be ethical? Buffet gained not only a strategic advantage, but set himself up to receive billions in taxpayer dollars to fund the growth of his company, which stands to profit from this growth while all we get is his wonderful power. It's not like just anyone can afford to own a share Berkshire-Hathaway, you know.
Also, this speaks to the incredible hypocrisy of Bama, who pledged to not have lobbyists as part of his administration, all the while he had perhaps the most influential covert lobbyist in the country trumpeting his economic proposals.
I don't fault Buffet, although this behavior certainly reveals a duplicitous side that is at odds with his high and mighty philanthropic image. But it once again shows that Bama has always just been a shameless politician who says one thing while blatantly doing another.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
How On Earth Did Bama Get Elected?
HBO is running this thing on the Bama campaign, starting in 2007 pre-Iowa. There's some man-on-the-street stuff where people say things like, "Who's that," and, "I never heard of him," and this gem from a younger person, "Oh wait, is he African-American? Then I think it would be cool if he was our next president."
And there are the wonderful staffer stories that all begin, "I remember the first time I met Barack..." Followed by the meeting with all the young staffers where one of his campaign managers quotes his boss as having said, "I wanna do it for the kids."
Hook, line, and sinker.
And then there's the 9 year old child working phone scripts and getting frustrated with the people on the other end of the phone. Child exploitation, anyone?
Young people are starved for attention, and to feel like they belong to something greater. It's beyond debate that Bama's campaign was political genius, and when you look at the behind the scenes, objectively, you see just how cognizant Bara was of his place in the race and his opportunities at every turn. There are scenes of him discussing what to wear for a rural stop in Iowa, and then later about how to make the more spectacular entrance. And he's doing a great job acting like a normal person enjoying a day with his family at the Iowa State Fair.
But it boils down to the youth of America, their energy and idealism - that's what got him elected. Young people don't vote was the conventional wisdom and in 2008 that notion was blown to pieces. There's Axelrod and Gibbs, pinning their hopes on the young. "They think they're changing the world, and God bless 'em." But what, beyond the term "change", would they be affecting? By employing a man without experience, or understanding, or gravitas to be the most powerful person on Earth, they have sentenced this country to flounder in the wake of his ineffectiveness.
Here's the painful truth moment: Barack Obama played on the insecurity of young people. Who could go to a party and be the only one who didn't vote, or worse, voted against Bama. Only those secure in their own beliefs and mature beyond their years. An insecure electorate, beguiled by an arrogant fool of a candidate, have caused this mess.
Luckily, young people reliably don't vote - 2008 was an anomaly. People with life experience, who aren't naive and overwhelmed simultaneously by hormone-saturated arrogance and insecurity and blind, unsubstantiated idealism, will once again restore reason to the democratic process. Now we must hope the damage can be undone. At least so far, Bama's ineptness is serving the country well, and if the Democrats' bumbling can continue until next year we have a chance to turn Bama into a lame duck in about the same amount of time as it took him to get the job in the first place.
Here's to hope. ;)
And there are the wonderful staffer stories that all begin, "I remember the first time I met Barack..." Followed by the meeting with all the young staffers where one of his campaign managers quotes his boss as having said, "I wanna do it for the kids."
Hook, line, and sinker.
And then there's the 9 year old child working phone scripts and getting frustrated with the people on the other end of the phone. Child exploitation, anyone?
Young people are starved for attention, and to feel like they belong to something greater. It's beyond debate that Bama's campaign was political genius, and when you look at the behind the scenes, objectively, you see just how cognizant Bara was of his place in the race and his opportunities at every turn. There are scenes of him discussing what to wear for a rural stop in Iowa, and then later about how to make the more spectacular entrance. And he's doing a great job acting like a normal person enjoying a day with his family at the Iowa State Fair.
But it boils down to the youth of America, their energy and idealism - that's what got him elected. Young people don't vote was the conventional wisdom and in 2008 that notion was blown to pieces. There's Axelrod and Gibbs, pinning their hopes on the young. "They think they're changing the world, and God bless 'em." But what, beyond the term "change", would they be affecting? By employing a man without experience, or understanding, or gravitas to be the most powerful person on Earth, they have sentenced this country to flounder in the wake of his ineffectiveness.
Here's the painful truth moment: Barack Obama played on the insecurity of young people. Who could go to a party and be the only one who didn't vote, or worse, voted against Bama. Only those secure in their own beliefs and mature beyond their years. An insecure electorate, beguiled by an arrogant fool of a candidate, have caused this mess.
Luckily, young people reliably don't vote - 2008 was an anomaly. People with life experience, who aren't naive and overwhelmed simultaneously by hormone-saturated arrogance and insecurity and blind, unsubstantiated idealism, will once again restore reason to the democratic process. Now we must hope the damage can be undone. At least so far, Bama's ineptness is serving the country well, and if the Democrats' bumbling can continue until next year we have a chance to turn Bama into a lame duck in about the same amount of time as it took him to get the job in the first place.
Here's to hope. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)