I was in a nationwide retailer last night with a friend of mine who was in the market to purchase a new mattress. The sales clerk informed him that he could take advantage of their twelve-month no interest, no payments financing. She commented that they were discontinuing this program shortly because Congress, in their infinite wisdom, had passed credit card reform this past year outlawing these types of lines of credit.
This seemed simultaneously strange and infuriating to me. I've made quite a few purchases using such payment programs; typically I keep my money in an interest-bearing account and make sure to pay the entire balance of the credit card off before the twelve-month period lapses. I find that it's a good way to make your money work for you. Could what she was saying really be true?
The White House website has a press release detailing the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009. Sure enough, what this sales clerk had told me was in fact accurate. This new law bans retroactive rate increases. The way that these twelve-month no interest, no payments financing programs work is that if you do not pay off the balance in full by the end of the twelve-month period, finance charges are assessed from the date of purchase.
Another fun and unintended consequence of this legislation is the advent of the 79.9% interest rate credit card that targets consumers with poor credit histories that would not normally qualify for a credit card. This article from the AP explains:
The bloated APR is how First Premier Bank, a subprime credit card issuer, is skirting new regulations intended to curb abusive practices in the industry. It's a strategy other subprime card issuers could start adopting to get around the new rules.
The article continues:
In a mailing sent to prospective customers in October with the revamped terms, First Premier writes "...you might have less-than-perfect credit and we're OK with that." The letter notes that an online application or phone call is still required, but guarantees a 60-second status confirmation.
The letter also states there are no hidden fees that aren't disclosed in the attached form. That's where the 79.9 percent interest rate and $75 annual fee are listed. There's also $29 penalty if you pay late or go over your $300 credit limit.
Good luck ever paying your balance on that credit card off! Many thanks to the do-gooders in Washington, D.C., for once again saving us from ourselves.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Obama Warns US Will Go "Bankrupt" Without Health Care Bill
Once again, the President is resorting to fear mongering to ram through yet another horrendous piece of legislation. According to President Obama, the federal government will go bankrupt if Congress does not pass the health care bill.
I guess the President has already forgotten about the $700 Billion spent on bailing out the banks, the $787 Billion in economic stimulus, the $410 Billion omnibus spending bill, the $1 Million per troop price tag for the 30,000 troop Afghan "surge," and the $1.1 Trillion spending bill that doesn't even cover defense spending.
Add to that $200 or so Billion just to service the national debt this year, $100 Billion in annual proposed spending to combat "climate change," and a new $2.5 Trillion health care "reform" bill...and let's not forget about the $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities already on the books...
Go bankrupt? Sounds like we're already there!
I guess the President has already forgotten about the $700 Billion spent on bailing out the banks, the $787 Billion in economic stimulus, the $410 Billion omnibus spending bill, the $1 Million per troop price tag for the 30,000 troop Afghan "surge," and the $1.1 Trillion spending bill that doesn't even cover defense spending.
Add to that $200 or so Billion just to service the national debt this year, $100 Billion in annual proposed spending to combat "climate change," and a new $2.5 Trillion health care "reform" bill...and let's not forget about the $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities already on the books...
Go bankrupt? Sounds like we're already there!
Monday, December 14, 2009
More on the Cap and Trade Scam
The AP is reporting today that developing nations, led by China and India, are blocking UN climate talks while demanding that rich countries discuss much deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. This is curious given that China and India rank number one and number four, respectively, in the list of top world polluters. Furthermore, according to Time the top four most polluted places in the world are cities in China and India.
This is an old trick that common street pickpockets use; first they create a diversion and then they make off with your wallet before you even realize that it's gone. As I've stated previously, cap and trade does nothing to address the issue of pollution; it simply grants permits to pollute and blocks the poorest nations of the world from having the opportunity to step out of the stone ages via industrialization. Cap and trade levies a tremendous tax on us all and the end result is massive profits for multi-national corporations while keeping the impoverished poor and dependent on the government dole.
This is an old trick that common street pickpockets use; first they create a diversion and then they make off with your wallet before you even realize that it's gone. As I've stated previously, cap and trade does nothing to address the issue of pollution; it simply grants permits to pollute and blocks the poorest nations of the world from having the opportunity to step out of the stone ages via industrialization. Cap and trade levies a tremendous tax on us all and the end result is massive profits for multi-national corporations while keeping the impoverished poor and dependent on the government dole.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Senate to drop public option?
The AP is reporting that the "public option" is now out of the Senate version of health care reform. So what exactly are we getting for $1 Trillion?
Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.
The article continues:
The Senate is in its second week of debate on the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation that would dramatically remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to millions of the uninsured, with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.
The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.
Is it unthinkable that insurers may simply raise the cost of insurance premiums in order to guarantee that they hit the 90% mark set by this legislation? Would health care providers, aware of this new mandate and the theoretically increased supply of available health care dollars, decide to charge higher rates for services thus resulting in higher costs for everyone? What about the potential for additional multi-billion dollar annual losses due to cost-shifting and fraud that will inevitably occur by adding millions to the medicare rolls?
By requiring everyone to purchase an insurance policy, young and otherwise healthy individuals that normally may not choose to purchase insurance in essence will be subsidizing the care of older and chronically ill individuals as these are typically the people that are most expensive to insure/would be denied coverage. So basically we've ensured a ton of new business for the insurance companies but done nothing to actually curb the cost of health care. Sounds like a great deal for the American public.
Apparently this session of Congress is willing to do pretty much anything just so they can say that they passed health care "reform." Perhaps instead they should consider market-based solutions, deregulation of health care markets, and allowing for the sale of insurance policies across state lines in order to curb skyrocketing health care costs.
Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.
The article continues:
The Senate is in its second week of debate on the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation that would dramatically remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to millions of the uninsured, with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.
The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.
Is it unthinkable that insurers may simply raise the cost of insurance premiums in order to guarantee that they hit the 90% mark set by this legislation? Would health care providers, aware of this new mandate and the theoretically increased supply of available health care dollars, decide to charge higher rates for services thus resulting in higher costs for everyone? What about the potential for additional multi-billion dollar annual losses due to cost-shifting and fraud that will inevitably occur by adding millions to the medicare rolls?
By requiring everyone to purchase an insurance policy, young and otherwise healthy individuals that normally may not choose to purchase insurance in essence will be subsidizing the care of older and chronically ill individuals as these are typically the people that are most expensive to insure/would be denied coverage. So basically we've ensured a ton of new business for the insurance companies but done nothing to actually curb the cost of health care. Sounds like a great deal for the American public.
Apparently this session of Congress is willing to do pretty much anything just so they can say that they passed health care "reform." Perhaps instead they should consider market-based solutions, deregulation of health care markets, and allowing for the sale of insurance policies across state lines in order to curb skyrocketing health care costs.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Obama plans to "spend our way" out of downturn
Let's try a quick thought exercise. Imagine that you earn about $32,000/year at your job (that's the 2008 median salary here in the US). Now imagine that you've somehow managed to get approved for a mortgage on a house worth about $320,000. For simplicity, let's pretend you got one of those fancy no money down mortgages. Suddenly your employer cuts back your hours; you still have a mortgage payment to make but you no longer have the income on which you've come to rely. Imagine the bank's response if you told them "Don't worry about it, I'm going to spend my way out of this."
This is essentially what President Obama said today in front of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, in spite of the fact that our federal government finds itself in the very predicament outlined above.
Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.
Government stimulus NEVER works. By any sane metric, the most recent round of stimulus has been a colossal failure with a true unemployment rate presently floating around 17%. Huge public works projects did not work in the 30's and there is no reason to believe that this time around would be any different. The reason is quite simple; public works projects are kind of like summer jobs but worse. Once the project is completed everyone is once again out of work with long-term prospects that are no better than they were before the government came to the rescue. To further compound the problem, resources must be taken away from the productive segment of the economy (i.e. the private sector) to pay for this government largess.
Common sense tells us that when we are in financially tough times we must cut our household spending, save money wherever we can, and try to pay down debt as much as possible. No matter what anyone tells you, you cannot spend your way to prosperity and it is insane to suggest that you can solve a problem brought about by too much debt and too much spending with more debt and more spending.
This is essentially what President Obama said today in front of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, in spite of the fact that our federal government finds itself in the very predicament outlined above.
Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.
Government stimulus NEVER works. By any sane metric, the most recent round of stimulus has been a colossal failure with a true unemployment rate presently floating around 17%. Huge public works projects did not work in the 30's and there is no reason to believe that this time around would be any different. The reason is quite simple; public works projects are kind of like summer jobs but worse. Once the project is completed everyone is once again out of work with long-term prospects that are no better than they were before the government came to the rescue. To further compound the problem, resources must be taken away from the productive segment of the economy (i.e. the private sector) to pay for this government largess.
Common sense tells us that when we are in financially tough times we must cut our household spending, save money wherever we can, and try to pay down debt as much as possible. No matter what anyone tells you, you cannot spend your way to prosperity and it is insane to suggest that you can solve a problem brought about by too much debt and too much spending with more debt and more spending.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
More on "Climategate"
It's odd that a story of this magnitude is receiving little to no press. If you're not up to speed, the article "Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues" should catch you up.
Another interesting article from the Daily Press reports on mining geology professor and man-made climate change skeptic Ian Plimer's recent appearance before a London audience:
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”
He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.
Also, to tie in with a subject I've written about previously:
He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.
“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”
The belief that we could have such a profound effect on a planet that has existed for over 4.5 billion years and endured at least five mass extinctions is truly a testament to our arrogance as a species.
Another interesting article from the Daily Press reports on mining geology professor and man-made climate change skeptic Ian Plimer's recent appearance before a London audience:
Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
“In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”
He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.
And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.
Also, to tie in with a subject I've written about previously:
He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.
“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”
The belief that we could have such a profound effect on a planet that has existed for over 4.5 billion years and endured at least five mass extinctions is truly a testament to our arrogance as a species.
Friday, November 27, 2009
The Cap and Trade Scam: Follow the Money
As reported by the Guardian, 160 MB of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years were recently stolen by hackers and leaked online. The article reports that "[c]limate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide 'smoking gun' evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind." This news, coupled with the Telegraph's recent piece suggesting that Al Gore could become the world's first carbon billionaire begins to make this entire situation feel a bit like insider trading.
The Heritage Foundation recently highlighted a video produced by two EPA attorneys showing that Cap and Trade actually does little to nothing in the way of helping the environment. In reality Cap and Trade legislation simply is a way for the government to make money by issuing permits to pollute and for multinational corporations and Wall Street to make money by creating a new commodity to trade. It is little more than the redistribution of wealth on a global scale.
I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself if man-made global warming is a scam or not, but if you truly care about the environment you should join in the fight to prevent these frauds from passing legislation that does little more than further bind us in the chains of economic slavery. After all, President Obama himself has said that under his Cap and Trade system "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" in spite of the fact that a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol would at best reduce global temperatures by one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2100.
The Heritage Foundation recently highlighted a video produced by two EPA attorneys showing that Cap and Trade actually does little to nothing in the way of helping the environment. In reality Cap and Trade legislation simply is a way for the government to make money by issuing permits to pollute and for multinational corporations and Wall Street to make money by creating a new commodity to trade. It is little more than the redistribution of wealth on a global scale.
I will leave it up to you to decide for yourself if man-made global warming is a scam or not, but if you truly care about the environment you should join in the fight to prevent these frauds from passing legislation that does little more than further bind us in the chains of economic slavery. After all, President Obama himself has said that under his Cap and Trade system "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" in spite of the fact that a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol would at best reduce global temperatures by one tenth of one degree Celsius by 2100.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Are we facing a debt explosion?
The answer is an emphatic YES! The New York Times recently ran an article on the wave of debt payments facing our federal government.
With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.
In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These figures, by the way, don't include any additional expenditures that will undoubtedly arise from the institution of so-called "Health Care Reform" or a "Cap and Trade" system.
The article continues:
Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.
The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits under Medicare and Social Security. The nation’s oldest baby boomers are approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a fiscal nightmare for the government.
For far too long Americans have been pretty juvenile in their demands on government, much like the child that wants a pony for Christmas but doesn't bother to consider how they're going to house or feed it, let alone how mom and dad are going to pay for it. We have some difficult choices ahead of us and we'd better make sure that we make some tough decision before the decisions are made for us.
With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.
In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These figures, by the way, don't include any additional expenditures that will undoubtedly arise from the institution of so-called "Health Care Reform" or a "Cap and Trade" system.
The article continues:
Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode.
The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits under Medicare and Social Security. The nation’s oldest baby boomers are approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a fiscal nightmare for the government.
For far too long Americans have been pretty juvenile in their demands on government, much like the child that wants a pony for Christmas but doesn't bother to consider how they're going to house or feed it, let alone how mom and dad are going to pay for it. We have some difficult choices ahead of us and we'd better make sure that we make some tough decision before the decisions are made for us.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Breaking News - The House Passes the Health Care Bill
The House just passed the Health Care Bill HR 3962 by a margin of 220-215. Now the attention shifts to the Senate...
What exactly is Speaker Pelosi trying to hide?
President Obama stopped by the House of Representatives today in an effort to rally support for HR 3962, the "Affordable Health Care for America Act." Speaker Pelosi will not be allowing the final language of the bill to be posted online 72-hours before a vote comes to the floor of the House even though she pledged to do so only a little over a month ago.
Why the change of heart? Could it be because she doesn't want the American public to know that you can be fined up to $250,000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years for willful failure to purchase an approved policy? Incidentally, according to the CBO such a policy would cost a family of four at least $15,000/year.
Maybe she doesn't want the American public to know that the reason that AARP is suddenly behind her plan is because they stand to make a significant amount of money given a sizeable source of their revenue is from the sale of, among other things, supplemental insurance policies for medicare recipients. Of course seniors will be needing plenty of supplemental insurance policies given that Pelosi's health care bill aims to pay for itself via more than $400 Billion in cuts to medicare.
Perhaps she doesn't want Americans to know that the medically uninsurable will have to wait a full six-months before they are eligible for government-subsidized insurance plans. Given that most of these people are uninsurable due to terminal illness, I'm sure that they'll be happy to know that they will most likely not survive the six-month waiting period.
By not posting the final language of the bill online for 72-hours prior to a final vote, Speaker Pelosi is virtually ensuring that the members of congress will not have the opportunity to read the bill prior to voting on it. Of course this is probably of little consequence to the millionaires club given that they already have top-of-the-line health insurance of which the government pays up to 75% the cost.
Oh and by the way some members of Congress are still wrangling to get illegal aliens access to the health care plans as outlined in the bill.
The current session of Congress has made a habit of ramming through bad legislation that is not in the best interests of the American public. Contact your Congressman today and let them know that you aren't going to stand for it anymore. After all, there's an election in 2010 and their job depends on it.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Central PA Voter Guide - Elections are this Tuesday!
Election day is this Tuesday, November 3. PennLive.com has put together a pretty nifty voter guide that allows you to view candidate biographical information side-by-side for all of the elections in your district. Check it out here.
Not sure where you are supposed to go to vote? PA Department of State has a page here that will help you figure it out. Need you zip+4? USPS has a page here.
It is important that each and every one of us participates in the process. As Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Good thing we passed that stimulus bill
In February of this year President Obama painted a pretty grim picture of the future of the US economy if swift and decisive action was not taken in passing his stimulus bill. His stimulus bill would save or create four million jobs. With the stimulus, unemployment would peak at just under 8 percent. If nothing was done, we'd lose five million jobs and unemployment would peak at 9 percent.
Good thing we passed that stimulus bill, huh?
Keep your eye on the bill
The latest House version of health care reform clocks in at 1,990 pages. Supposedly it stands at nearly nine inches tall and weighs over nineteen pounds in printed form. Whether you are for a government-based solution or a market-based solution, you should be alarmed by the sheer size of this thing. One can only imagine what special interest perks and kickbacks to big business are included in this monstrosity. Think anyone in Congress will actually read this version?
We deserve better, and we must demand better. Write your congressman and let them know how you feel!
Friday, October 23, 2009
What's the big deal about Linda Thompson's unemployment, you ask?
Linda Thompson, Harrisburg City Council member and mayoral candidate, was recently asked a series of questions by the Harrisburg Patriot News. I'd like to highlight two specific questions, and her responses:
Question: When were you unemployed, and from what organization did you lose your job?
Thompson: “I didn’t lose my job. I voluntarily resigned from my employment with the Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg.” (She did not answer when.)
Q: How long did you collect unemployment? How long were you unemployed?
Thompson: “Approximately six months to 1 year.”
Question: When were you unemployed, and from what organization did you lose your job?
Thompson: “I didn’t lose my job. I voluntarily resigned from my employment with the Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg.” (She did not answer when.)
Q: How long did you collect unemployment? How long were you unemployed?
Thompson: “Approximately six months to 1 year.”
The article also notes that Linda Thompson was quoted in a recent debate as saying "I've taken all of my unemployment checks that I had before I started Loveship and put every dime of it into Loveship."
Section 402(b) of the PA Unemployment Compensation law states that "a claimant shall be ineligible for benefits for any week in which his/her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. A claimant who voluntarily quits continuing work has the burden of proof in establishing good cause for quitting; and, that such cause was real and substantial, leaving the claimant no other alternative. The burden is on the claimant to show that, prior to quitting continuing employment, he/she made every reasonable effort to maintain the employer/employee relationship."
On the application itself it specifically asks the applicant the reason for their separation from their employer. Now the reason why all of this is important is that if Ms. Thompson did in fact resign from her employment then she may have perpetrated a fraud if she reported otherwise on the application. Furthermore, the Urban League of Metropolitan Harrisburg would have been complicit in this fraud if they did not contest Ms. Thompson's reason for separation and subsequently her claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
Ms. Thompson also stated that she collected benefits for "approximately six months to 1 year." Typically unemployment benefits are exhausted after 26 weeks unless certain economic conditions are met, at which point state and federal extended benefits may be available. Potentially Ms. Thompson may have defrauded both the state of Pennsylvania and the Federal Government of additional funds if she did in fact voluntarily resign from her employment yet still collect unemployment compensation benefits.
Do I think that this matter will be investigated further or that Ms. Thompson will be prosecuted? No, I do not. However, I do think that it's important for the citizens of Harrisburg to look past the campaign slogans and sound bytes and take a long hard look at the candidates' records and character when deciding who they want to be the next mayor of Harrisburg.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The PA Senate takes a crack at single payer
Many thanks to our friends at Pennsylvania Revolution for bringing this matter to our attention.
Senate Bill 400, sponsored by Jim Ferlo, is the "Family and Business Healthcare Security Act." This rather benign-sounding bill is anything but; it's everything that progressives in the US Congress are dreaming of and more. To put it bluntly, this legislation if passed would put a single payer health care system in place in the state of Pennsylvania. It's mostly filled with the vague, feel-good language you've come to expect from government, aiming to do things such as "(i)nvestigating proposals for innovative approaches to the promotion of health, the prevention of disease and injury, patient education, research and health care delivery." Make no mistake, this legislation's aim is nothing less than a complete and total usurpation of the health care system from top to bottom.
Here are some of the highlights:
An 11 member board appointed by the Governor, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives composed of individuals representing hospitals, organized labor, consumers, business, agriculture, physicians, public sector employees, nurses, pharmacists, long-term care facilities, and social workers. The initial board gets to set their compensation (aka salary and benefits). How nice!
Some of the board's specific duties include:
- deciding who is eligible for the plan, adopting a benefits package for participants of the plan
- acting directly or through one or more third party contractors as the single payer administrator for all claims for health care services made under the plan
- deciding what is "fair and reasonable" regarding reimbursements to providers
- implementing policies and developing mechanisms and incentives to assure "culturally and linguistically sensitive" care
- establishing rules and procedures for implementing a no-fault compensation system to deal with issues of malpractice
- recruiting a "health advisory panel" that will advise the board on things such as "the establishment of policy on medical issues, population-based public health issues, research priorities, and scope of services (you know, instead of you and your doctor deciding what's best for you)
- establishing a centralized electronic health record system containing all of your medical information
- employ and fix the compensation of agency personnel as needed by the agency to properly discharge the agency's duties
This legislation also aims to create the "Pennsylvania Health Care Agency" which would "administer the plan and is the sole agency authorized to accept applicable grants-in-aid from the Federal Government and State government. It shall use such funds in order to secure full compliance with provisions of Federal and State law and to carry out the purposes established under this act. All grants-in-aid accepted by the agency shall be deposited into the Pennsylvania Health Care Trust Fund established under this act, together with other revenues raised within this Commonwealth to fund the plan." The executive director would be appointed by the governor. Oh and by the way, the board, advisory panel, and agency have immunity i.e. you essentially have no one to sue should their actions cause you direct harm.
Who's covered, you ask? EVERYONE! You heard me right. Citizens, non-citizens, legals, and illegals. There is a "presumption of eligibility" clause indicating that in instances of emergency they will cover you and sort it out later. They will reimburse any participating provider who "renders humanitarian emergency or urgent care" to non-eligible patients.
The board will establish one benefits plan to which everyone will be a member. Long-term care is provided for those who can no longer care for themselves. There are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. There are no co-pays, deductibles, or other point-of-service charges if you go to a participating provider. On the downside, any treatment determined by the board to be non-therapeutic (i.e. palliative treatments that ease the pain of cancer patients) won't be covered.
The board wants total control over participating providers. Any capital investments valued at $1 Million or more (including studies, surveys, etc.) or that change the bed capacity by 10% must be approved by the board. There is also a provision for required investments: "The board is authorized to adopt programs to assist participating providers in making capital investments responsive to best practice recommendations."
How will this leviathan be funded, you ask? First, employers (including those that are self-employed) will be taxed 10% of gross payroll. If, as a consumer, you choose to not participate in the system, you will be subject to the "Individual Fair Share Health and Wellness Tax" of 3% of your income. For those of you that lose their jobs in the health care industry as a result of this legislation, you will be eligible to receive up to $5,000/month for two years or until you find a new job, whichever comes first. You can also get training assistance of up to $20,000 to help you get a new job.
As I've written previously, reform can best be achieved through market-based means and any additional government intervention in the health care marketplace is counterproductive. Considering the Republican majority in the PA Senate, the likelihood of this legislation passing is slim; yet given the events of the last year or so, I personally wouldn't take anything for granted. Write your PA Senator and let them know how you feel about the matter.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Say "No" to Government Health Care
A recent study shows that the average premium for a company-provided family health insurance plan has risen 131% over the last decade. I'd venture to say that everyone agrees that the system needs to be reformed; however, the manner in which to reform is a highly contested matter. Any reform should lower the cost and increase the availability of health insurance to the average American. The best option that our government has come up with thus far is the Baucus Bill. Even if you believe the rosy projections about $500 Billion in savings from Medicare, this bill will still cost in excess of $800 Billion, leave 17 million citizens uninsured, and dramatically raise the cost of health insurance for both individuals and families in America.
Perhaps instead we should be looking at market-based solutions. In Pennsylvania, companies like Hershey Co. have cut their costs in half and encouraged competition in the marketplace by only sending their employees to highly-rated hospitals. Vermont has greatly reduced ER visits by providing their elderly citizens with counseling services to help manage their chronic conditions before they become critical. Through a system of incentives, Safeway has been able to cut costs by 40%. Whole Foods has been able to insure more of their employees while simultaneously reducing costs using similar methods.
Government programs are rife with fraud and have a propensity for cost overruns. Medicare alone burns up about $100 Billion per year via fraud and its 1990 projection (forecasted in 1965) was off by almost 750%. As I've written previously, regulation is costly and actually serves to increase the cost of health insurance. There is no need to spend $1 Trillion to reform the health care industry in America. With the stroke of a pen and essentially no spending health care costs could be cut dramatically simply by allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines. The market is far more powerful than the government could ever dream to be. Let's all just keep our money and allow the market to do its thing.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Nevermind that man behind the curtain
In a recent article about the House's Financial-Rules Overhaul, The Wall Street Journal quotes Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D., Penn.) regarding the need for more government regulation: "Billionaires on Wall Street have had their day, egged on by a culture of greed, deregulation, and a survival-of-the-fittest attitude that ignored the harsh effects those things inflict upon larger society." This view of the financial system neglects the government's role in the equation.
The government often tilts the playing field to the advantage of their politically-favored allies. Speaking of the financial-rules overhaul, consider Barney Frank's derivatives bill that exempts Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Of course U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler merely sees this little oversight as an "unintended consequence." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions that Barney Frank has received from the two government-sponsored entities.
There is a culture of corruption in Washington, D.C. These people put in two and a half day work weeks, collect their six figure salary and benefits packages, and sell us down the river every chance they get. People like Charlie Rangel, who writes the tax code, mind you, that neglect to declare millions of dollars in income and face no consequences when they're caught breaking the very laws that they wrote. Our elected officials allow special interest groups to write thousand-page bills, refuse to read them, and then vote against allowing the bills to be posted online for all of us to read before they vote on them. What are they trying to hide? And who's really running the show?
The latest CBO estimate of this year's budget deficit is $1.4 Trillion dollars. This is roughly triple George Bush's much-maligned budget deficit from his last year in office. Organized crime is turning from the drug trade to Medicare fraud because the money is easy and the penalties aren't nearly as stiff. We need to ask ourselves here, is it really capitalism or corporate greed that is the villain? And if it's not, should we be looking to the government for solutions, or is it the government that's really the problem?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
When will the bailouts end?
Tiger Management founder and chairman Julian Robertson told CNBC "It's almost Armageddon if the Japanese and Chinese don't buy our debt," Robertson said in an interview. "I don't know where we could get the money. I think we've let ourselves get in a terrible situation and I think we ought to try and get out of it."
So why are we bailing out the US Postal Service to the tune of $4 billion?
Al Gore doesn't care about the environment
Visualize Kanye West.
The Wall Street Journal reports that "A tiny car company backed by former Vice President Al Gore has just gotten a $529 million U.S. government loan to help build a hybrid sports car in Finland that will sell for about $89,000."
OK, so let me get this straight - we gave Al Gore half a billion dollars to build cars that nobody probably wants and he's not even going to be building them here in the US? Could it be that even Al Gore realizes that it is more cost-effective for corporations to conduct business abroad than it is to do it in the US? According to the Tax Foundation, the 2006 corporate tax rate in Finland was 26% compared to 39.3% here in the US.
I wonder if the mainstream media will be critical of Al Gore for sending jobs abroad...I won't hold my breath.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Health Care Reform: Invoke the Commerce Clause!
The Commerce Clause has been invoked by Congress to regulate every conceivable type of behavior even when said behavior has nothing to do with interstate commerce. One of the original intents of the clause was to prohibit states from instituting protectionist tariffs and the like thereby hurting the national economy as a whole.
Right now if you live in Pennsylvania you cannot buy a cheaper insurance policy from a company in another state. You can do this with your auto insurance, home owner's insurance, flood insurance, etc., but not your health insurance. For all of this talk about choice and competition, you'd think that instead of just making something up Congress would remember the Constitution for once, use one of their enumerated powers, and enact a simple solution that would lower the cost of health insurance immediately: Allow for the sale of health insurance policies across state lines!
Right now if you live in Pennsylvania you cannot buy a cheaper insurance policy from a company in another state. You can do this with your auto insurance, home owner's insurance, flood insurance, etc., but not your health insurance. For all of this talk about choice and competition, you'd think that instead of just making something up Congress would remember the Constitution for once, use one of their enumerated powers, and enact a simple solution that would lower the cost of health insurance immediately: Allow for the sale of health insurance policies across state lines!
This would greatly reduce health care costs and would literally not cost a single dime of taxpayer money.
Debt Be Not Proud: The Sorry Tale of America's Out-of-control Spending
This article provides a little back-story on how we got to where we are today. Here's a little preview:
The U.S. debt exploded in the last half-century from a fateful intersection of 1) a national economic trauma; 2) a fundamental change in the prevailing economic theory; 3) ill-considered political fund raising reforms after Watergate; and 4) reforms in Congress that made spending impossible to control.
Regulation drives up health care costs
As a Washington Post article reports, Vice President Joe Biden recently spoke at a meeting of state insurance commissioners contending that tighter regulation of the insurance industry is critical to health reform. Apparently the Vice President is oblivious to the fact that regulation is actually driving up the cost of health insurance in America. According to the Council forAffordable Health Insurance, here is a list of 2009 mandated benefits that must be included in every insurance policy sold to every man, woman, and child in the state of PA from pediatrics to geriatrics:
Alcoholism/Substance Abuse
Ambulance/Transportation Services
Ambulatory Cancer Treatment
Autism
Breast Reconstruction
Cervical Cancer/HPV Screening
Chemotherapy
Diabetic Self Management
Diabetic Supplies
Drug Abuse Treatment
Emergency Service
Home Health Care
Mammography
Mastectomy
Mastectomy Minimum Stay
Maternity Minimum Stay
Mental Health Parity
Orthotic and/or Prosthetic
Ovarian Cancer Screening
PKU/Metabolic Disorder
Telemedicine
Well Child Care
Now some of these obviously make sense, but others, depending on your age and sex, are benefits that you are paying for but can't possibly even use. Consumers should be able to tailor their health insurance policies to their own unique needs. Allowing consumers to do so would greatly reduce the cost of health care in America.
Peter Schiff dispels the myth of the jobless recovery
The Recovery That Isn't - "U6, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' most complete measure of unemployment, has risen to a dismal 17%." Seems that Bernanke had a bit of a "Mission Accomplished" moment with his announcement that the recession is over.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Cap and Trade?
Only the government would advocate a plan that gives permits to pollute instead of simply fining polluters.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The deal of the century!
A column ran in today's Washington Post that highlights a common fallacy that is rooted in a lack of understanding of basic economics. The writers of the article try to argue that although we are broke and don't have the money to pay for it, we can't afford not to have Obama's version of health care reform. After all, $1 Trillion spread over a ten year period is only $100 Billion/year:
"Our economic well-being is generally determined by the amount of goods and services that we consume; transfers of money between us have no impact on that total. (Trade with the rest of the world is relatively insignificant when it comes to health care.) So the relevant question is whether our economy should be producing $100 billion more of health insurance each year so that virtually everyone in the country can be covered. The trade-off is either consuming less of other goods and services or investing less in future growth."
Consumption is not a good indicator of economic health. I can get a mortgage for an extravagant house, get a loan for a luxury car, take out a home equity loan on my new house to go on a Caribbean vacation, max out my credit cards to buy plasma televisions and some trendy new furniture, and in the process bury myself under a mountain of debt. Sure, I may have a lot of fancy new things and on the surface appear to be quite well off; the real problems start when the bills come due and I have no way of paying for them. This type of thinking is precisely why we find ourselves in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
We cannot spend our way to prosperity, no matter what the people in D.C. would have you believe. The cold hard truth probably won't win too many elections, but in times like these it may be the only thing that can save our republic. Why is China's economy so healthy? The answer is actually quite simple. They are producing goods that other countries want to buy. This is how wealth is created, and although it pains me to say it, we could learn a thing or two from the Chinese.
Here's the link to the article, in case you're interested:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090101027.html
A word of caution: It goes from bad to worse in a hurry.
"Our economic well-being is generally determined by the amount of goods and services that we consume; transfers of money between us have no impact on that total. (Trade with the rest of the world is relatively insignificant when it comes to health care.) So the relevant question is whether our economy should be producing $100 billion more of health insurance each year so that virtually everyone in the country can be covered. The trade-off is either consuming less of other goods and services or investing less in future growth."
Consumption is not a good indicator of economic health. I can get a mortgage for an extravagant house, get a loan for a luxury car, take out a home equity loan on my new house to go on a Caribbean vacation, max out my credit cards to buy plasma televisions and some trendy new furniture, and in the process bury myself under a mountain of debt. Sure, I may have a lot of fancy new things and on the surface appear to be quite well off; the real problems start when the bills come due and I have no way of paying for them. This type of thinking is precisely why we find ourselves in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
We cannot spend our way to prosperity, no matter what the people in D.C. would have you believe. The cold hard truth probably won't win too many elections, but in times like these it may be the only thing that can save our republic. Why is China's economy so healthy? The answer is actually quite simple. They are producing goods that other countries want to buy. This is how wealth is created, and although it pains me to say it, we could learn a thing or two from the Chinese.
Here's the link to the article, in case you're interested:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090101027.html
A word of caution: It goes from bad to worse in a hurry.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
So how's that "Cash for Clunkers" working out for you?
Was this really a well-conceived incentive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/business/14ford.html
“Ford said on Thursday that it would add 10,000 vehicles to its production schedule in the third quarter and significantly increase its fourth-quarter output as well. The company now plans to make 570,000 vehicles in its North American plants during the last three months of the year.”
People are buying cars now; what will that do to demand for vehicles after the incentive is gone? American automakers ramped up production and paid out overtime to keep up with demand, but this demand is completely artificial. Potentially these people could be out of work now that the program is finished. What happens when we have excess inventory sitting on the lots for the next several years because people bought cars now?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/13/news/economy/retail_sales_July/
“Retail sales fell in July after two straight months of gains, the government reported Thursday, a drop that surprised economists. Without car sales from the “Cash for Clunkers,” the numbers would have been even worse.”
Retail sales have fallen since this program was enacted. So people that would have probably spent their money otherwise funneled it into the car industry instead of buying other goods/services. To boot, these people now have $500/month car payments for the next five years.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/05/business/econwatch/entry5217824.shtml
“Sadly, the cash-for-clunkers program requires that vehicles traded in have their engines destroyed. This will raise the costs of used vehicles for poorer Americans. It will also raise the cost of used U.S. vehicles around the world: Cambodians are less likely to upgrade to newer, safer, less polluting, and more fuel-efficient used Corollas.
Perhaps the need to bail out a struggling U.S. automobile industry is enough to justify renewing the program, even though four out of the five top sellers are Japanese. But it’s a bit silly for politicians to claim that cash-for-clunkers can be justified by environmental or economic concerns, and even sillier for Americans to pretend to believe them.”
What will this do for the auto mechanics? Certainly this will take away a lot of business as there will not be as many older cars on the road in need of servicing. What about the poor? According to government statistics, they've just taken 665,000 cars off of the road, many of them in perfectly good working order. This will dramatically affect the used car market.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57F12O20090816
“Volunteers of America and other charities that receive tens of thousands of cars each year said such donations have quickly fallen up to 12 percent — and fear a 25 percent drop eventually, or over $100 million — as owners rush to trade gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient models while federal rebates last.”
http://www.ehow.com/how_2325207_donate-car-salvation-army.html
“Keep in mind that the process is a simple one that only takes a few minutes to activate.”
Many of these cars could've been donated to the needy. Donating to the Salvation Army is not as difficult as you’d think.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-clunkers-0728,0,3093927.story
“Not all auto recyclers are relishing the government’s new cash for clunkers program, which requires car dealers to destroy the gas-guzzlers they get as trade-ins from new car buyers.
Used engines and drivetrains are a big part of recyclers’ income from each scrapped car, and under the federal program those engines must be destroyed. The idea is to promote fuel efficiency and help automakers, but it comes at a time when more than a dozen U.S. auto parts suppliers have filed for bankruptcy this year.”
What will this do to the used parts market?
What I’ve discussed is just the tip of the iceberg. This was a completely ill-conceived and poorly thought out plan. But that’s the government’s m.o., right? They helped their buddies in the auto unions out short-term and the dealers and the rest of us (i.e. taxpayers that funded this) are going to be left holding the bag. Not to mention that tons of people bought new cars that they probably didn’t need and took on loans that they might not be able to afford. Unnecessary debt is what got us into this whole mess in the first place.
The government is not omnipotent and does not and cannot predict the fallout from their intervention in the market place. A few billion dollars of taxpayer money was dumped into a program that by any objective standard has been a failure. This money could’ve been better spent by the people that earned it. Instead, we redistribute it around to those that are more politically favored.
What got us into this mess was too much borrowing and too much spending. You cannot fix a problem caused by too much borrowing and too much spending by doing more borrowing and more spending.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Ron Paul - The Free Market as Regulator
Since the bailouts last fall, lawmakers have been behaving as quasi-owners of the bailed-out banks and businesses, leading to calls for increased regulation of executive compensation and other wasteful expenditures. We have heard much about bonuses and executive pay packages that sound more like lottery winnings than an honest salary.
Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market.
What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail.
The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave.
The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft - these are creatures of government.
We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution.
Posted by Ron Paul (08-18-2009, 01:43 PM) filed under Monetary Policy
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column
www.house.gov/paul
Many lawmakers voted in favor of these unconstitutional bailouts, believing that these corporations were too big to fail, and allowing them to go under would precipitate widespread economic disaster. This second wave of citizen outrage at the bailouts has left these lawmakers with a bit of egg on their face, and once again, they feel the need to "do something" to "fix" it. Shouldn't there be a regulatory structure in place governing executive compensation? Politically, it seems quite feasible. People are outraged that the system has once again gutted the many to make a few at the top fantastically wealthy. But they are incorrectly demonizing the free market.
What we need to realize is that there WAS a regulatory structure in place that was attempting to stop bad management, including overpaying executives. That regulatory structure is the free market, and when poor management brought these companies to the point of bankruptcy, Congress circumvented the wisdom of the free market, and inserted its own judgment at our expense. And now because of that intervention, we will burdened with massive new regulations. We can be certain this effort will fail.
The free market is a naturally occurring phenomenon that can't be eliminated by governments, not even totalitarian ones like the former Soviet Union. It can be regulated, over-taxed and manipulated until it is driven underground. Lately it has been wrongly accused of doing so many things it just doesn't do, that are really the fault of crony corporatism and convoluted government policies that brought on the crisis. Too many people equate the free market with big business doing whatever it wants, but that is not the free market. Unconstitutional taxpayer funded bailouts are what allow giant corporations to run roughshod over the economy. The free market is what puts them out of business when they misbehave.
The free market is you and your neighbors working hard to produce what you produce, and exchanging goods and services voluntarily, in mutually agreeable arrangements. The free market is about respecting property rights and contracts. It is not about building up oligarchs and monopolies and confiscatory tax theft - these are creatures of government.
We must watch out when government comes up with interventionist solutions to interventionist problems. The root of our problems lie in interventionism. Trusting the free market is the solution.
Posted by Ron Paul (08-18-2009, 01:43 PM) filed under Monetary Policy
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column
www.house.gov/paul
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Seniors and Health Care Reform
Seniors are getting pretty agitated over Obama's proposed health care reform. They're hearing rumors of "death panels" and cuts to their Medicare benefits. Recently at a New Hampshire town hall meeting, President Obama stated that his plan had the backing of AARP. AARP, or the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons, is the largest lobbying power in Washington. AARP members, and seniors in general, routinely manufacture the largest turnout of any group of eligible voters. AARP offered a very public denial of the President's claim when they issued a statement clarifying that they in fact have not endorsed the President's plan. Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, is again claiming that the President misspoke.
The President, at this New Hampshire town hall, also tried to ease Medicare recipient's concerns that their benefits would be cut. However, not even a month ago President Obama was talking about how $313 billion in cuts, including $110 billion in cuts from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments to doctors, would help to pay for his plan. Would these cuts not necessarily impact seniors' Medicare benefits, via less doctors agreeing to take Medicare patients as well as increased costs associated with their supplemental insurance policies?
The White House is claiming that there is a lot of "disinformation" being disseminated regarding health care reform; what they're not telling you is that they are arguably the biggest culprits.
The President, at this New Hampshire town hall, also tried to ease Medicare recipient's concerns that their benefits would be cut. However, not even a month ago President Obama was talking about how $313 billion in cuts, including $110 billion in cuts from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments to doctors, would help to pay for his plan. Would these cuts not necessarily impact seniors' Medicare benefits, via less doctors agreeing to take Medicare patients as well as increased costs associated with their supplemental insurance policies?
The White House is claiming that there is a lot of "disinformation" being disseminated regarding health care reform; what they're not telling you is that they are arguably the biggest culprits.
Friday, August 7, 2009
In what universe is the $787 billion stimulus working?
By any objective standard, President Obama's $787 billion stimulus has been a colossal failure. Since the stimulus bill was signed into law, 2 million Americans have lost their jobs. Unemployment is charging toward 10%. A record number of Americans, about 1 in 9 or nearly 35 million people, are receiving food stamps. The credit markets are still locked up and banks are not lending. And now some of the President's top advisors are saying that a tax increase for the middle class is on the table to fund his vision for health care reform.
Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that the stimulus is in fact working. So far approximately 10% of the money allocated in the stimulus bill has actually been spent. If this thing really is working, then why did we need to put $787 billion worth of spending in the bill if it was only going to take under $8 billion to get the job done?
The truth is, although the President initially described his stimulus as a "jolt" to the economy (he's since backed off and stated that it was never intended to be as such), the spending in the bill is heavily back-end loaded for 2011-2012. Conveniently, the President is up for re-election around that time. Coincidence?
Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer insists that the stimulus is working. "Sometime after you get the prescription, and maybe even after you take the first pill, your fever spikes. Do you decide that the medicine was useless? Do you conclude the antibiotic caused the infection to get worse? Surely not," she said. "You probably conclude that the illness was more serious than you and the doctor thought, and are very glad you saw the doctor and started taking the medicine when you did."
What if what you're experiencing is an allergic reaction to the "prescription?" You just may want to stop taking it and try something else; it could save your life.
Let's suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that the stimulus is in fact working. So far approximately 10% of the money allocated in the stimulus bill has actually been spent. If this thing really is working, then why did we need to put $787 billion worth of spending in the bill if it was only going to take under $8 billion to get the job done?
The truth is, although the President initially described his stimulus as a "jolt" to the economy (he's since backed off and stated that it was never intended to be as such), the spending in the bill is heavily back-end loaded for 2011-2012. Conveniently, the President is up for re-election around that time. Coincidence?
Council of Economic Advisers chair Christina Romer insists that the stimulus is working. "Sometime after you get the prescription, and maybe even after you take the first pill, your fever spikes. Do you decide that the medicine was useless? Do you conclude the antibiotic caused the infection to get worse? Surely not," she said. "You probably conclude that the illness was more serious than you and the doctor thought, and are very glad you saw the doctor and started taking the medicine when you did."
What if what you're experiencing is an allergic reaction to the "prescription?" You just may want to stop taking it and try something else; it could save your life.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
What's in the Obamacare bill? They're going to teach us how to parent too. Awesome!
Creating a program to have a government bureaucrat come into our homes to teach us how to be parents...where do I sign up?
HR 3200 Sec. 440
SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
`(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.
it goes on...
(v) provide parents with--
`(I) knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);
`(II) knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;
`(III) knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;
`(IV) modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;
`(V) skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;
`(VI) skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and
`(VII) activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children;
and...
`(A) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment;
here's the link, it's a swell read!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-HR 3200 :
HR 3200 Sec. 440
SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
`(a) Purpose- The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.
it goes on...
(v) provide parents with--
`(I) knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains (including knowledge of second language acquisition, in the case of English language learners);
`(II) knowledge of realistic expectations of age-appropriate child behaviors;
`(III) knowledge of health and wellness issues for children and parents;
`(IV) modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices;
`(V) skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development;
`(VI) skills to recognize and seek help for issues related to health, developmental delays, and social, emotional, and behavioral skills; and
`(VII) activities designed to help parents become full partners in the education of their children;
and...
`(A) in supporting home visitation programs using funds provided under this section, the State shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families or a high incidence of child maltreatment;
here's the link, it's a swell read!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
Health Care Reform: What's wrong with a "public option," you ask?
On one of the Sunday morning news shows I heard economist Paul Krugman make the argument that a "public option" provided by the government is needed to reform health care. 73% of people in Iowa are covered by the same insurance provider. We need competition. We need a public option.
He's half-right. A lack of competition is part of the problem; however, not in the way that he would lead you to believe. There are approximately 300 health care providers in the US. Adding one more will somehow magically create competition? The problem with this theory is that it neglects to consider the way that health care is administered.
In a past life, I worked in Advanced Technology for a major dental company. During my tenure I came into contact with a man named Brian Hill. Brian is the former owner of a dental company, stage 3 oral cancer survivor, and founder of the Oral Cancer Foundation. When he was diagnosed, he wanted to get the best treatment possible. Although he was a California resident, he found that the premier facility for oral cancer treatment was located in Texas. His insurance company told him that treatment there would not be covered since it was out of network. He was insured by a major insurance provider, Blue Shield I believe. There's Blue Shield in Texas, so this shouldn't be a problem, right? WRONG. So he had to pay out-of-pocket. Fortunately he had the ability to do this; not everyone is so lucky.
Ever wonder why health insurance is so much more expensive than car insurance or renter's insurance? One of the reasons is because you can shop around. If you live in California, you can get a policy for your car from a company in Texas. Health insurance doesn't really work that way. HMO's (a government creation) and PPO's have a government-enabled monopoly on health care and a huge lobbying influence in Washington; they wouldn't want something like a little competition to affect their bottom line.
But a public option will keep the insurance companies honest, you say? Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently said “The president feels that having a public option side by side, same playing field, same rules, will give Americans choice and will help lower costs for everybody. And that’s a good thing.”
The problem is that a public option provided by the government would by definition not be playing by the same rules. Private companies are beholden to the bottom line; in the free market, if a company is not profitable it goes the way of the dinosaur. The government is not in the business of making a profit and has essentially unlimited resources (aka our tax dollars) so they do not have the same limitations. The government could charge a price far lower than the market would normally bear because of this. This would drive private insurance companies out of business, as the consumer will obviously opt for the lowest price, all things being equal.
At this point I hope that you can see that a public option is merely an attempt to backdoor socialized healthcare. Maybe you are all for this. Understand though that socialized healthcare is not FREE healthcare. When you eliminate competition from the market place, you lose the ability to keep prices down and thus rationing care is the only option to keep down cost. It's economics 101...if you short the supply and demand remains the same, price will inevitably go up.
He's half-right. A lack of competition is part of the problem; however, not in the way that he would lead you to believe. There are approximately 300 health care providers in the US. Adding one more will somehow magically create competition? The problem with this theory is that it neglects to consider the way that health care is administered.
In a past life, I worked in Advanced Technology for a major dental company. During my tenure I came into contact with a man named Brian Hill. Brian is the former owner of a dental company, stage 3 oral cancer survivor, and founder of the Oral Cancer Foundation. When he was diagnosed, he wanted to get the best treatment possible. Although he was a California resident, he found that the premier facility for oral cancer treatment was located in Texas. His insurance company told him that treatment there would not be covered since it was out of network. He was insured by a major insurance provider, Blue Shield I believe. There's Blue Shield in Texas, so this shouldn't be a problem, right? WRONG. So he had to pay out-of-pocket. Fortunately he had the ability to do this; not everyone is so lucky.
Ever wonder why health insurance is so much more expensive than car insurance or renter's insurance? One of the reasons is because you can shop around. If you live in California, you can get a policy for your car from a company in Texas. Health insurance doesn't really work that way. HMO's (a government creation) and PPO's have a government-enabled monopoly on health care and a huge lobbying influence in Washington; they wouldn't want something like a little competition to affect their bottom line.
But a public option will keep the insurance companies honest, you say? Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently said “The president feels that having a public option side by side, same playing field, same rules, will give Americans choice and will help lower costs for everybody. And that’s a good thing.”
The problem is that a public option provided by the government would by definition not be playing by the same rules. Private companies are beholden to the bottom line; in the free market, if a company is not profitable it goes the way of the dinosaur. The government is not in the business of making a profit and has essentially unlimited resources (aka our tax dollars) so they do not have the same limitations. The government could charge a price far lower than the market would normally bear because of this. This would drive private insurance companies out of business, as the consumer will obviously opt for the lowest price, all things being equal.
At this point I hope that you can see that a public option is merely an attempt to backdoor socialized healthcare. Maybe you are all for this. Understand though that socialized healthcare is not FREE healthcare. When you eliminate competition from the market place, you lose the ability to keep prices down and thus rationing care is the only option to keep down cost. It's economics 101...if you short the supply and demand remains the same, price will inevitably go up.
How are these banks posting "surprise" profits?
P Morgan Chase - $2.7 Billion
Goldman Sachs - $2.7 Billion
Citigroup - $4.3 Billion
These are the recently announced second quarter profits for three of the major recipients of bailout cash. Does anyone else find it astounding that while the rest of the economy is in shambles with hundreds of thousands of jobs being shed on a monthly basis that these banks are posting tremendous profits? Curious how this happened?
Thank the Federal Reserve. Pull a dollar bill out of your wallet. It says "Federal Reserve Note" across the top. The Federal Reserve is a private institution that Congress has chartered to manage our money supply in direct dereliction of their constitutionally mandated duties. The Federal Reserve has dished out $2 Trillion in loans in the past year and they refuse to disclose the recipients of this money. Guess what...by law, they don't have to tell us.
Does it shock you that in its 97 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has never been audited even once? Presently, we are prohibited from knowing about the Federal Reserve's operations by law. Ron Paul has proposed legislation HR 1207 "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009" that would require a complete audit of the Federal Reserve to be performed by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) by 2010. This is the division of government that provides audits for every other government agency. The companion bill in the Senate is S 604.
Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina recently attempted to get this bill inserted into the 2010 Spending Bill but was blocked from even getting it to a vote. Why? Because if we audit the Fed we will realize what a scam it is and our government will no longer be able to recklessly spend our money and inflate our currency behind closed doors.
People blame "evil capitalism," but we have not practiced free market capitalism in this country for 100 years. What we practice is corporatism, where major corporations and the select few are the beneficiaries of government largesse. Cronyism at its finest. They get the benefit of easy money on the way up as well as a government bailout on the way down. Is it any wonder that Wall Street was the number one donor to Obama's campaign? They want to keep a good thing going!
I urge you to write or call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that you demand that they support this legislation.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Goldman Sachs - $2.7 Billion
Citigroup - $4.3 Billion
These are the recently announced second quarter profits for three of the major recipients of bailout cash. Does anyone else find it astounding that while the rest of the economy is in shambles with hundreds of thousands of jobs being shed on a monthly basis that these banks are posting tremendous profits? Curious how this happened?
Thank the Federal Reserve. Pull a dollar bill out of your wallet. It says "Federal Reserve Note" across the top. The Federal Reserve is a private institution that Congress has chartered to manage our money supply in direct dereliction of their constitutionally mandated duties. The Federal Reserve has dished out $2 Trillion in loans in the past year and they refuse to disclose the recipients of this money. Guess what...by law, they don't have to tell us.
Does it shock you that in its 97 years of existence, the Federal Reserve has never been audited even once? Presently, we are prohibited from knowing about the Federal Reserve's operations by law. Ron Paul has proposed legislation HR 1207 "The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009" that would require a complete audit of the Federal Reserve to be performed by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) by 2010. This is the division of government that provides audits for every other government agency. The companion bill in the Senate is S 604.
Senator Jim Demint of South Carolina recently attempted to get this bill inserted into the 2010 Spending Bill but was blocked from even getting it to a vote. Why? Because if we audit the Fed we will realize what a scam it is and our government will no longer be able to recklessly spend our money and inflate our currency behind closed doors.
People blame "evil capitalism," but we have not practiced free market capitalism in this country for 100 years. What we practice is corporatism, where major corporations and the select few are the beneficiaries of government largesse. Cronyism at its finest. They get the benefit of easy money on the way up as well as a government bailout on the way down. Is it any wonder that Wall Street was the number one donor to Obama's campaign? They want to keep a good thing going!
I urge you to write or call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them that you demand that they support this legislation.
http://www.senate.gov/gene
https://writerep.house.gov
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)