Category Archives: Health Care

What should we replace Obamacare with? Nothing.

5811_1129629713601_1012956017_30397326_7344849_n

One of the most repeated complaints by liberals who only can hold conversations in talking-points (it’s a disturbing proportion of progressives actually) is what is the Republican plan that they will replace Obamacare with? And given that (a) I have done copious amounts of research on this issue and (b) that we are now close enough I think not only to keep the House and take the Senate, but that we may be close enough to drag enough Democrats who want to keep their jobs to override the retarded tyrant’s* veto. So while certainly not a definite outcome it is within the realm of possibility. Which means we have to have a real answer to what to replace it with.

Before we look at what that answer should be let’s look at how we got here.

Health insurance plans really began during the Great Depression, when being barred from giving people raises by a federal government that had no clue what constitutional limitations were, companies started to offer benefits packages that included health insurance. Before this doctors and hospital visits were primarily an out of pocket expenditure…and because they were not guaranteed, a constant supply doctors had to keep costs low and services high to get business (remember the concept of the home visit?). Now a business offering insurance did not change much immediately as few people were getting these kinds of benefits. But it planted the seed of the idea…more and more employees would get insurance over the years. This has a few effects. The insurance companies, as they get larger and larger try to do what all companies do, standardize and cut costs and increase profits (more stock holders to pay). So this requires the doctors who work with these companies to begin to standardize their prices (i.e., they have no incentive anymore to undercut their competition). This continued for a while and didn’t create too many problems, as the effect of insurance companies was never large enough to throw off the free market pricing by more than the smallest deviation.

But then America was tormented by a racist socialist by the name of Johnson. And with this idiot came monsters of Medicaid and Medicare. Now government could control medicine in a way only previously feared. First off, as with any government program, came fraud, billions of dollars of fraud a year. So even if you weren’t getting the medical care from these terrible programs, you and your tax dollars were getting stuck with the check. You ever seen those ads for all the Medicare products you can buy on late night television? Well you paid for the ad and the for the Medicare recipient to get the product they were advertising (few of which are actually worth the money being shilled out for them, even if they were paid with money that wasn’t stolen.) Further they inflated prices. Partly because they would only pay doctors a portion of what they would usually charge for a service, procedure or prescription causing the prices to rise if doctors who were participating in the plans to raise their prices if they wanted to make enough to stay in business (which in turn allowed all doctors to raise their prices and still stay competitive). This also had the problem of every subsidy…whenever you subsidize something you get more people wanting it…so although you have the same relative number of doctors you now have a massively larger population going to the doctor…and not for things like yearly checkups or major medical problems, no, now they were going for flu symptoms, minor cuts, and a host of other things that had they had to actually pay for the service they would have decided it was not worth the cost and better to just get some rest and let the body do what it was designed to do: heal itself.

And as the Medicaid and Medicare roles expanded, and as the Department of Health, Human Services and Education’s power grew (Thank you Ike for that stupidity…yes, the interstate isn’t the only thing from the Reich that Ike brought back with him) the completely predictable happened…prices went up, options went down, service went down, grief went up (granted the increases might have only been noticed by economists…but the seeds for larger disasters were being sown). So the fact that government intervention up to this point had always and without exception led to making the system worse, the government intervened…with that creation straight from Eighth Concentric Circle of Hell, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Why were HMOs so dumb? Well first think of all the problems mentioned before, but on Captain America level steroids. Added to that HMOs genius idea was that they were going to cut down on the cost for the major portion of health care (all those major diseases and surgeries) by putting a lot of money into this thing they liked to call preventative care. The idea was that if we can catch the disease beforehand then we can stop it and not have to pay for those major medical problems. And that would work, if you know, you weren’t dealing with people. The problem of dealing with people is that we die. Without exception we die. And the end usually isn’t pleasant or cheap (it could be, but people would rather waste a lifetime’s worth of wealth in pain and constant medical treatment to gain 3 years instead of living well for six months with a few pain killers–pro tip, you’re going to die–nothing will stop that–and the quality of what you have left is more important than the quantity you have left). So now, we’re not only spending massive amounts on all the major medical expenditures we were before, but also spending a massive amount on preventative care…oh, and paperwork. More overhead and paperwork than you could ever want to imagine. And of course life expectancy has not been increased because of all this preventative care, nor quality of life…so we’re spending a fortune on nothing.

So to fix this mess which just made everything worse the government reached into the bowels of the abyss and pulled out Obamacare.

Am I the only one who has noticed that every government “fix” to the medical system makes it exponentially worse?

So the solution is simple. No more government fixes.

Get rid of Obamacare, every last scrap. Get rid of the HMO laws. Get rid of Medicaid and Medicare (if you have concern for the groups that these programs cover, give them the money you would otherwise give them as cash, lump sum…it will save billions a year–in the long run trillions on overhead costs, fraud, and bureaucracy alone…or better yet, go to a reverse income tax). Get rid of all laws taxing, regulating, and controlling the medical industry. Discontinue the Department of Health and sell the buildings…get rid of the FDA and charge the bureaucrats with the millions of murders they have done by preventing life-saving drugs from coming to the market. Get the government out.

Honestly you will see better medical care than ever before. You will see prices come down to levels that everyone can afford. You will see insurance companies offer plans for things that people want and since they will be crossing state lines they will be offering it at prices almost anyone can afford. You will see drug research become profitable and as such less expensive.

Now I’m not foolish enough to think that even if we win the Senate and keep the House (and do it all again in 2 years and win the White House) that’ll we will be in a position to push this. There are too many states that are far too blue that even if they elect a Republican it will be of the “compassionate-conservative” type who doesn’t understand the need for the free market at every level…but whatever we do propose has to move us closer to this. It has to strip out as many regulations as possible, eliminate or lower as many taxes as it can, remove barriers that prevent insurance crossing state lines, and gut every agency possible.

Granted this is going to have be a death of a thousand cuts…but the goal should not be to repeal and replace as conservatives have said in the past…it should be to repeal and repeal alone. And when some dipshit liberal asks “What is the conservatives plan?” Respond “The free market which has always and will always work.”

*Yes, I’ll admit that was unfair. Even the vast majority of people with mental disabilities are smarter than that worthless excuse for a human being.

Leave a comment

Filed under Health Care

Milton Friedman on the problems of government in medical care

This is a rather long lecture by Milton Friedman on the issues of government in medical care.  As it is so long I’m not going to write a lot, but you should watch it because, despite being over 3 decades old, every word is still very relevant.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Taxes, Tyranny

Finish it: Modern Society’s Infantile Obsession with Death And Why We Need to Give It Up

The Seventh Seal Death

He comes for us all.

You are going to die.

How did that sentence make you feel? When you think about it, the correct response is probably something along the lines “well, duh, no kidding”… after all, the whole human thing comes with that pesky you’re going to die thing. It’s all part and parcel of this mortal coil (I could go on but the clichés are already getting a little thick), but to reiterate you already knew that,

You are going to die.

However, I get the feeling that most of you didn’t have a completely rational response. Probably some small measure of revulsion, shock, or even, dare I say it, fear, came up while you read it.

Why do I bring this up? Well, mainly because I realized part of this whole healthcare thing is based on this absolute fear of death. So I feel for just a moment we should forget the numerous flaws Obamacare, or Hillarycare or the useless systems of Canada or Britain or any other godawful place where you wouldn’t want to receive medical treatment if you had a choice…no let’s ignore the economic flaws of these systems and focus on what drives the call for their creation and why that call is terrible.

What drives this call for more and more government control, for more universal healthcare, for constantly doing something in this field. It comes because we all seem to be afraid of coming down with something, and we all have no trust in the insurance companies to be there. But is this a legitimate fear? (And let’s just ignore that the reason why insurance was so bad was government interference in terms of HMO’s, Medicare and Medicaid). Are you likely to come down with something that will get you killed? Right now if you’re reading this, the statistics say that you should reach your 80′s. Now no offense here, but who really wants to live past their 80′s…yes we all know the occasional person in their 90′s who is still lively and active…. but let’s be honest they’re the exception not the rule…most people in their 90′s are in nursing homes or kept in that back guest room and are no exactly the best conversationalists. But the fact is that the odds are in your favor that you will not come down with something that will end your life while you are still able to live it.

But still isn’t it natural to fear death?

No. Why would you fear something you know is coming? You know that prayer, “God give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.” This is the ultimate thing you cannot change. Accept it.

But most don’t accept it. How do I know this? Well look at how many people set up shrines on the side of roads where family members died. How many parents become nothing but obsessed with their dead children, even to the exclusion of their living children. There are probably few things worse than to out live your own child, but I seriously doubt that you honor your child’s life by effectively ending your own. And back to those roadside shrines. I have seen them where they will put up new pictures, flowers, toys and other monuments on a WEEKLY basis. Good lord! We are talking about possibly thousands of dollars a year being spent on someone who isn’t even around any more. And this is not at a grave sight; it’s at the sight of the person’s death…talk about morbid. This is somehow not what I would call moving from grief to acceptance; it’s more like digging a trench hole fortification in grief and never leaving. And when you do that, the pursuit of happiness no longer has any meaning and thus life has no meaning–it isn’t the healthy version of “You need to fear death” from the Dark Knight Rising where they really meant you need to love living, this is hating living and only loving breathing. And make no mistake there is a difference.

And then there is the rest of society. Look at the box office. When was the last time you saw a decent Romantic Comedy? Might take you a moment to find one. When was the last time you saw a zombie movie come out? Every month? Horror movies, a genre that has never produced more than a handful of movies that could be labeled as anything but crap.

But doesn’t a fear of death, and what may or may not lie beyond, motivate us to live our lives? Carpe Diem. Seize the Day! Eat, Drink, and Be Merry for tomorrow we die! It’s a nice idea…but when did focusing on the negative ever get anyone anywhere. Again these ideas are your need to make the MOST of something, not fear the inevitable.

Lets look at what really happens when you’re obsessed with death.

When you think only about death and the fact that it might come any minute you think short term. You don’t plan, you don’t save, and you don’t expect anything because you might die any minute. Just look at any Democratic plan for this kind of short term thinking. In other words you have lost hope. People who supposedly “live in the moment” aren’t living in the moment, they’re trying to get every last thrill in before what they assume is a rather quick end. They see life as only a series of a few short thrills, a rather insignificant number of experiences to be experienced before the end; life as only a “bucket list” to be checked off and then there is nothing else.

Fountain_tree_of_life

Just accept it, you’re going to die. Make most of the time you have and don’t worry about the fact that it will end.

Now let me ask you a question. Once I ask it you will know rationally which is the correct answer, but ask yourself if you look forward to life this way? The question is, if you had before you your own personal and extensive bucket list of all the things you would want to do and were given an option between the bucket list and then death or a reasonably loving marriage, good kids, and a reasonably fulfilling career for a lifetime that was at least 80 years, which would you take? Rationally we would say we would take the longer more meaningful life because rationally we know a whole lot of good experiences are better than a few great experiences. We know that one dive out of a plane, one sight of a famous painting, one moment standing at a famous monument will not compare to years of happiness, even if those years never quite reach the momentary high of those single moments.

However, because we have no hope that we can attain that lasting true happiness, because we are afraid that death can come any moment we don’t strive for it. We make our lives a series of meaningless moments that may in of themselves constitute a momentary high, but sadly have a sum total of zero (or less).

I’m not saying that this society is nothing but a society of base hedonists (although we are close), but how many people are stuck doing a job they hate and don’t take the risks necessary to better themselves to do better. How many of us view the thing we look forward to all week is our favorite show on TV and not our friends. …. Or how many in this country are wiling to vote for the person who promises the quickest fix with the most immediate gratification over a politician who has real plans? Long-term thinking is a reflection of hope. Now does that mean someone who thinks long term should just live by themself and never engage in any of those short-term pleasures? No. Any full life has a balance of experiences.

Now you may criticize me as a hypocrite. Don’t you practice that Buddhist meditation of envisioning your death? Aren’t you focused on death more so than the rest of us? Yes to the first, no to the second. The Buddhists teach to constantly meditate on your death not to be focused on death, but to prepare your mind for the inevitable so it won’t be too shocked by the crossing over and thus will be able to make it back here as quickly as possible. …Again long-term thinking coupled with an obsession with the quality life.

But how does this obsession with death relate to politics? Only too directly. What do you think drives this call for healthcare? Think we’re talking about insurance? Something that isn’t needed for the vast majority of humanity. Yeah we all use our dental insurance on a yearly basis, and if we have glasses we use the Vision insurance…but the medical insurance. I mean honestly now, most of us can go years without going to see a doctor if we take care of ourselves. But that’s not what the argument is over, the argument is over health care, at least from the side of the people advocating for it centers around when we need a doctor not as a precautionary checkup but when we’re dying and need massive medical care! Again why we should all prefer to live, why should the thought of death push us to action? It’s going to happen to all of us. But some of these ways to die are terrible and painful! The cry goes. To which I respond so are the treatments that cost massive amounts of money (that’s partly why this is going to be so expensive) often painful in of themselves, and only buy you a few months, maybe a couple of useless years. I very much believe in fighting to live every last moment you can. But fighting for three more months in a hospitable bed isn’t life; it’s fear of death. Or worse you now see people fighting to keep brain dead husks on life support (possibly tying a soul to a useless body for years because they fear the idea of death so much…but please tell me of a better description of hell than being tied to a body you can nothing with for years perhaps decades? That certainly has nothing to do with the respecting the sanctity of life.) Nothing anything a liberal has argued in calling for universal healthcare is about the improvement of the quality of life, it’s about delaying death for as long as possible. (Because in fact basic economics tells us this will make healthcare far more inefficient and thus ruin the average person’s access to medical treatment).

The fear of death causes nothing but stupid decisions. And this culture needs to get over it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Death, Health Care, People Are Stupid

Obamacare also known as Affordable Care Act — The GIFT that keeps giving! –Yay for 2014!

tumblr_mxvyo66mVM1s4tkgno1_500Here are some of the fun things to look forward to in the new year because of Obamacare

  • Lack of options now due to the “better quality” options now available to all of us.
  • Cost tripling +, more then could be thought previously.
  • Penalties for not purchasing a product the government feels you need.
  • Penalties for any life style choice not acceptable to the government.
  • Difficult to keep track of the rules (hard to read to begin with) but they keep adding to them and then changing them by executive order or any government department order or the whims of the union or ……
  • Remember all those that luckily were given exemptions – did anyone ask how the insurance companies are dealing with this 2 tier system?
  • Doctors, nurses, other health care professionals making new career decisions that just might affect us all…
  • Hospitals making new decisions on just who they will serve based your type of insurance or maybe that will be cash….
  • Have you all looked at your deductibles lately and then wondered what the insurance was for – all those who could not afford insurance previously will definitely not be able to afford those deductibles – who knew.
  • Medical costs will jump because now there is a tax on all medical devices (cleverly defined as most supplies used in medical care) and I could be wrong but pretty sure those are going to be passed on to you….
  • Those medical procedure panels will be up and going soon (also politically incorrectly known as Death Panels) with non medical political appointees to help determine how we can lower those medical costs which unbelievably have suddenly jumped so that will be fun as many decisions will be based on political/society trends/beliefs – I can hardly wait – how about you?  Did you know that the British Panel once suggested turning sheets over so that they did not need to be cleaned so often – fortunately media distribution put a stop to that clever idea – you can only imagine the creativity that will erupt from America.
  • For those who have read Ayn Rand you will understand the Power of Political Pull and only your imagination will stop you from seeing all the possibilities this new system will provide.
  • I wonder how many of you know that charges for government/insurance coverage will be based on new codes developed by the government and currently there appears to be at least a third less available codes then previous procedures – wonder how that will work? Did I mention previously the use of cash?  Did you know that the government has already put a Cardiologist in jail for using the wrong code ( a lower priced code as the code did not exist for the procedure given – no consideration to the fact that the procedure was the appropriate one and the patient survived and excelled afterwards) – what was the charge you say – well he asked for a jury trial which amazingly found him innocent but then the government charged him with obstruction of justice with a 6 month sentence.  Gosh this does sound like it will be getting fun….
  • We will now be pushing all those preventative care items but gee all the studies show it really makes no major difference when dealing with major medical (the real problem) but hey that not how we feel about it so it makes us feel better to pay for things (you probably could have paid for yourself) and cut those other areas you thought you needed care for.
  • Instead of just you, your doctor and insurance company we have added the whole government and all its departments in your personal healthcare – how could that be a bad thing….
  • Have you ever wondered what all that collection of medical records is for – the possibilities or such a collection – I mean insurance companies had really good records for actuarial tables but this now tracks info by individuals/families – oh the possibilities….
  • The good thing is men are no longer discriminated against so they can now get gynecological tests and maternity care they need.  I hope also that women’s prostates and testicles will be given the care that has been so neglected.
  • Since population is exploding and there are so many children born with issues we have provided ease with pregnancy issues that were such a problem previously; because personal responsibility is highly over-rated.
  • ER’s might need to curtail that silly rule about seeing/treating everyone that enters for any type of care or you might see more mass disease distribution as larger amounts of people collect together to try and receive some of that care.
  • Hospitals/Doctors will be more attentive to your cost needs and probably curtail those additional tests – I mean they went to school and can probably figure it out after all they have seen many patients.
  • We currently have an antibiotic problem as 3rd generation drugs have fairly lost their value and with costs being a problem we will probably curtail that research as who really wants to pay those high prices just for a cure.
  • While we are talking about drugs you might want to consider how popular generics will become even though the medical profession is knowledgeable about the fact that many of those do not meet the needs of the patients as do the branded product but hey it costs less.
  • Oh and in compliance with the IRS (marriage penalty on taxes) we added a marriage tax to health care because marriage has only mainly good results on physical/mental health so why would we encourage that.
  • We have had fraud in government programs for years and we thought it wasn’t enough so we have created a system that will not only increase it but make it more varied then previously.
  • Jobs will decrease, full time will be reevaluated, studies show that that working can be stressful anyway….
  • Remember Will Smith’s response to 70% tax rates?? Well now we can all eventually see what that’s like as every country that has government involvement in this area must eventually reach this level or go bankrupt – Oh wait those other countries have learned and are starting to turn the system around but gee it has never been tried by America and after all we are America so economics obviously work differently here.
  • Wonder what will happen when all the exemptions are removed and mandates back in place – Silly – why would that be a problem……

 

 

 

 

Remember when things are working so well why should we not try to help other industries – I mean really there are so many options for food, especially that are bad for us so possibly the government should provide us with what we need  (better options) help us avoid the bad (won’t be available) – of course when the economy really takes a dive and there are no jobs but those approved and good for you we will all be so happy and healthy – so happy to have a helpful caring government – cradle to grave (which will obviously occur so much sooner now).

1 Comment

Filed under Health Care, Obama

Obama’s latest attempt to save himself is rehashing an old lie

I am going to scream if I hear one more idiot in the media or from the White House try and compare Obamacare to the Massachusetts Healthcare system (aka Romneycare). 

I know why they’re using it–so many on who call themselves conservatives but never did an ounce of research believed it last time, so why not trot the same lie out again.

So while this should be very old news, it seems we have to once again deal with how the two laws have nothing to do with each other. Please review this to help slap down liberals and idiots who call themselves conservatives for no justifiable reason.

 

 

 




Leave a comment

Filed under Health Care

Why Obamacare is terrible on every level.

Obamacare regs

So those 11 million words are what you have to comply with.

I was recently asked why Obamacare is so bad…

Where to start?

 Let’s start at the Constitutional Level.

Obamacare requires that every person in America buys insurance.  This was done because without doing it every insurance provider in the nation would begin losing almost immediately and rather than lose money they would just go Atlas Shrugged on us and close shop…but by having everyone on insurance they at least still make a small profit, but only because you’ve forced millions of people who don’t need insurance onto insurance (but even then only by making everyone pay increased premiums).

The problem with this is that the Constitution gives the government no power to force people to buy something (in fact forcing people to do something against their will is expressly prohibited in the 5th Amendment’s protection of private property, and 13th Amendment).  They enforce this mandate by penalizing you if you don’t buy insurance.  Again, no Constitutional authority to do this.

Now the Supreme Court and Obamacare got around this by saying this penalty isn’t a fine, it’s a tax (the strangest tax in history, but still a tax). The problem with this is Constitutionally taxes have to originate in House of Representatives and Obamacare originated in the Senate.

So either it’s forcing you to buy something, and is unconstitutional, or it’s a tax in which case the bill was not passed in a constitutional manner.

Either way it’s unconstitutional.

Then let’s go to the idea of rights.  

The entire basis for this law is that you have a right to health care.   

This is silly.  Traditionally rights have been considered things that you are born with or you would have even if there was no civilization around.  If you’re alone on an island you still have the rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.  In society no one has the right to take these away from you, which is why these are called negative rights—you have them and no one can negate them.  Even if someone has the power to do so no one has the ethical, moral, or political basis to take away by force your negative rights.  Ethical government is based on the idea that, being a part of society, you give up a very small amount (not so small these days) of your rights to protect the vast majority of them.  At least in the ideal.

The right to health care is what’s called a positive right.  The idea that you have a right to certain things that you would not have without others, that you have not and cannot provide for yourself, and that others are required to provide for you. Health care is one of these.  The idea that you have a right to living wage, whether you earn it or not. 

Now, personally I don’t think there has ever been a good argument for positive rights, but the bigger problem is that positive rights always infringe upon negative rights.  If you have the right to a living wage, then others must provide, and thus must have their property taken away, to provide your living wage.  Thus you have no right to property if you have the right to a living wage.  If you have a right to health care, then doctors and nurses must treat you or any medical issue (not only life threatening ones, hospitals and doctors were required to treat life threatening issues by law even before Obamacare) whether you can pay or not.  This means a doctor cannot choose to not take you as a patient.  Thus the right to healthcare means doctors do not have freedom of choice and thus do not have the right to liberty…I believe that’s called slavery.  Now you think this may be an extreme example, but whenever positive rights have become laws you see fewer protection of negative rights without exception throughout history.

Then we have the pragmatic problems with Obamacare. 

Obamacare creates massive amounts of regulation (11 million words of regulations ).  This encourages more doctors to leave the system, and more highly qualified potential doctors and other medical professionals to not get into it ().  It slows research, it reduces the amounts of medical equipment that can be used.  It raises prices.

Also when something is free or perceived as free, as in the case of Obamacare, you always get people wanting more of it.

This will cause more people to go to the doctor (remember there will be fewer of them) for more minor issues.  This will cause longer lines and less efficient care, thus treatment quality will go down, and mortality rates will go up.  This can be seen in any country with socialized medicine where you see such things as gout go months without treatment (whereas it is almost always immediately caught here) or where due to the wait, limb amputation as a result a diabetes is vastly more common under systems like Obamacare than it has been in the preObamacare American system. (These are just two examples.  Every disease gets worse under socialized medicine).

Fraud, due to increased bureaucracy, will also increase.  You will end up paying for this through increased premiums and taxes.  

obama-care-chart

Welcome to Obamacare…can you find your way to a doctor…or will you just fall into the pit of Despair?

You will also have the problem of price control boards.   Now, we have always had these in one form or another (but they got really annoying after the government created the dreaded HMO…that’s right the biggest thing people hated in healthcare before Obamacare was also a government created debacle).   You buy a certain level of insurance and the insurance company says that due to the level you have bought we will pay X amount of dollars, but no more.  This becomes an issue with experimental treatment and long-term problems like cancer.  The insurance will pay for your pain meds, as they are required to by your policy, but they will not pay for expensive chemo and radiation (not because they’re heartless but because they would go broke if they paid for everyone who didn’t pay the premiums for that level of care). If you want more coverage, you can always buy more.  The problem with Obamacare is that government price control boards are going into place and will say what you can and can’t have for treatment, if you are in the government exchanges.  The difference here is if an insurance company denied to pay, you could always pay out of pocket, under Obamacare the price control board’s decision is final (if try to pay out of pocket you are again subject to fines, and rationing will have made these procedures already more expensive which makes already expensive procedures astronomically unreachable, so it’s the same thing as making them illegal).  This is why they have earned the moniker “death panels” because if they deny your claim, you die…if the insurance company denied you, you still had other options and it was up to you if you wanted to spend your life savings on buying those extra few months. 

The unfortunate effect will be that as medical prices rise, what is covered by the price control boards will contract drastically.  Thus even more things will become deadly.

Not to mention with the above fact that people are more likely to go to the doctor, which means even if they aren’t sick they’re more likely to go to a waiting room where someone is sick and catch something.  And remember antibiotics are slowly becoming worthless.  Yeah that bodes well. 

There are a lot of other ways it will ruin the medical profession, but I think you get the point.

Finally the economic reasons why it’s bad.

 Ignoring the fact that higher death rates may have some negative economic effects…it’s just bad in every way for the economy.

Obamacare requires businesses with a certain number of employees to buy insurance at a certain level for their employees.

As premiums rise, as I stated above, this means it becomes more and more expensive to hire an employee. If you earn $45,000 plus benefits right now, it actually costs your employer around $60,000 between salary, benefits, and social security to employee you. As premiums rise so does the cost of employing each person.

Whether businesses care about their employees or not, they first have to stay in business.  They are hesitant to hire new people as new hires also cost money for training and you usually aren’t getting the full effect of the employee for a few months until they get into a rhythm with the system of your company.  So you’re taking a loss with each new employee even before Obamacare.  The raised premiums then mean with each new employee will have to provide more for the company to be worth their total cost.  Thus you tend to fire the lower performers because you’re not getting your money’s worth. So fewer people hired, more people fired.  Also since you have to provide fewer benefits for part time workers than full time, you are more likely to hire people only part time.  We have seen all of this over the last few years.

Small businesses are hurt too because a small business can only grow to a certain size before it has to provide benefits.  So when it reaches that point, a business can either not grow, which hurts economic growth, or suddenly provide full medical coverage…and no small business at that size can afford to make that immediate jump in the cost of each employee.  Again we have slowly seen the effects this has on the economy.

This leads to overall negative ripple effects in prosperity, take home pay, innovation, research…it creates a bad economy all around.

And we’re already seeing all of this on a massive scale. 

So to sum up, it’s unconstitutional, it’s unethical, it’s leads to bad medicine, and it leads to a terrible economy.  

What makes it worse is that actually less government (removing the restrictions on research, removing the restrictions on insurance companies crossing state lines, a thousand other small things) could actually improve medicine, medical costs, and the economy.  And Republicans have proposed these numerous times despite the media saying they have no idea of what to replace Obamacare with.

Anything anyone wants clarified?

Obamaapocalypsocareageddongate

And, sadly, this is an understatement of how bad things are going to get under this law.

5 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Long Term Thinking, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Welfare

Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?

I was going to do a response to John Green’s mostly accurate but slightly misleading video “Why Are American Health Care Costs So High?”…but I really can’t beat Lee Doren’s response on “How the World Works.”

I would merely point out that while Doren is correct that we could go to out of pocket to help reduce prices, we could also get rid of the laws that created HMO’s and allow insurance companies to cross state lines.  All of this would further increase competition and drive down costs even more.

Also John Greene makes a comment about tort reform only reducing health case costs by a fraction of a percent in Texas.  What he fails to mention is that it has also drastically increase survival rates for patients.  So tort reform led to more people living at lower costs.  I don’t think dismissing them out of hand as he does is all that bright.

The Original Video

(I’m not going to include all of the links Doren references because he deserves the hit count that will come from having to go to his Youtube page to find them.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Economics, Government is useless, Health Care, Long Term Thinking, politics

Health Care is Not A Right

So Republicans in typical fashion are trying to shoot themselves in the foot with their “Defund Obamacare push”  (hint the liberals want the GOP to win on this one so they don’t have to have Obamacare hanging around their necks in 2014 and 2016, so they can keep the White House and take back Congress just long enough to make sure no one can ever take Obamacare out…if you want to get rid of Obamacare, really, really get rid of it, you need to make people see, and unfortunately feel, the misery they voted for. The point here is to get rid of the idea that government is the answer, not just a temporary reprieve on one horrific law.  The Defund Obamacare group is looking to win the battle, possibly at the cost of losing the war).   But while this is going on, Democrats are spending billions just to advertise Obamacare (if a law is so bad you have to advertise it, that should tell you something).  And to top it all off, a couple days ago Obama made his one of his typically brain less statements.  “Because in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.”

Why do I bring all of these different groups up in the same paragraph? Because they’re all idiots. They are all predicated on the idea that the government has to do something (less idiotic for the Republicans, but they seem to have given up the idea of full repeal, the only real answer, because they seem to acknowledge the lie that government needs to provide something). At best this belief is idiotic. At worst it’s just plain evil. (On another side note evil people are very rare, but evil ideas are all too common, and morons have a long history of latching onto evil ideas with the best of intentions. So please understand I’m not calling the people supporting Obamacare evil–unless their name is Harry/Nancy/Barrack/Michelle–merely their idea is). Why is it stupid/evil? Well, let me be as clear as I can possibly be:

YOU DO NOT HAVE A !@#$%^& RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE!!!!

Like the right to property, and the right to pursue happiness, you have the right to earn a living and to use that money as you see fit, perhaps by buying healthcare or healthcare insurance, but you have no natural right to healthcare.

Sorry, Barry, but just because you want something, it’s not a right.

I know I am about to repeat things that I have said before, but I feel I need to. I feel everyone needs to until this country learns that rights are not entitlements, rights are not things given to you but opportunities to be taken care of, and to exercise your rights does not require the acts, intentions, or contribution of anyone else.

A natural right as conceived of in the theory of natural rights and in the Declaration of Independence is something you would have without the presence of government or even society. It’s what does Robinson Crusoe have when he’s on the island before he decides to violate Friday’s natural right to freedom. Well, if you find yourself trapped in a bad episode of “Lost” you have the right to life, liberty, property, and to pursue happiness. A lot of what the original Bill of Rights includes is also there (speech, religion, assembly, arms, and self-incrimination) but notice that if you’re on an island by yourself you don’t have medical care. You have the right to take care of yourself, but islands in the middle of nowhere are not staffed with hospitals and doctors just waiting for you to get sick. So it’s certainly not a natural right.

But we don’t live on an island in the middle of nowhere. The upside to this is that we don’t have to engage in a philosophical war with a black cloud; the downside to this is that we do have to deal with other people. And while most people are rational and good intentioned, there are the random people who don’t respect your rights and try to take what isn’t theirs. Because of these random few who ruin everything, and because, we want complex things that we can’t do without laws and someone being in charge (like roads) we turn to the necessary evil of government. Now good government is a skill and it took us a while to realize that limits need to be put on it because just following the guy who can kill you or the guy with the best bullshit may not have been the best choice in the beginning, even though it’s what historically happened. So we had to come up with a whole new set of rights (quartering, due process, equality under the law). But notice all these other rights limit what the government does. Nowhere have you been given anything. You were either born with your rights, some of which you gave away to ensure protection against stupid people violating your rights, and other “rights” were restrictions placed on the government on top of which your natural rights were completely off-limits. But still no right has been given to you that you already didn’t have. And again, you didn’t have the right to health care if you were stuck in the state of nature.

The right to healthcare is a ridiculous, idiotic and borderline evil idea called a “positive right.” A negative right means something that no one has the right to take away from you–like your life, your liberty, or your property. Those are things you’re entitled to, thus no one has any right to reduce your rights to them. A positive right on the other hand means something that you have a right to expect to be given to you. If you’re reading that last sentence a few times because it seems to make no sense, good, that means you’re sane. Healthcare is a positive right. It is the idea that just because I showed up you have to give me healthcare. Just because you’re alive other people have to give something to you? Well I know that really egocentric people act like this, but to actually portray this as a theory of government is insane. And while virtues of love and charity say that ethically we should give people more than they may deserve, it doesn’t work in the opposite way where you have the right to demand people give you more than you serve—that’s not ethics it’s also insanity.

But more than insane it’s wrong. You can’t give a piece of property or a service without taking it from someone else–i.e. theft or slavery. Now while I believe the capitalist system isn’t a zero-sum game that always creates more and more, theoretically having no limit to how much wealth it can create, the kind of property transfer that the government deals in is a zero-sum for whatever moment it exists in. The government stealing things and giving it to others, transferring wealth from one person to another, not only harms the ability to create more wealth, but given government inefficiency, it actually creates less wealth (especially given the government’s addiction to spending money it doesn’t have). The government can’t just give people drugs without stealing it from drugs companies…if it pays for those drugs then it can only do that by stealing hard earned wealth from the taxpayers. Either way it’s theft. A person can’t be guaranteed healthcare without doctors being forced to treat them. After all either the doctors are paid (and if the government’s involved it’s paid with stolen taxpayer money) or simply forced to work as a slave. And you’ll find most doctors will not want to work in that system which will cause the greatest healthcare system in the world, the US, to become one of the worst when all the doctors leave or simply retire.

But some idiots (Alan Colmes to name one) say that the government has a right to help the people under the actual Constitution. They quote Article I Section 8:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;”

And then they point to the part that says “General welfare” , isn’t providing healthcare promoting the general welfare? Well one that would first depend on the government being able to do anything well, which it can’t, but more importantly it is a gross misunderstanding of the meaning of “general welfare.” Even if you took the most liberal meaning of the phrase at the time the Constitution was written the term general welfare does not mean helping people like our current meaning of welfare–it means providing improvements to the whole of the country that affects everyone (roads, bridges, communication systems, in other words – infrastructure). The key is the word general. It needs to be something that can be used by everyone. I can’t take your doctor prescribed drugs after you’ve taken them, so there is nothing general about a system that helps individuals. (And don’t even give me that bullshit about their being able to provide for society if they were healthy…if they were providing for society they would have a job with which they could afford healthcare).

The government isn’t there to protect you from yourself or from nature. It’s there to protect you from other idiots. Your bad living habits and your genetic disposition toward a disease, while unfortunate, is not the government’s responsibility. But given that the government has stolen and inefficiently used the money that people who might have been able to charitably donate to your healthcare, the government is not only destroying their rights it’s destroying their ability to help you.

The government destroys all it touches–it can’t help it, it’s its nature. Especially when it tries to give you things you don’t have a right to. And you don’t have a right to healthcare!

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics

10 Suggestions to Improve Healthcare After Obamacare is Killed

Rep. Paul Ryan budget proposal

The Path to Prosperity is still the first step we need to take to getting back to sanity. It may not have everything conservatives and libertarians want, but it is the first real step in right direction in a long time.

So this week started out with Paul Ryan stating that he is still planning on the complete repeal of Obamacare. And from what he said before his keynote speech at CPAC…I’m laying even odds that he starts a chorus of “Do You Hear the People Sing” and leads a march to build a barricade around the White House.

But it’s good to know that the crusade to end what is perhaps the worst bill in memory (it’s hard to say it’s the worst bill of all time when you have to compare it to the terrible socialist bills of FDR and LBJ’s presidencies)…still this bill is pretty close to being the straw that broke the camel’s back for this country and it must go before we can fix all the other monstrosities.

But liberals, being the whiny brainless sort that they are will whine “but medical costs are too high. But people have a right to insurance. But people have a right to  healthcare!”
Ignoring the simple fact that healthcare isn’t a right by any stretch of the imagination and that if you need healthcare, get a job and earn it, let’s deal with their claim that medical costs are too high.

I would agree medical costs are too high. But, like a bad doctor, liberals want to treat the symptom not the disease. Healthcare costs too much, throw money at it; that should cut the costs.

Conservatives however, like to determine the causes of high costs, which is the disease and treat that. So what are the causes of high costs (hint, it’s not the private sector)?

(Everything that will follow will assume that Obamacare has been justly killed because there is nothing in the bill that should be saved).

So what are the three main costs to medical care: Insurance, doctor’s/hospital bills, and drug costs?

So how do we cut insurance costs?

Suggestion #1
Tort Reform. Tort Reform. Tort Reform.
Every state that has instituted tort reform has seen medical costs drop, the number of doctors increase, the number of unnecessary procedures drop like a rock and even the number of deaths drop. If the federal government and every state were to institute real and sweeping tort reform you would see every single thing you buy drop in price, but you would probably see the biggest increase in the quality of medicine.

Suggestion #2

We allow insurance companies to cross state lines. Right now all insurance companies are banned from selling insurance across state lines. Look at any insurance card you have. Farmer’s Insurance of California. Blue Cross of Arizona. There may be a national corporation, but it owns 50 separate corporations in 50 different states. That’s a lot of overhead. It also stifles competition. A smaller company can’t expand beyond its own state because it can’t afford to set up a whole infrastructure to have a multi-state operation. This limits competition, and as anyone knows the less competition the higher the prices. If we remove the federal block against insurance crossing state lines you will see drops in every form of insurance you have: medical, car, house.

Just those two things would easily drop the cost of health insurance to probably 90% of its pre-Obamacare costs, perhaps more.

But why stop there? Doctor’s bills themselves also contribute to a large portion of the costs. So what can we do there?

Well a lot of the initial costs come from the fact that when doctors start their career they are laden with college and med school debt. Obscene levels of debt. So let’s fix that.

Suggestion #3
The reason why college costs are so high is because the federal government subsidizes them at outrageous prices. Subsidies always increase costs. Always! So cut all tuition subsidies and grants. Within a year you will see college costs drop. Now this won’t have an immediate effect as the doctors without massive debt will be years away from entering the market, but long term this will not only solve part of our medical problem but our massive college debt problem.

But part of the reason why doctors charge so much is because they know that Medicare and Medicaid aren’t going to pay them their full billing price, so to stay in business this has a threefold fix.

Suggestion #4
Adopt the Ryan Plan which will allow more competition in Medicare and Medicaid, which will both ensure doctors get better payment AND lower the cost to the taxpayer for these costs.

Suggestion #5
In a second step we need to move as much of Medicare and Medicaid costs to the states as possible. While the private sector does better when done on large scale, government and bureaucracy work in the exact opposite manner. The closer any government program is to the people the more efficient and the lower the cost. Lower costs means that Medicaid and Medicare will be able to get closer to pay 100% of doctors’ asking prices for their services (not to mention more doctors taking Medicare and Medicaid patients) which means they will be able to drop their prices for the rest of us and still make a tidy profit for their practice.

Suggestion #6
Increase the penalties for Medicaid and Medicare fraud. We’re talking about nearly $500 Billion in fraud every year. $500,000,000,000.00! I’ll let that number wash over you for a second. That’s one of the main reasons why Medicaid and Medicare can’t afford to pay full price to doctors. Now while I generally don’t believe the government should criminalize more things or come up with even stronger punishments, fraud is something even the most libertarian government must prosecute and fraud against the government doubly so. Penalties and enforcement need to be much stronger. If there’s $500 Billion in fraud it means the risk is much, much lower than the reward. Much lower. If we have to get a little Draconian, so be it, we need to make it very clear that the risk is now worth the reward.

Now the cost of drugs is also an issue. So how do we lower the costs of drugs (and liberals throwing money all willy-nilly at research never works).

However there are things we can do.

Suggestion #7
Allow drug patents to start when the FDA approves the drug. Right now a drug patent (20 years) begins when the drug is patented. So when a drug takes 10-15 years to get FDA approval. This means that the company only has 5-10 years to recoup all of the cost of not only research for that drug, but of all the other drugs that failed. So they have to recoup all of their investment for all R&D in only 5 years. And you wonder why the cost is so high. If we started the 20 year clock when the FDA grants approval they would have more time to recoup costs and thus would not need to charge as much.

Suggestion #8
Reform the FDA. Right now the FDA prevents human testing of experimental drugs on willing patients with terminal diseases….because the drug might kill them. You know if I have a terminal disease the last thing I care about is if a drug will kill me, because I know for a fact the disease will. A lot of medical costs are in cancer treatment; to allow willing patients to try experimental drugs could not only rapidly speed up research (thus cutting costs to a fraction of their current levels) but actually find some cures and real treatments to one of the biggest costs in the medical industry.

And then there are some other things we could do that could help medical care. Nanny’s in the government like to talk to us a lot about eating healthier which is odd since government programs are designed to make sure we don’t eat healthier.

Suggestion #9
End all government subsidies, tariffs, and controls for agriculture. We pay people to grow tobacco, we pay them to grow sugar, we pay them to leave ground fallow. We even pay people to grow corn only to be turned into fuel (ironically it takes over a gallon of fuel to produce a gallon of corn ethanol…that’s efficient.) When you subsidize something you get more of it. And you wonder why it’s hard to get healthy food. Yes, ending subsidies and tariffs on sugar would initially drop the price of sugar, but it would also result in less being produced which would again raise the price. It would also leave more ground for producing the fruits and vegetables we’re not getting right now because fresh food is so overpriced.

Suggestion # 10
And while we’re at it, if we want people to eat healthier maybe we could stop regulations on food. Stop sending SWAT teams at raw milk distributors, stop fining people for having their own gardens of fresh food, stop preventing the Amish from taking fresh food across state lines. You know little things like that.

Special Idea #11 Fluoridation
Now I usually hate talking about fluoridation. Why? Because so many wacko conspiracy theorist nuts think it’s some grand government conspiracy to control people. It’s not. It was, as with most government actions, a well meaning but idiotic plan. Let’s put fluoride in the water to strengthen their teeth (we can’t trust people with their own hygiene). Yeah let’s put a substance in the water that causes lower IQ’s, higher cancer rates and drastically lowers the thyroid gland (which might have something to do with obesity). What could possibly go wrong? You know between the expansion of the dental industry, better access to toothpaste, and personal responsibility I think our teeth are fine. Let’s stop fluoridating water.

Special Idea #12 

Walmart and other such stores apparently want to get into the healthcare business.  I say let them.  They want to open small clinics.  Honestly what they’re proposing will basically act as a triage center.  They will tell all the people with just a cough to just get Sudafed, treat the small wounds, and thus clean up the real traffic at urgent care and the ER.  This will almost certainly cut down costs from needless tests.

Notice something about this. With the exception of #6, involving the prosecution of criminals (a proper function of government), each and every one of these calls for less government not more. Why? Because government and regulation are what is causing so many problems.

2 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics

The Evil of Obamacare in One Picture

ObamaCareThanks to Mitch McConnell’s staff for taking this picture of the monstrosity that is Obamacare.  There is no way anyone could possibly know all of this, let alone be in compliance with all of it.  There is no way to own a business and not break the law at this point.   This monster must be destroyed. 

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against – then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Government is corrupt, Health Care, politics

How the Romney Tax Plan Works…or Math: Bane of Liberalism!

I cannot tell you how much I love this. Facts and Math: the bane of liberalism.

This of course doesn’t take into account such issues as velocity of money, increase stability of banks and increased eagerness to loan, the interest earned on that money not going to the government and the interest saved on the debt..blah, blah, blah…

In case you’re wondering he has gone into detail when not on Sunday talk shows which would edit his statements for time.

Thanks to the Snark Who Hunts Back for finding this and sharing it on her Tumblr page

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Election 2012, Health Care, Mitt Romney

An Open Letter to Libertarians: Something you should consider

Libertarians.  Look, we’re not going to get along on everything.  Let’s just admit this.  Now we can sling insults and hold a grudge match that will get neither of us what we want…or we work together.

Now before we get into my proposal, I would like to go over three basic points.

The first is that it is better to get half of what you want than to get none of what you want.  Yes moral superiority might feel good for a few seconds but when it’s dealing with pragmatic issues, actually getting half of what you want is always better psychologically and tangibly.

The second is that politics is a game of trying to convince people who might be open to you.  Romney’s 47% comment, despite the Democratic spin, was a pragmatic comment of “there is a percentage of the country that does not agree with me and pandering to them won’t work.”  Thus any group that makes it clear that they will never vote for someone because of this or that issue makes themselves politically irrelevant.

The third is that Romney’s going to win.  Wednesday’s debate shows that we are going to have 4 debates of Obama and Biden getting their asses handed to them.  Add to that the fact that when you consider what we all know, that all the polls (even before the debate) were being cooked and are still being cooked (they’ve now moved from over sampling Democrats to under sampling independents where Romney has a 7  to 8 point lead BEFORE the debates).  Then take that fact that the polls are skewed and add the fact that the remaining undecided voters invariably vote 2 to 1 for the challenger, even a conservative estimate makes it clear that Romney already has the electoral votes and 3 more debates like that plus Obama clearly just phoning it in at this point means, that without question, Romney’s going to win.

Now, Libertarians, as much as I have been frustrated with you and your party this year, I say with all honesty, I want you to have a larger influence in all levels of government.  I may not agree with you 100% on all things, but trust me there are a lot of issues I stand about halfway between you and the Republican establishment.  On a lot of things you are the intellectual foundation of the Tea Party, and I want to see that foundation strengthened, not weakened.  I loathe the social conservative branch of the Republican Party, and I was beyond giddy when their nearly Satanic candidate Rick Santorum went down in flames.  But guess what?  You’re not making it easy to get the Republican Party to embrace it’s Coolidge/Goldwater/Reagan roots of libertarianism and kill this monster called social conservatism that is really just intrusive government under a different branding.

Why are you making it hard? Because you aren’t accepting point one that it’s better to get half than none.  The Republican Party does admit that.  You tell the Republican Party composed of Milton Friedman monetarists that unless they embrace the most radical branches of Austrian economics you won’t vote for them.  And knowing you’re this intractable, if they want capitalists in the GOP to have any chance of halting full on Keynsian socialism, they have to make a deal with the mixed economy people.  The GOP is willing to make compromises and go to or three steps to the right or left to keep it centered around their beliefs…but since you demand they go five steps to the right (two or three further than their morals will go) the two steps to left, while repugnant, prevents ten steps to the left.  (Of course if you compromised and made the three steps we did you would get more of what you want and we wouldn’t have to constantly compromise with the left).  Same goes with social issues.  I saw a Reason ad this week hitting Romney/Ryan for being terrible social conservatives who are opposed to medical marijuana.  Is this true? Not really.  Paul Ryan came out and said that he and Romney wouldn’t personally vote for it if they had a choice, but they consider it a state’s rights issue and will not get the federal government involved.  But apparently the libertarians over at Reason are so rigid that unless you embrace both absolute states rights AND complete social liberalism you’re just another big government hack.  A pragmatic person would say, if the federal government isn’t getting involved, what does it matter if the people in that government hold a different opinion.  But no, unless libertarians get to eat their cake, have it, keep it and eat it again over and over again, nothing is good enough for them.

Libertarians make it quite clear, that unless you march 100% lockstep with them, they will not vote for you.  And then they bitch about the fact that the coalition that is the GOP doesn’t listen to them.  We may not have a parliamentary government like most of Europe, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have coalitions.  We just form them when we form the party not when we form the parliament.  And, I’m sorry, if you want to be in the coalition you have to work with the coalition.

And I want you in this coalition.  And I want more voice calling for less government in the economy and in my personal life.  I want government out of religion and business.  I want that to be a legitimate voice that holds sway.

But you have to work with us.

So how do we make the Libertarian vote a legitimate voice again?

Well this election provides a great opportunity.

The first thing I’m going to say that in any state that is clearly 10 point to the Romney or Obama side, if you want to vote for Gary Johnson, vote for Gary Johnson and get your libertarian friends to come out.  In these states where, let’s be honest here, your vote isn’t going to make a difference let’s at least make it count by showing that there is a huge number of libertarians out there.

However if you live in a state where theoretically your vote could swing things (remember how close some of these states have been in the last few years) you need to vote for Romney.  (In the second half of this blog I’ll show you Romney will give you half of what you want, where Obama will give you nothing, but let me finish this line of thought first).  By voting for the Libertarian in large numbers in non-swing states but voting for Romney (and I would hope the GOP Senate and House candidates in close contests if you can stomach it) in swing states you are showing that the Libertarian Party has grown up and is willing to work with the Republican Party.  That you are the swing voters the GOP needs to get* and that you are open to working with the GOP.

In addition to this, you need to get every liberal you know to not vote Obama but vote for Johnson.  This will give a better clue as to which voters do really care about economic conservatism and social freedom.  Let’s be honest you may not agree with Romney on a lot of issues…but is there one you agree with Obama on?

Again this will show the Republican Party you’re open to compromise, that we can drop the social conservatives sometimes, and it will increase the power of the Tea Party and the Libertarian view in federal government.  The GOP is probably going to take Congress and the White House, but a move like this will temper any social conservative urge for fear it might alienate the segment they picked up, and embolden them on the economic conservative front as they will believe there will be no backlash.  It’s a win for the Libertarians.  It’s a win for the Republicans.  And it’s a loss for big government.

But I understand you might have reservations.  You’ve heard for months that Romney is big government, that Romney is just like Obama.  I get it, I was once there myself.  But when I looked at facts, I found that just wasn’t the case. 

 

Let me put out a few common complaints by Libertarians and show you how these complaints are not the case.

If you listened to some in the Libertarian party, these two are to the left of FDR…sane people know there is a difference between these guys and their opposition.

As I pointed out above, the Romney and Ryan ticket believe in states rights…and unlike Obama they’re not going to waste federal dollars prosecuting medical marijuana cases.  It may not be full legalization, but the end result is the same.

Another claim is that he’s going to outlaw abortion.  No he’s not, he’s going to try to get rid of all funding for Planned Parenthood.  You’re libertarians, like me, even if you’re pro-choice you should support getting rid of government funding of abortion.  Now he has said he’s supporting an Amendment to the Constitution–1.  The president has absolutely no power and no role in the process of adding amendments and 2. There is no way you will ever see 38 states agree to banning abortion…thus him saying that he’ll support an Amendment is like saying “I’d support cold fusion if someone actually created it”, it doesn’t matter because it’s not going to happen.  But yes he can appoint judges to the Supreme Court who might do something conservative judges hardly ever do, overturn previous major decisions…which would make abortion a states rights issue again (the court has the power to make something legal, but it has no authority to make something illegal…all overturning Roe would do is make it a states rights issue)…hey aren’t you libertarians in favor of states rights issues?

Same with gay marriage.  The amendment won’t go anywhere and he’ll keep it as a state’s rights issue. However, if the libertarians follow my suggestion they might be able to get enough power to propose disentangling the state from religion as it currently is in its treatment of marriage. But Libertarians would have to have some power for that to happen.

Romney has said he supports auditing the Fed and will sign the bill if it gets to him.  You give Romney a Republican Senate and you will get the audit of the Federal Reserve you’ve always wanted. Will you get that with Obama?

On spending Libertarians keep going off on Romney’s budgets in Massachusetts and the Ryan plan.  Did you miss that both cases were budgets designed to pass legislatures controlled by liberal Democrats?  Yes those things didn’t solve all the problems.  But they were as close as these two conservatives felt they could reasonably get past liberal legislatures.  (Romney’s did…and if Harry Reid wasn’t illegally stopping the bills from coming up, the Ryan plan would have passed as well.).  The actual outline of the budget (and it’s only an outline because Romney understands it is the House that is the only body with the Constitutional authority to draft the specifics of a budget). There is nothing in the Romney plan, or the 59 points of that plan that will not lead to cuts in government spending.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

On taxes this is the most bizarre one of all.  Romney didn’t raise a single tax as Governor of Massachusetts.  Taxachusetts.  That’s impressive.  That shows commitment to keeping taxes down.  Libertarians scream that he did raise taxes.  This is either a lie or insanity.  What Romney did do was raise fees for government services.  Why libertarians are upset with this, I’m not entirely sure…for decades I have heard and read capitalists from the more moderate Sowell, Freidman and Hayek to the extreme of Rand in the later years (after she had completely gone off the deep end) and every shade of capitalist and libertarian in between say that it would be better if the government raised revenue through fees rather than taxes.  Then someone does that…and libertarians scream he’s a bleeding heart liberal…for doing what they suggested.  WTF?  Are there some in the libertarian party (those with the pulpit) suffering from Romney-derangement syndrome?  I think so.  Yeah it would be better if he lowered taxes (you know like he wants to at the federal level) but let’s see how many taxes you could get lowered with a legislature that’s 87% Democrat?

Gun rights…the NRA endorsed Romney-Ryan…they don’t always endorse candidates, lots of elections go without an NRA endorsement…go on tell me Romney’s anti-gun.

RomneyCare is 70 pages and protect the private sector.  Obamacare is 300o pages and destroys the private sector.  A mandate is constitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution…it is not Constitutional under the U.S. Constitution (shame John Roberts has never read it).  Romneycare looks like what the Heritage Foundation proposed…Obamacare looks nothing like that. But please tell me how they’re the same.

The Patriot Act and NDAA…look we’re not going to agree on this one.  And you’re not going to get what you want out of either Romney or Obama.  What you will get is that Romney won’t sue courts to put back indefinite detention of captured foreigners (the bill that passed didn’t include indefinite detention of U.S. citizens who have not already committed an act of treason (which technically you could already hold them even without NDAA) (Libertarians are now going to throw a hissy fit and tell me I’m wrong….here’s the link to the bill    find for me the text that says otherwise…I’ll save you some time, it’s not there).  And yeah, Romney will use what parts of the Patriot Act haven’t been overturned by courts to go after terrorism (and most of you do realize that the majority of the Patriot Act was just extending the powers the federal government had against organized crime to terrorism, getting rid of the Patriot Act won’t get rid of the powers if you have someone like Obama who is willing to abuse every law for personal gain.)  I can say that, unlike Obama, Romney will keep to the letter and spirit of the law.  You don’t like it, and we won’t agree…but you have to admit one is better than the other.

Defense.  Again you’re not going to get what you want here. But would you prefer someone like Goldwater and Reagan who understand peace through strength and keep conflicts to a minimum….or someone like LBJ, Carter, and Obama who through gross incompetence spark conflicts that eventually draw us in whether we want them or not.  Further, I know you want the defense budget cut…Romney’s not going to cut troops or arms or the size of the Navy…but this is the genius of Bain.  Do you really think he’s not going to have some very good people go through every department and go line by line looking at all the worthless bullshit and eliminate that? Romney, will give you cuts in every department’s budget.  Big ones.  If you let him.

Look, like I said at the beginning it’s better to get half of what you want than nothing.  Romney will give you that half.  Obama won’t.  Romney believes in smaller government, Obama doesn’t.

I said that to be relevant you have to show that you’re willing to work with us.

And Romney’s going to win.

It’s up to you.  You can do what I suggested, vote for Romney in the swing states, vote for Johnson in the non-swing states and get every libertarian leaning liberal to vote for him too.  This will show the Libertarians have numbers but are also willing to work with the GOP, thus they can and should be courted as a voting block.

Or you can hold to your rigid stance that Romney and Obama are the same.  Attack both of them. And keep your ideas marginalized, keep the GOP beholden to social conservatives, and make it that much harder to get big government off our backs.

I hope you chose the win-win-win plan I’m suggesting, and not the lose-lose-lose plan of just holding rigidly to anti-Romney.

(Oh if there is some issue you truly feel Obama and Romney are the same on, let me know and give me a chance to dissuade you…but first please ask yourself if they really are the same…or it is just that Romney will only give you part of what you want and Obama will give you none.)

*Some might say that alienating the social conservative base will cause Republicans to lose.  But if you actually look at polls endlessly like I do, you’ll see that what turns a lot of moderate Democratic voters off of the GOP is not the economics but the social issues.  It’s a gamble I know, but if the GOP moved a little away from social conservatives I think they’ll win 3 blue dog Democrats for every social conservative radical (Santorum) who leaves the party.  But there has to actually be more than just Ron and Rand Paul advocating for this in the party.

2 Comments

Filed under Ayn Rand, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Goldwater, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, Paul Ryan, politics, Ronald Reagan, Taxes, Tyranny, War on Terrorism, Welfare

Obama did say “You didn’t build that” and worse…Part II

“”They might be giants, and we might be pygmies; but we stand on the shoulders of giants, so we can see farther.” Attributed to Sir Isaac Newton

So just to be clear, Obama did say:

“If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.”

But why is this so bad?

It’s terrible because it shows us exactly what Obama thinks.  He thinks that without an activist government you cannot survive.  That without an activist government there is no progress.  That without an activist government there is no growth.

Intellectually, factually, morally and ethically he could not be more wrong.

Now some very, very stupid people trying to sound reasonable might say something like:

“Neither private sector nor public sector are sufficient. Both are necessary.”

Now in a grander sense, yes, this is true.  The necessary evil of government is necessary to provide a system of laws, a police and military force, and a court system for prosecution of crimes and arbitration of disagreements, a handful of various other services.  Not a single Classically Liberal or capitalist philosopher, be it Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or F.A. Hayek, would ever argue that government is not necessary to a successfully run economy and society.  Capitalism is just as opposed to anarchy as it is to socialism and tyranny.  But every Classically Liberal and capitalistic philosopher will also point out that government’s function are there to provide rules, protect others from violence and fraud, serve as arbiter, and provide those few services that the private sector cannot easily provide.  And also, while many of them hadn’t seen the monster of an overgrown federal government, most would argue that where government does need to step in it should as locally controlled and locally funded as possible.

Now what is an example of a function that only the federal government can do.  Well you have the army and navy.  You have the post office in the early days of the Republic (although nowadays you could cut the Post Office down to 10% of it’s current size and FedEx, UPS, and local companies could more than pick up the slack at lower prices and higher efficiency).   I’m sure a private mail carrier could have made money in the early days of the Republic, but the Founding Fathers realized how useful the committees of correspondence were, and how communication is one of the most deadly tools against tyranny, and thus had to make sure there was always an option for communication that could not go bankrupt (as there exists with any private company)…which is also the reason I advocate drastically cutting the USPS but not completely destroying it.

But is infrastructure something that only the public sector can provide?

No it’s not.  And this is a self evident truth.  Governments were building infrastructure before they started using dimwitted Keynesian tactics of spending money they didn’t have.  Logically this meant that they were getting money from commerce to build infrastructure.  Commerce and business predated infrastructure, their success is not dependent on it…it is the reverse that is true, that infrastructure is dependent on business success.

Look at the entirety of U.S. history and you will see this.  In terms of transportation, stage coaches, ferries, and even railroads started out as private sector industries that did not have government funding (yes railroads became the transcontinental giants with government help…but they also became inefficient, monopolistic, corrupt and low quality when government money got involved).  Most of the infrastructure that raised Britain to an economic powerhouse in the Industrial Revolution was privately built.  I recall that a good portion of Hong Kong’s early infrastructure post-WWII was more privately funding by booming business more than by the hands off government of the colony.  Even in now uber-liberal California, we should all remember the completely private Red Car system provided efficient and cheap transportation (using it’s own infrastructure) to most of Southern California for nearly 4 decades before being taken over by the state.

Yes the interstate highway system is wonderful and has been a great boon to commerce…of course Ike built it as an easy way to move the military in the Cold War, the economic benefit was secondary so you don’t get to claim that it was built for the purpose of the economy.  However even if the highway system should have originally been a federal project to ensure that all states are connected…it no longer needs to be federal—at this point states are more than capable of up keep of their own roads as they need them to stay economically competitive (i.e. they won’t let them just fall apart) and the local control will keep overhead, graft, and inefficiency down (at least it will be far less than what a distant federal government would create).  So even the highway system isn’t an argument that Obama has.  Yes does the system of roads and bridges need work?  Yeah, it does.  Of course if it was such an important function why didn’t you get it done in the first 4 years Barry?  And why did you saddle the debts with such massive future debts via Obamacare so that they couldn’t deal with the problem themselves?

But maybe we’re not just talking about roads for infrastructure.  Electricity maybe?  No, that was originally built by private companies…and the modern government controlled national grid is such an unmitigated disaster that even liberal Thomas Friedman of the New York Times went off on what a joke it is in his book Hot, Flat, and Crowded.

Communication?  No.  Private company AT&T built the original infrastructure and controlled it so well that the government felt the need to unjustly break the company into the baby bells…which was really dumb because within only a few years the private built cell phone infrastructure made AT&T’s land-line infrastructure about as important as your appendix.

But the internet!  Oh I love this argument.  So the military builds a communication network and does nothing for over a decade (beside being a plot point in 2nd rate Matthew Broderick film…Shall we play a game?) and then private industry built on computers (which was also built on computers the government had been working on for years to no avail. Government had silicon chips since the 1960′s but it took a Steve Jobs to create the personal computer.) and suddenly makes use of it.  Trust me if the network the military (and Al Gore) built hadn’t been in existence there would have been some genius on par with Gates, Jobs or Ellison, who would have created a network that would have allowed computers to speak to each other easily.

Everyone seems to forget that the empty cities in China or Detroit have lots of infrastructure that does nothing for them.  However there are literally hundreds of towns  in this nation where a factory was built first and then the infrastructure and growth followed…if you look at the world and the joys of globalization and outsources (which makes life better both for America and the country work is being outsourced to) the examples reach thousands.  Business success always precedes infrastructure in a sane system.  To say the opposite is to say the cart pulls the horse.

The fact is that business has traditionally built the infrastructure it needs to grow if it is not already present.  Private companies wanted to build high speed rail back in the early 90’s but were stopped over and over again by environmental regulators in the government…and unlike the BS high speed rail Obama and California want to put in that doesn’t really go anywhere, the plans in the 90’s were for things like LA to Vegas…you know rail that would have paid for itself and paid for further expansion.

FedEx was stopped by government regulation and bickering from creating a second hub in its distribution infrastructure in the 90’s.

Private airlines where hampered in their growth early on by government regulation (usually taking off from fields that the airlines had built with their own money in the early days).

I could go on.

You would have to be a brainless troll or an idiot of the highest caliber to not see that industry builds the infrastructure it needs with its own money (often cheaper than the government) and has more often has had its growth hampered by government than it has been helped by it.

You can build all the infrastructure you want. It won’t create business.  It will help business…but it’s not like the business isn’t paying for that infrastructure (through income, corporate, sales, and a myriad of other taxes).  If the government doesn’t provide the infrastructure business will create it themselves or someone else will find some way to provide the service that infrastructure would provide, often at costs less than the inefficient government creation.  Government created infrastructure is never NECESSARY for business success.  Government laws and protection against harm are necessary, but not infrastructure.

Now some claim that we need government infrastructure to provide things like TVA giving electricity to rural communities…to which I respond, when did electricity become a right?  My grandparents lived quite contently in a house until the late 80’s, in California, without public electricity (they had a wind generator that they built)…it didn’t harm them.  If there is no economic reason to have electricity in an area, then it probably shouldn’t be there…and if you don’t like it, it’s a free country, move to an area that has those services or create a business that makes it feasible to bring those services out there.   Arguing we have to provide things to people where there is no financial reason to provide it to them is the mentality of building bridges to nowhere and repairing roads no one drives on it.  It is the mentality of government waste.  And that is the kind of infrastructure that Obama is touting…or do you think the man who thought Solyndra was a good idea knows more about infrastructure?

Everyone likes to point to highways, the internet, the advance of the space race….but everyone forgets these were military ventures with military goals, not economic ones (those were merely unintended side effects)—I bring this up because which area of spending do those who tout infrastructure call on most to be cut?*  And this leads to the reason why I have repeatedly said one of our biggest mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan was not spending more time on building infrastructure.  I wanted the communication and military benefits of modern infrastructure as a counter to the insurgency (which are getting their own benefits provided by other countries). Yes such projects put the cost of a system that would benefit commerce on those countries on the US taxpayer instead of the Iraq or Afghani businessman, but I believed in the long term the military benefit would pay for itself (if you think we’re not going to have to go back to Afghanistan within a generation because we botched it so badly this time, you’re crazy).

But back to Obama’s “You didn’t build that” quote.

In context he is referring to the businesses.  But even if you take his reading that it was government provided infrastructure you built your business on and you couldn’t have done it without that infrastructure…it’s still a bullshit statement.

With only a small exception in education, everyone has equal access to the benefits of infrastructure.  Everyone has access to the roads.  Everyone has access to the electric system and all the other utilities. From the things that only government can provide (police, courts, health control, an income safety net**) to those things that government and the private sector and justifiably provide (roads, schools, post service, electricity and water) to those things which the only private sector should be providing but the government can’t keep it’s stupid hands out (green energy, wifi, medical services) everybody pretty much has equal access to all of these benefits and all of this infrastructure.  And yet some build great businesses and some don’t.  Because some had the intelligence and the work ethic and the drive to succeed and some didn’t.  Because some people built that for themselves.  This is why there is that quote at the beginning about standing on the shoulders of giants…everyone is standing on the same giant but some choose to see further and some don’t.  Now success for many may not be building a business but doing something else…but it is because of their drive, their intelligence, their work, and their choices that makes them successful or not, not because of government.

Now I did bring up that education is not always equal. Its not. And education can be a greater equalizer in terms of access to opportunity than any road or Internet hub…and our system of education in America is screwed up.  But notice also in this most important of things the government provides it is Obama preventing growth, preventing change, preventing charters and vouchers and experimentation, and wholeheartedly backing the vile teacher’s union which seeks to maintain the status quo.  So in the one thing he could really affect to help give people more opportunity to build their own lives, he doesn’t actually want to improve that system.

Nothing in infrastructure determined who would succeed and who wouldn’t (except for education) it is will, intelligence, and work that does.

It is those things which build infrastructure.

And it is those things which Barack Obama is most opposed to and most wants to destroy.

*Not that that I don’t think the military couldn’t lose quite a bit of fat from its budget…however much of its waste is in Congressional pork projects that can’t be cut without Congressional approval…if you just cut the military’s budget the DOD doesn’t have the authority to cut those pork projects, only needed things like troops and body armor.

**Even Friedman and Hayek believed you need some form of income safety net, and they were right, you do…they were also right it needs to be for the lowest of the low (like the bottom 5%) not the for a third of the nation.

2 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, China, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tyranny, Welfare

Ramblings from Conservative Cathy – Help! help I may be dying or maybe not! Or worse, I live in California!….

I just ran into a “California Advance Health Care Directive”and although with research I have found out

In a choice between California red tape and Obamacare Death Panels…I’m afraid I’m safer with the Death Panels.

that this has been around since 2000 I just found out that hospitals must hand this out to any patient coming into the hospital or ER regardless of why they are there or whether they are actually able to fill it out.  (There’s nothing as annoying as filling out paperwork after you been intubated…well, maybe dealing with California bureaucracy).

Basically this is a serious subject but I want to deal with the particular form in my sarcastic humorous way.   This form apparently must be accompanied with a signed statement about whether you already have a DNR (do not resuscitate), do you have it on you and do not want one.  Sounds exactly like what California or government would produce – now keep in mind that many people enter a hospital in a non-communicative or responsive manner so then a doctor has to sign a form that states he tried to offer to the patient but they could not understand (again huh?).

Now I want you to keep in mind that if you enter the hospital and have a DNR but do not have it with you then you will be given all the appropriate medical services.  Actually I believe that without specific instructions by the patient and tons of documentation that you will be given all that anyway as they do not want to be sued.

Now let’s just think about this last part – do you really have this information on file will all hospitals near everywhere you go?  Do you have this info on file with every doctor you see and every person you know and do they all carry it on their person just in case?  Now that you have answered those questions with an affirmative YES – if you were brought into the ER under a true trauma do you think everyone is going to stop everything until we have confirmed all this information and made sure it is accurate and legal?  Probably not, unless the doctors are in agreement with a DNR order.  Because litigation probably trumps all that when it comes to medical care or maybe it is because doctors are in the business of saving lives – I wonder.

Now for fun lets deal with some of the individual pages and wording in this form because it really does get funnier.  And to think these people are responsible for anything in the world is really scary.

On page 2 they let you know as I stated above that you need to share this form with all your doctors, nurses, social workers (does everyone have one of these?), family and friends along with your health care agent (someone who you pick to make decisions for you – probably better give them a legal medical power of attorney but if it is signed prior to 2000 in CA it is no longer legal and you need a new one).  So hopefully you have a lot of copies of this 3 part (12page)  document to pass out and hopefully everyone carries it on them at all times (including you).  And apparently all of these people on this list can help you fill out the form (really?), so that is whom you should take questions to.

Now this is important as you will see – if your health care choices are not listed then write them on a “piece of paper” and keep it with the forms – sounds legal to me.

If you want a healthcare agent it cannot be your doctor (as they would never look out for your best interests) unless they are a family member.  I am sure your doctor does not want to be your agent anyway as there is some legal responsibility here but otherwise Huh??

On page 3 – “ If you are too sick to make your own decisions, your doctors will ask your closet family members to make decisions for you” really – without a legal form – I don’t think so – they will provide the responsible necessary care – I think.  Also “If you want your agent to be someone other than family, you must write his or her name on this form” – I think you have to write anyone’s name on the form as you cannot just choose “family” as your option – how would a doctor decide between disputing members (better write that out on that piece of paper)?

On page 6 is where that piece of paper is really going to come in handy.

“My life is only worth living if I can” now there are choices to put an X by:

·      talk to family or friends (piece of paper right now because if you have no family or friends and are able to communicate you might want to clarify this line)

·      This one is my favorite –  wake up from a coma (of course but that piece of paper might come in handy in determining a time line for this hopeful event)

·      Feed, bathe, or take care of myself (I guess those death panels are already starting because I always thought that paralysis was not a reason to let someone die)

·      Be free from pain (now that is a very subjective statement – a piece of paper might be helpful in stating that if you can still function with pain killers versus vegetable state with pain killers might be a better way to determine but another one might be is the pain forever or only for a period (seems a little early to make a decision just based on being free from pain – I think I need more information – please)…also what level of pain are we talking about…if I come in a with stubbed toe but check this box are they going to kill me?

·      Live without being hooked up to machines – well an IV drip is a machine so I think we might need that piece of paper again to be a little more specific.  And I don’t think anyone but your Doctor is going to be helpful with most of these specifics unless all your family and friends are medical doctors also.

·      My second favorite – and this is the last one on all questions – “I am not sure” – based on the phraseology offered, I wouldn’t be sure either but I don’t think that is what they are referring to – so back into the doctors lap – who would have guessed.

Page 7 is about life support and what treatments can be used.  There is this phrase “little hope of getting better” – again a very subjective statement – does it mean that I will die (thought we all were going to do that anyway – is there like a time line involved – better get that piece of paper)

When it goes into the allowed treatments you had better have someone with some medical experience help you as I do not think all of these are considered “life support”.

CPR = well yeah – they would not be doing it if life was not in the balance or slipping away – I think that piece of paper and quality/length of life might be pertinent here

Dialysis – gee you could get a transplant or something so is the death panel again suggesting that dying is a viable alternative – or is your current life expectancy a factor in this decision?

Breathing Machine – a good call but that piece of paper again as is this long term or short term?

Feeding Tube – gosh I hope so if I am unable to consume food – keep in mind that if you are unable to consume food that you will starve to death so I think some other things might be pertinent to this one also – gosh I guess we now have several pieces of paper.

Blood transfusion – really is that all you need to live – unless this is a religious decision I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t want that – but oh well.

Medicine – really I love this very vague term – why wouldn’t you want medicine – I guess we had better talk to a pharmacist also and fill out a whole bunch of pieces of paper on this one – so does he need copies of this form also???

Other treatments – ?? Guess you better spend some time with your Doctor/medical school and lots of pieces of paper

Page 8 – I’m very curious about something on this page – there is a question about whether you want an autopsy and one of them is “I want an autopsy if there are questions about my death”.  I want to know if you check no autopsy and you were murdered are they no longer allowed to autopsy your body???  The other question I have is if you request an autopsy when normally one is not done – who pays for it?

Also on this page is this statement – “What should your doctors know about how you want your body to be treated after you die?”  Let’s see, doctors work on you and then call your death – do you think they really are doing anything else to your body – they leave the area you are in and go work on someone else or go home – I am not really an expert in all the religions but exactly what is this referring to?  Because really do you think that most doctors (unless maybe if they are family/friends) really care about your body after you die?  My God you are dead and have left your body – why would they care??  What am I missing here???

Page 10 is where you and witnesses sign.  You need two witnesses and one of them cannot be related to you in any manner but they need to know you and they can not inherit anything from you and they can not work for the hospital.  So let’s see if you are entering the hospital ER and this form is given to you, what are the odds that you are also accompanied by this friend (but not too close as they can not receive anything from you when you die) to witness your signing – I guess you all should be better prepared.  Your only other option is having it witnessed by a Notary – gosh do they now need to be employed 24/7 by hospitals??

I really do not see where this form has alleviated any potential legal problems for the medical field.  I just think it is silly when government does things like this – The DNR forms and power of attorney that they have had for decades did this much so how have they helped but they have now made it cost money that this form now must be given to everyone (even when it is not currently applicable).  Silly Silly

Everyone better check out their own state and see what’s happening there regarding these issues…or this could just be another symptom of why if you’re placing a bet between Greece and California going down first, safe money says Greece will outlive the Golden State.

1 Comment

Filed under Evils of Liberalism, Health Care, People Are Stupid

The Sad Life of Julia Part IV

So Julia is someone made it through childhood, adolescence and out of college (after 7 years) and has been working at web design for 9 years.  You’d think she would be doing well…but not our Julia.  No she still needs Obama to wipe certain things for her because she’s too inept to do that herself.

Wow, Julia is such a great web designer that not only is she apparently working for the crappiest web design company on Earth (since it appears they pick an insurance plan that doesn’t cover contraception)…and Julia apparently has such marketable skills that she can’t get hired anywhere else.  So what does she need, she needs the divine Philosopher King and Imperator Obama to make sure that all insurance plans cover birth control. And you know Julia is also working for the worst web design company on Earth because they don’t obviously pay her much…after all generic birth control is only $9 a month at Target or Walmart (assuming Obama hasn’t shut those down in his 24 year reign).  Clearly they’re paying her so little that an extra $9 a month is the choice between LIFE AND DEATH!  Great Obama economy you got there.

But what if she needs birth control for something other than contraception?  She needs Obama to pay for the particular kind of birth control she needs…not really if it’s for medical issues and her doctor says so, then even insurance plans that don’t cover birth control will still cover it.

But what if her psycho employer fires her for using birth control….well long before Obama came to power through the junta that established in his position for over 2 decades, there was this law called HIPPA.  HIPPA is a law that protects the privacy of your medical records and means your employer can’t know your medical history.  So if Julia’s employer fires her for using birth control, the lawsuit Julia will win against them for the HIPPA violation will leave her with money for life!  And she would win.  Imagine, she had protections before Obama the Great took power.

Meanwhile those mean Romney and Ryan bastards want to allow insurance policies to charge women more than men.  To think!  I think the 50% number is a bit silly, but yes women pay more for insurance.  Maybe because women have more medical costs than men…apparently testes take up far less medical expertise and have far fewer problems than a uterus.  This is mind blowing information I just found out about today.  Who knew?  But you see those medical insurance companies aren’t charging women more because they’re sexists bastards, they’re doing it because the actuarial tables say that it will cost more to insure women.  Did you want to also complain about the fact that women pay lower car insurance, lower life insurance, and I’m sure low just about every other kind of insurance (because aside from medical issues, women are typically a safer bet, according to the actuarial tables).  Did you want to raise all your other insurance rates to counter the rise in men’s health insurance rates (and make no mistake, if the insurance companies can’t discriminate based on the actuarial tables, then they’re just going to raise rates, not cut them anywhere).

Or you know I could have sworn a second ago Obama was demanding equal pay for equal work.  But now when women require more work he wants equal pay.  So because I never will need an OBGYN, I still have to pay for the coverage….yeah, that makes sense.

Or how about this, let’s introduce Romney and Ryan plans into health care which will introduce competition and drive down costs across the board.  And maybe introduce tort reform and thus ensure that your OBGYN is not paying the GDP of a third world nation every month in liability insurance costs…I think that may lower the astounding cost disparity caused from this particular specialty.

God help us all, she’s spawning!

Because none of that existed before Obamacare.  Before Obamacare a woman’s only option was to take care of herself for 9 months and then squat wherever she stood and give birth to the child right there, only because of Obamacare were the fields of gynecology and obstetrics created.  And if you repeal Obamacare then we will go back to the days where OBGYN’s could only operate out of dark alleys as their field was one punishable by death! Death I tell you! Death!

WTF?

This has to be my favorite slide because it is the most detached from reality.  Name for me an insurance plan that didn’t already cover all of that.  Guess what, you could repeal every line of Obamacare and all those things promised to Julia will still be there.

Also I hate to tell you this Barry, but Mitt Romney might not get a chance to overturn Obamacare, even though he is planning to send such a bill to Congress on his first day in office…Why might he not get a chance to overturn it?  Because odds are in favor of somewhere between 5 to 7 thumbs down from the Supreme Court, who, if nothing else, would like to remind you, O Great God King, that you are the weakest branch of the federal government.

On a side note, exactly how did she get pregnant?  I mean if there is a guy in her life, married or not, you would expect him to shoulder a great deal of the burden of the costs for medical care of pregnancy and raising the child…certainly he should be paying long before I or any taxpayer should have to.  And if she is gay and she and her wife decided to have a child, or even if she’s single and decided she just wanted to have a child on her own,  I’m confused by the fact because artificial insemination ain’t cheap (or am I as a taxpayer footing that bill too now for anyone who wants that service?)  Or is it, given that up to this point in Julia’s life I’ve never seen her with another human being that Julia magically reproduces asexually?  I’m going to deviate a little from just the life of Julia, but legally you have a right to have children without anyone telling you that you can’t…but ethically you are a piece of shit if you have a child when you do not have the money to provide for them.  You have a responsibility to any children you bring into the world to provide for them until they are adults and can provide for themselves, and shame on you if the only way you can provide for a child is by living off the government teat and the labor of others.  As a parent you are supposed to provide not only materially for your children but also by showing them the right way to live…and starting their whole life by showing them how to mooch off others is beyond disgraceful.

(Oh and the hair is again, inexplicably, back to that bizarre blue color).

4 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Health Care, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny, Unions, Welfare