A few years back, Patrick Byrne earned the wrath of the progressive community with the suggestion that public schools should spend 65% of their budget on education.
The public school system, as everyone knows, is a primary trough for progressive political activism. Many of the most progressive school districts prefer to use the funds allocated for education to achieve the progressive goal of redistributive justice to the lesser goal of educating children.
Mr. Byrne was openly vilified by the left for the 65% suggestion.
With this in mind, I find myself startled to see progressive lauding the 2009 health care bill for setting a percent limit on the cut insurance companies can take. In a show of duplicity, self-righteous pat themselves on the back with the demand that a set percent of premiums be spent on "medical care."
(I put "medical care" in quotes because the progressives running the health care system will get to define what is and is not "medical care" as political expediency demands. For example, I would expect the $300,000 a year that Michelle Obama earned as a political appointee at the University of Chicago Medical Center to be considered a medical expense. One might also consider the hefty lawyer fees collected in malpractice suits to be medical expenses.
Let's face it. In a world where there is a great deal of collusion between insurance companies and health care providers, there is often ways for big insurance companies to shift profits from the insurance side of the books to the health care side of the books)
The duplicity of the left aside, the reason for this post is a direct observation that setting the profits of insurance companies at a fixed percent does not help reduce medical care costs.
When a company works on a percentage basis, their efforts focus on increasing total sales.
The reason that we do not see the productivity gains in health care reflected as price drops is that the insurance companies that control health care spending do not want to see the prices drop. Their profits would plunge if prices dropped.
If we wanted to see a price drop in insurance, we might try a system where the insurance companies worked on a fixed amount or hourly wage. This is what I was hoping to try with the Health Care Advocates in the Medical Savings and Loan.
Better yet, one might try a system where the agents get a bonus for cutting expenses.
Imagine the plight of a company working under the regulatory regime of Pelosi-Reid that gave bonuses for cutting medical costs. Lets imagine that young entrepreneurs came up with an ingenious way to dramatically reduce health care expenses for the company.
What would happen in our progressive regime is the company offering the bonus would become Federal criminals as the combined reduction in medical expenses and bonus crossed the performance threshold set by Congress.
While setting insurance company's income as a percent of medical expenses polls well with those driven by wealth envy, the program does not actually reduce health care expenses, nor does it actually affect the gap between rich and poor in any meaningful way.
Having Federal regulators setting wages and prices in the insurance industry does little more than give an inside advantage to those companies with political connections as they can get the wages and prices set in ways that are favorable to their business model.
Pages
▼
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Health Care and Redistributive Justice
Barack Obama is not the first politician to use the health care system for the goal of redistributive justice.
There's been a long history of people wishing to use the medical system to right the wrongs of the world. It is not uncommon for doctors, insurance companies and others to pad bills here and there with the intent of helping others.
For that matter, people in the medical community have been extremely good about extending care to those without the funds to pay for care.
Of course, in some cases, people who started out with the intent of engagingin redistributive justice ended up redistributing the funds to themselves.
The political class is especially bad about redistributing the funds raised in the name of redistributed justice back to members of the political class.
I've mentioned multiple times that insurance itself is a device to achieve the goal of redistributive justice. Insurance takes money from a group of people and redistributes it to group members with a medical need.
This idea of padding bills with the intent of redistributing care is so entrenched in the current medical system that "redistributive-justice" has become the primary reason that our medical bills are so out of whack with reality.
The reason that we do not get straightforward pricing for health care in America is not because there are evil people seeking profit. The reason we don't get straightforward pricing is because there's a large number of people good people with the good intent of engaging in redistributive justice.
Traditionally Americans put up with those seeking to use medicine for redistributive justice is that many of our best and brightest work in health care and we have great faith in their integrity an sense of justice.
Owners of the local hamburger joint or used car dealership would love to engage in the same "redistributive justice" as hospitals. But we do not put up with it and are more vocal in our demand for fair pricing.
There is some value to redistributive-justice.
The problem with redistributive-justice is that when there is too much of it the redistributive-justice itself becomes a source of oppression.
In the United States we find that there is so much padding of bills that we have driven the cost of health care from the means of many middle class Americans.
It is likely that the new layers of redistibutive-justice being added to the system is simply going to drive prices up higher and will result in more people driven into insolvency.
In my opinion, the best form of redistributive justice does not involve robbing Peter to pay Paul. The best form of redistributive justice involves helping people up to make them self-sufficient.
There's been a long history of people wishing to use the medical system to right the wrongs of the world. It is not uncommon for doctors, insurance companies and others to pad bills here and there with the intent of helping others.
For that matter, people in the medical community have been extremely good about extending care to those without the funds to pay for care.
Of course, in some cases, people who started out with the intent of engagingin redistributive justice ended up redistributing the funds to themselves.
The political class is especially bad about redistributing the funds raised in the name of redistributed justice back to members of the political class.
I've mentioned multiple times that insurance itself is a device to achieve the goal of redistributive justice. Insurance takes money from a group of people and redistributes it to group members with a medical need.
This idea of padding bills with the intent of redistributing care is so entrenched in the current medical system that "redistributive-justice" has become the primary reason that our medical bills are so out of whack with reality.
The reason that we do not get straightforward pricing for health care in America is not because there are evil people seeking profit. The reason we don't get straightforward pricing is because there's a large number of people good people with the good intent of engaging in redistributive justice.
Traditionally Americans put up with those seeking to use medicine for redistributive justice is that many of our best and brightest work in health care and we have great faith in their integrity an sense of justice.
Owners of the local hamburger joint or used car dealership would love to engage in the same "redistributive justice" as hospitals. But we do not put up with it and are more vocal in our demand for fair pricing.
There is some value to redistributive-justice.
The problem with redistributive-justice is that when there is too much of it the redistributive-justice itself becomes a source of oppression.
In the United States we find that there is so much padding of bills that we have driven the cost of health care from the means of many middle class Americans.
It is likely that the new layers of redistibutive-justice being added to the system is simply going to drive prices up higher and will result in more people driven into insolvency.
In my opinion, the best form of redistributive justice does not involve robbing Peter to pay Paul. The best form of redistributive justice involves helping people up to make them self-sufficient.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Special Deals With the Regulators
Many people are upset about the special deals worked stuffed into the Senate Health Care bill to buy votes in the last minute legislative push.
Sadly, these special deals seem to exist in most modern level at both the state and federal level. In most cases the deals pass trhough the system with little scrutiny.
State governments and other local authorities have been regulating insurance since the inception of insurance. These regulatory bodies invariably have special deals which favor companies with inside connections. Insurance is very complex and a favor might appear to be something benign, or even progressive, but the advantages are there. The advantages usually create the dyanamic where the group receiving the favor ends up dominating the local market.
The ugly sausage making process that we saw taking place in Congress this holiday season took place in all of the local regulatory efforts.
Insurance is currently regulated. The regulations came through processes like the one that we just saw on national TV. The regulatory process invariably creates an uneven playing field which favors some constituents over others. It is the regulation process that leads to the monopolies and to the inequitable distribution of care.
Unfortunately, the federal regulation of health care is unlikely to make any improvements. What's likely to happen with the new Federal regulation is that there will now be two layers of regulation competing for influence in matters of local health care. There will be state and local regulators in conflict with federal regulators and power players diverting health care funds back and forth as they compete for influence.
If we want to break the inequities of our health care system, we need to move away from the insurance paradigm to a self-funded paradigm ... like the Medical Savings and Loan.
Sadly, these special deals seem to exist in most modern level at both the state and federal level. In most cases the deals pass trhough the system with little scrutiny.
State governments and other local authorities have been regulating insurance since the inception of insurance. These regulatory bodies invariably have special deals which favor companies with inside connections. Insurance is very complex and a favor might appear to be something benign, or even progressive, but the advantages are there. The advantages usually create the dyanamic where the group receiving the favor ends up dominating the local market.
The ugly sausage making process that we saw taking place in Congress this holiday season took place in all of the local regulatory efforts.
Insurance is currently regulated. The regulations came through processes like the one that we just saw on national TV. The regulatory process invariably creates an uneven playing field which favors some constituents over others. It is the regulation process that leads to the monopolies and to the inequitable distribution of care.
Unfortunately, the federal regulation of health care is unlikely to make any improvements. What's likely to happen with the new Federal regulation is that there will now be two layers of regulation competing for influence in matters of local health care. There will be state and local regulators in conflict with federal regulators and power players diverting health care funds back and forth as they compete for influence.
If we want to break the inequities of our health care system, we need to move away from the insurance paradigm to a self-funded paradigm ... like the Medical Savings and Loan.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Stimulus is Progressively Corrupt
This is really non-news. A study confirms that most of the stimulus money went to award party faithful.
If the Republicans had done something like this; the study would be headline news. Reports on Democratic corruption is just restatement of the obvious.
If the Republicans had done something like this; the study would be headline news. Reports on Democratic corruption is just restatement of the obvious.
Strategizing a Way Out
The health care power grab was the result of a multigenerational disinformation campaign of the left. The process worked by first promoting insurance as if insurance were health care. The left gave deep tax breaks to insurance companies while structuring the tax code to make alternatives untenable.
Insurance is an inherently flawed business model. Insurance combines everyone's health care resources into a pool, then lavishes the politically connected members of the pool with great care and leaves those outside the group structure hanging.
The solution to a flawed business model is to create a better business.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a better business model. The MS&L depends primarily on savings. Rather than developing a group risk pool, the system using a combination of savings accounts and interest free loans to help the individual self-finance care.
A medical savings and loan looks surprisingly like an insurance policy. Employers would pay funds into the account. Employees would draw funds as needed. Unlike pure health savings accounts, policy holders will always have funds to cover needed and preventative care.
The MS&L is even progressive in that there is a transfer of wealth from the healthy to those with expensive medical needs who are unable to pay back loans.
While the Medical Savings and Loan looks a lot like insurance to an outsider, the system avoids many of the flaws of insurance. The system is individually based and is not subject to the moral hazards of pool based insurance. Policy holders are spending their money on care. Except for extreme cases, people taking out loans are expected to pay back the loans.
The bills before Congress makes all alternatives to insurance illegal.
If those who are upset about the health care power grab agitate loud enough and get the MS&L treated as insurance, then those opposed big government and big insurance could vote with their feet and pull their money out of big insurance and into the self financed medical savings and loan.
The whole health care mess is the result of the fact that insurance is an inherently flawed business model. The solution to a flawed business model is not more regulation but a better business model.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a better business model. If the right uses the travesty of the 2009 health care power grab to make the MS&L a legal alternative to insurance, then people can vote with their feet by opting out of the corrupt political structure created by the power grab.
Insurance is an inherently flawed business model. Insurance combines everyone's health care resources into a pool, then lavishes the politically connected members of the pool with great care and leaves those outside the group structure hanging.
The solution to a flawed business model is to create a better business.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a better business model. The MS&L depends primarily on savings. Rather than developing a group risk pool, the system using a combination of savings accounts and interest free loans to help the individual self-finance care.
A medical savings and loan looks surprisingly like an insurance policy. Employers would pay funds into the account. Employees would draw funds as needed. Unlike pure health savings accounts, policy holders will always have funds to cover needed and preventative care.
The MS&L is even progressive in that there is a transfer of wealth from the healthy to those with expensive medical needs who are unable to pay back loans.
While the Medical Savings and Loan looks a lot like insurance to an outsider, the system avoids many of the flaws of insurance. The system is individually based and is not subject to the moral hazards of pool based insurance. Policy holders are spending their money on care. Except for extreme cases, people taking out loans are expected to pay back the loans.
The bills before Congress makes all alternatives to insurance illegal.
If those who are upset about the health care power grab agitate loud enough and get the MS&L treated as insurance, then those opposed big government and big insurance could vote with their feet and pull their money out of big insurance and into the self financed medical savings and loan.
The whole health care mess is the result of the fact that insurance is an inherently flawed business model. The solution to a flawed business model is not more regulation but a better business model.
The Medical Savings and Loan is a better business model. If the right uses the travesty of the 2009 health care power grab to make the MS&L a legal alternative to insurance, then people can vote with their feet by opting out of the corrupt political structure created by the power grab.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Wrap Rage
In recent years, manufacturers have started making their packaging extraordinarily difficult to remove. Many electronics come in clamshells that one must violently destroy to get at the contents.
Personally, I've taken to using extremely sharp and dangerous objects like box cutters to open plastic clamshells. I really dislike clamshell packaging as I like to keep packages around for storage.
My guess is that manufacturers are seeking to reduce returns. It is less tempting to return items to a store after destroying the package.
The result of the hard to remove packaging is that there will be a large number of emergency room visits this Christmas as people trying to open clamshells fall into a fit of wrap rage.
Christmas Morning is a time filled with elevated emotions and hyper activity. The parents might be filming while the kids stumble over each other to find if Santa was kind.
Heightened emotions can take unpredictible directions.
When a present proves unopenable, kids will run and grab whatever sharp object they can find to break the wrapping. I've seen small children weilding eight inch chef knives trying to find a way to the toy held in place by industrial strength plastic holders.
Invariably, a large number of people will stab themselves on Christmas morning and destroy their Happy New Years with an expensive trip to the Emergency Room.
The way to prevent wrap rage in your family is to completely open then rewrap all presents before xmas day.
It is better to deny the gift recipient the experience of removing the manufacturers packaging than it is to subject them to a stay in a hospital.
Parents should put the camera down and stand at the ready with the box cutters. It is better to have sharp objects at the ready for opening packaging than it is to have people run around on Christmas day trying to find knives and scissors.
The reason for this post is that it wrap rage brings up an interesting question of liability. Apparently there is some sort of financial gain for manufacturers in using clamshell packaging. I assume that it reduces returns. Manufacturers receive a small financial gain by creating a large number of injuries.
This is the type of situation where liability laws play a positive role.
Decisions made by manufacturers to encase their products in difficult to open packaging will result in a large number of injuries that would not otherwise occur. The treatment of such injuries should be paid for by the manufacturers that benefitted from the decision to use impossible to open packaging.
IMHO, what we want in the personal injury arena is a system that can fund all of the small claims from product liability. For that matter, I think our product liability laws and practices do a good job of helping people identify and account for risks.
With a system that has manufacturers facing the real costs of their decisions, the manufacturers could then look at the data and weigh the fact that clamshell packaging reduces returns against the injuries caused by the packaing and hopefully come up with packaging designs which can be opened without the aid of a sharp object.
Personally, I've taken to using extremely sharp and dangerous objects like box cutters to open plastic clamshells. I really dislike clamshell packaging as I like to keep packages around for storage.
My guess is that manufacturers are seeking to reduce returns. It is less tempting to return items to a store after destroying the package.
The result of the hard to remove packaging is that there will be a large number of emergency room visits this Christmas as people trying to open clamshells fall into a fit of wrap rage.
Christmas Morning is a time filled with elevated emotions and hyper activity. The parents might be filming while the kids stumble over each other to find if Santa was kind.
Heightened emotions can take unpredictible directions.
When a present proves unopenable, kids will run and grab whatever sharp object they can find to break the wrapping. I've seen small children weilding eight inch chef knives trying to find a way to the toy held in place by industrial strength plastic holders.
Invariably, a large number of people will stab themselves on Christmas morning and destroy their Happy New Years with an expensive trip to the Emergency Room.
The way to prevent wrap rage in your family is to completely open then rewrap all presents before xmas day.
It is better to deny the gift recipient the experience of removing the manufacturers packaging than it is to subject them to a stay in a hospital.
Parents should put the camera down and stand at the ready with the box cutters. It is better to have sharp objects at the ready for opening packaging than it is to have people run around on Christmas day trying to find knives and scissors.
The reason for this post is that it wrap rage brings up an interesting question of liability. Apparently there is some sort of financial gain for manufacturers in using clamshell packaging. I assume that it reduces returns. Manufacturers receive a small financial gain by creating a large number of injuries.
This is the type of situation where liability laws play a positive role.
Decisions made by manufacturers to encase their products in difficult to open packaging will result in a large number of injuries that would not otherwise occur. The treatment of such injuries should be paid for by the manufacturers that benefitted from the decision to use impossible to open packaging.
IMHO, what we want in the personal injury arena is a system that can fund all of the small claims from product liability. For that matter, I think our product liability laws and practices do a good job of helping people identify and account for risks.
With a system that has manufacturers facing the real costs of their decisions, the manufacturers could then look at the data and weigh the fact that clamshell packaging reduces returns against the injuries caused by the packaing and hopefully come up with packaging designs which can be opened without the aid of a sharp object.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Constitutional Fog
The US Constitution is one of the most accessible legal documents ever written. In 17 pages, the document outlines the scope of a limited national government that proved much more effective than the convoluted governments of the fuedal and empiral ages.
The secret to the Founders's success was that they limited the government and empowered the people.
To punctuate the fact that the Constitution created a limited government, the founders of the country added 10 Amendments (the bill of rights) at the end of the document. The last amendment reserved to the States those rights not given to the Federal government.
The document is an easier read than my auto insurance policy.
An interesting development in our progressive age is that our Representative treat this document as if it were written in some type of obscure Egyptian hieroglyphics requiring a the interpretive skills of an advanced Constitutional scholar to decipher.
It is true that a scholar could spend a life time researching precedents and interpretations of the document and barely scratch the surface of all possible implications of the document. This does not mean the document is inaccessible.
Scholars could spend a life times on almost any subject. A scholar could spend a hundred life times studying Rock and Roll. For that matter, there's a large number number of decidated rock scholars in our schools. The fact that there's a large body of knowledge surrounding Rock and Roll does not make the music inaccessible.
The fact that someone could spend a great deal of time studying a subject is not the determining factor in accessibility. Accessibility references the ease with which one can get started or to understand the basic concepts behind an idea.
Disneyland is immensely complex, but little kids go there everyday.
Of course the fog built around the Constitution isn't the result of the Constitution itself. The fog is the result of the great pains progressives have taken to skirt the Constitution in their quest for unbridled centralized power.
Through our nation's history, our ruling class has gone through bone bending contortions to turn the Constitution to their ends. This effort has created a situation where they, like the chronic liar, must employ a legion scribes to keep their stories straight.
2009 has been one of the worst years in American legislation history. Our progressive Congress wasted over half a year writing health care legislation that they know is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. When confronted with the unconstitutionality of their dense and bewildering constructions (the bills number in the thousands of pages), they point to one of the most accessible pieces of law ever written and project their convolutions onto the Constitution itself.
Hopefully enough people will seriously look at the convolutions coming from Congress and rejects these games being played by our ruling class.
The secret to the Founders's success was that they limited the government and empowered the people.
To punctuate the fact that the Constitution created a limited government, the founders of the country added 10 Amendments (the bill of rights) at the end of the document. The last amendment reserved to the States those rights not given to the Federal government.
The document is an easier read than my auto insurance policy.
An interesting development in our progressive age is that our Representative treat this document as if it were written in some type of obscure Egyptian hieroglyphics requiring a the interpretive skills of an advanced Constitutional scholar to decipher.
It is true that a scholar could spend a life time researching precedents and interpretations of the document and barely scratch the surface of all possible implications of the document. This does not mean the document is inaccessible.
Scholars could spend a life times on almost any subject. A scholar could spend a hundred life times studying Rock and Roll. For that matter, there's a large number number of decidated rock scholars in our schools. The fact that there's a large body of knowledge surrounding Rock and Roll does not make the music inaccessible.
The fact that someone could spend a great deal of time studying a subject is not the determining factor in accessibility. Accessibility references the ease with which one can get started or to understand the basic concepts behind an idea.
Disneyland is immensely complex, but little kids go there everyday.
Of course the fog built around the Constitution isn't the result of the Constitution itself. The fog is the result of the great pains progressives have taken to skirt the Constitution in their quest for unbridled centralized power.
Through our nation's history, our ruling class has gone through bone bending contortions to turn the Constitution to their ends. This effort has created a situation where they, like the chronic liar, must employ a legion scribes to keep their stories straight.
2009 has been one of the worst years in American legislation history. Our progressive Congress wasted over half a year writing health care legislation that they know is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. When confronted with the unconstitutionality of their dense and bewildering constructions (the bills number in the thousands of pages), they point to one of the most accessible pieces of law ever written and project their convolutions onto the Constitution itself.
Hopefully enough people will seriously look at the convolutions coming from Congress and rejects these games being played by our ruling class.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Judge Napalitano
Below is the YouTube video of Judge Napolitano discussing states holding a Constitutional Convention to reject the health care power grab.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Democracy in Health Care
Apparently some people think that the Federal power grab of health care will somehow make our health care system more "democratic."
The opposite is actually true. This federalization of health care regulation places health under the yoke of an overtaxed Congress which is distant from the people. US Senators represent, on average, about 3 million people. Members of the House represent abouy three quarters of a million people.
This small number of elected officials is not only distant from the people. They have a massive workload which includes national defense, interstate commerce, overseeing international treatises as well as writing the laws of the land, etc..
The bills presented in the 2009 Healthcare debate all created regulatory bodies that individuals are unable to affect through elected officials.
If Health Care 09 passes, then people will have to hire politically connected lobbyists and lawyers to have any influence in how their health care is administered.
The Health Care 09 proposals are inherently undemocratic.
If our goal was to create a democratically based government structure for care, then we should do something like create an elected position of Health Care Commissioner in each state. One might even split states into districts and have elected health care administrators for the districts.
Of course, people would have an even more "democratic" structure if they had their insurance through locally owned mutual funds ... people have the absolute most control over their care when they self-finance the bulk of their care and only use insurance for extraordinary circumstances ... as in the Medical Savings and Loan.
Regardless, the distance between representatives in the Federal Government and the people means that the Health Care reform reduces the influence that an individual has on his own health, and is remarkably undemocratic.
The opposite is actually true. This federalization of health care regulation places health under the yoke of an overtaxed Congress which is distant from the people. US Senators represent, on average, about 3 million people. Members of the House represent abouy three quarters of a million people.
This small number of elected officials is not only distant from the people. They have a massive workload which includes national defense, interstate commerce, overseeing international treatises as well as writing the laws of the land, etc..
The bills presented in the 2009 Healthcare debate all created regulatory bodies that individuals are unable to affect through elected officials.
If Health Care 09 passes, then people will have to hire politically connected lobbyists and lawyers to have any influence in how their health care is administered.
The Health Care 09 proposals are inherently undemocratic.
If our goal was to create a democratically based government structure for care, then we should do something like create an elected position of Health Care Commissioner in each state. One might even split states into districts and have elected health care administrators for the districts.
Of course, people would have an even more "democratic" structure if they had their insurance through locally owned mutual funds ... people have the absolute most control over their care when they self-finance the bulk of their care and only use insurance for extraordinary circumstances ... as in the Medical Savings and Loan.
Regardless, the distance between representatives in the Federal Government and the people means that the Health Care reform reduces the influence that an individual has on his own health, and is remarkably undemocratic.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
A People's History of People's Movements
Michelle Malkin reports that Hollywood and Marxist thinkers have team up to produce star-studded propaganda for our nation's schools. The project is called "The People Speak."
I agree that there's a large number of skeletons in our's nation's closet. What "The People Speak" is likely to miss is that pretty much all of the great atrocities (from the slavery, the slaughtering of buffalo to to the killing of Indians and abortion) were all the results of progressive people's movements.
There are progressives in both parties. George Bush (who attended two of the most liberal schools in America) had an extremely progressive agenda with the federal government taking the leading role in curriculum design with the No Child Left Behind policy.
Conversely, the rare occasions where Americans stuck to the classical liberal roots of the founders, led to prosperity.
The damage of propaganda efforts like "The People Speak" is not that they criticize the United States, but that it frames the criticism in ways that fail to teach students the source of our nation's problems.
I've said in past posts that critical thinking only works when applied to one's own belief system. Critical thinking aimed at one's partisan opponents is thinly veiled criticism.
The problem with Howard Zinn's rethinking education project is not that the project holds up "peace and social justice" as ideals, but that the intellectually dishonest techniques favored by the left undermine society and have a long history resulting in war and widescale injustice.
I agree that there's a large number of skeletons in our's nation's closet. What "The People Speak" is likely to miss is that pretty much all of the great atrocities (from the slavery, the slaughtering of buffalo to to the killing of Indians and abortion) were all the results of progressive people's movements.
There are progressives in both parties. George Bush (who attended two of the most liberal schools in America) had an extremely progressive agenda with the federal government taking the leading role in curriculum design with the No Child Left Behind policy.
Conversely, the rare occasions where Americans stuck to the classical liberal roots of the founders, led to prosperity.
The damage of propaganda efforts like "The People Speak" is not that they criticize the United States, but that it frames the criticism in ways that fail to teach students the source of our nation's problems.
I've said in past posts that critical thinking only works when applied to one's own belief system. Critical thinking aimed at one's partisan opponents is thinly veiled criticism.
The problem with Howard Zinn's rethinking education project is not that the project holds up "peace and social justice" as ideals, but that the intellectually dishonest techniques favored by the left undermine society and have a long history resulting in war and widescale injustice.
Health Care Rally
On December 15th, Americans for Prosperity is holding a rally against the health care power grab. I would attend this rally, except for the fact that is just too far away. I could not afford the drive to DC, nor the hotel stays for the multiple day trip.
One of the primary reasons that I oppose the health care power grab is that I believe health care should be administered by the states, where there is a better chance that individuals (like me) could affect any legislation.
Somehow, the left has convinced millions of people that we don't have health care unless health care is delivered by the Federal Government.
Real live medical care is delivered at the individual level. To have quality health care, the decision making process regarding health care must be made near the individual.
This game of giving total control of health care to the Federal government is the most undemocratic action that I have seen in my life time. The Democrats know that they have to pass their bill now, because, if health care was the primary issue in the election, people would vote out those members of Congress advocating the power grab.
Americans giving control of their health to a distant body that they are unable to affect numbers among the most absurd things that has happened in our Republic.
One of the primary reasons that I oppose the health care power grab is that I believe health care should be administered by the states, where there is a better chance that individuals (like me) could affect any legislation.
Somehow, the left has convinced millions of people that we don't have health care unless health care is delivered by the Federal Government.
Real live medical care is delivered at the individual level. To have quality health care, the decision making process regarding health care must be made near the individual.
This game of giving total control of health care to the Federal government is the most undemocratic action that I have seen in my life time. The Democrats know that they have to pass their bill now, because, if health care was the primary issue in the election, people would vote out those members of Congress advocating the power grab.
Americans giving control of their health to a distant body that they are unable to affect numbers among the most absurd things that has happened in our Republic.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Lending For Capital Investments
I saw a short blurb today last week in which the president said the markets would recover once banks started "lending for capital investments."
I understand the speech was an attempt to drum up interest in small business loans; however, the wording gave me a double take.
In the free market of Adam Smith, the primary source of funds for capital investment came from re-investment of profit. A person makes a profit on their product. They know the market and judge whether or not it is a good time to put more money into the market or to diversify.
Such a system has the capital investment within an industry coming from within the industry. This is down to earth mechanism with a great deal of feedback.
The Federal Reserve effectively destroyed the Smith style free market. The Central banks created a system where a political machine controlled by political interests floods the market with cheap money.
This act of "lending for capital investment" is best seen as a leveraged speculative play. It is within this speculative framework that bubbles are born.
I believe that there is a place for interest bearing loans in an economy. However, to retain our prosperity, the main thrust of investment should be aimed at the process of developing and maintaining equity. Watching the recovery effort trying to fix the blown out economy with cheap money makes me worry that we are simply re-inflating the balloon.
I understand the speech was an attempt to drum up interest in small business loans; however, the wording gave me a double take.
In the free market of Adam Smith, the primary source of funds for capital investment came from re-investment of profit. A person makes a profit on their product. They know the market and judge whether or not it is a good time to put more money into the market or to diversify.
Such a system has the capital investment within an industry coming from within the industry. This is down to earth mechanism with a great deal of feedback.
The Federal Reserve effectively destroyed the Smith style free market. The Central banks created a system where a political machine controlled by political interests floods the market with cheap money.
This act of "lending for capital investment" is best seen as a leveraged speculative play. It is within this speculative framework that bubbles are born.
I believe that there is a place for interest bearing loans in an economy. However, to retain our prosperity, the main thrust of investment should be aimed at the process of developing and maintaining equity. Watching the recovery effort trying to fix the blown out economy with cheap money makes me worry that we are simply re-inflating the balloon.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
The Bottleneck of Congress
The best way to make a business fail is to push all decision making for the business through an over taxed bottleneck.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid just issued a charged partisan attack against the hated Republicans and secondary media for the claim that there is not enough transparency in the Health Care process.
Mr. Reid then enumerated all of the time that Congress diverted from its Consititutional duties to the Unconstitutional power grab of health care.
The Founders realized that one of the great problems of the monarchy was that monarchy pushed all decision making through a single point of failure that tended to be both overtaxed and corruptible.
The founders sought a balanced decision making system that distributed those decisions that had the most impact on individual lives to authorities close to the individual people.
They stated this idea in the tenth Amendment in an effort to punctuate their belief that the Constitution enumerated limited powers to the Federal government and reserved the other powers to the local authorities when individuals had a better shot at influencing the process.
So, in response to Harry Reid:
Yes, you and Nancy Pelosi diverted a great deal of legislation time from the jobs you were supposed to be doing. During this period you dropped the ball on a war which put our troops in danger. By dropping the ball, you created a situation where the Taliban had a resurgence in Afghanistan and came close to toppling the fragile new democracy in Pakistan.
The delay in sending additional troops meant that we had insufficient forces to protect the Afghan forces during their important election. Because our Congress took the eye off the ball, there was insufficient resources in Afghanistan to help assure the election was fair. As such, it appears that the election that so many of our troops died for was in fact manipulated and stolen from the people.
In Iran, we find that, while Senator Reid focused the attention of Congress on the power grab, Iran threw hundreds of political dissidents into prison and entered the final stage of its nuclear program.
On the environmental side of the fence we find that the Senate has an important Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent in international treatises.
Because of the Congressional power grab of health care, the President of the United States will attend one of the most important International Treatises negotiation in Copenhagen this month without adequate advice from our Senate leaders.
Dear Mr. Reid, while you dropped the ball on this extremely important Constitutional duty, there erupted claims that some of the data being used to justify the Copenhagen treaty was falsified.
Regardless of one's beliefs about global warming, the ClimateGate scandal is bad news. ClimateGate brings up the spectre that this treaty might be a flawed theory, in which case we will do irreparable harm to our economy for no positive return. The theory might be true, and the charges of fudged data might keep countries from ratifying a treastises that is necessary for preserving life on the planet earth.
All of the time that the Senate took from its Constitutional duties to perform an Unconstitutional power grab is time that should have been spent on the most important international treatises passed since the creation of the UN and NATO.
The really ironic thing is that, despite all of the time that Congress diverted from its Constitutional duties to grab regulation of insurance from the States, the time they gave to the important issue of health care still is not enough.
Don't you see?
Health care is the single most time consuming activity that we humans do. Health care is about the appliction of time, resources and decision making power to the needs of individuals. It is tough, time consuming work.
The founders of the US realized that such time consuming processes should be done through a distributed decision making process in the states or by the people themselves.
Health is an attribute of the individual. Both the financing and administration of health care needs to take place at a level close to the individual.
The desire for remform is not completely unfounded. The method for reform is.
Yes, it is true that big insurance has been failing the American people.
The reason that big insurance fails is that big insurance is too remote from the individual. (Self-financed care as in Medical Savings and Loan puts health care resources in the hands of the patient and the decision making process in the hands of the patient and doctor.)
The great Federal power grab of regulatory authority of health care makes the decision making process even more remote.
It places the decision making process in the hands of a group that is already over taxed with its Constitutional duties, and does not have the time to explore all of the nitty details necessary to deliver quality care to people thousands of miles away from Congress.
Even worse, this power grab is a one shot process. Congress is so overtaxed that people are not going to be able to use the Democratic process to rectify any mistakes made in the initial writing of the bill.
Mr. Reid, the fact that you personally failed in your Constitutional duty as a Senator in your power grab of health care shows the world that the power grab is wrong headed and will lead the American people to great harm.
Nevada Senator Harry Reid just issued a charged partisan attack against the hated Republicans and secondary media for the claim that there is not enough transparency in the Health Care process.
Mr. Reid then enumerated all of the time that Congress diverted from its Consititutional duties to the Unconstitutional power grab of health care.
The Founders realized that one of the great problems of the monarchy was that monarchy pushed all decision making through a single point of failure that tended to be both overtaxed and corruptible.
The founders sought a balanced decision making system that distributed those decisions that had the most impact on individual lives to authorities close to the individual people.
They stated this idea in the tenth Amendment in an effort to punctuate their belief that the Constitution enumerated limited powers to the Federal government and reserved the other powers to the local authorities when individuals had a better shot at influencing the process.
So, in response to Harry Reid:
Yes, you and Nancy Pelosi diverted a great deal of legislation time from the jobs you were supposed to be doing. During this period you dropped the ball on a war which put our troops in danger. By dropping the ball, you created a situation where the Taliban had a resurgence in Afghanistan and came close to toppling the fragile new democracy in Pakistan.
The delay in sending additional troops meant that we had insufficient forces to protect the Afghan forces during their important election. Because our Congress took the eye off the ball, there was insufficient resources in Afghanistan to help assure the election was fair. As such, it appears that the election that so many of our troops died for was in fact manipulated and stolen from the people.
In Iran, we find that, while Senator Reid focused the attention of Congress on the power grab, Iran threw hundreds of political dissidents into prison and entered the final stage of its nuclear program.
On the environmental side of the fence we find that the Senate has an important Constitutional duty to provide advice and consent in international treatises.
Because of the Congressional power grab of health care, the President of the United States will attend one of the most important International Treatises negotiation in Copenhagen this month without adequate advice from our Senate leaders.
Dear Mr. Reid, while you dropped the ball on this extremely important Constitutional duty, there erupted claims that some of the data being used to justify the Copenhagen treaty was falsified.
Regardless of one's beliefs about global warming, the ClimateGate scandal is bad news. ClimateGate brings up the spectre that this treaty might be a flawed theory, in which case we will do irreparable harm to our economy for no positive return. The theory might be true, and the charges of fudged data might keep countries from ratifying a treastises that is necessary for preserving life on the planet earth.
All of the time that the Senate took from its Constitutional duties to perform an Unconstitutional power grab is time that should have been spent on the most important international treatises passed since the creation of the UN and NATO.
The really ironic thing is that, despite all of the time that Congress diverted from its Constitutional duties to grab regulation of insurance from the States, the time they gave to the important issue of health care still is not enough.
Don't you see?
Health care is the single most time consuming activity that we humans do. Health care is about the appliction of time, resources and decision making power to the needs of individuals. It is tough, time consuming work.
The founders of the US realized that such time consuming processes should be done through a distributed decision making process in the states or by the people themselves.
Health is an attribute of the individual. Both the financing and administration of health care needs to take place at a level close to the individual.
The desire for remform is not completely unfounded. The method for reform is.
Yes, it is true that big insurance has been failing the American people.
The reason that big insurance fails is that big insurance is too remote from the individual. (Self-financed care as in Medical Savings and Loan puts health care resources in the hands of the patient and the decision making process in the hands of the patient and doctor.)
The great Federal power grab of regulatory authority of health care makes the decision making process even more remote.
It places the decision making process in the hands of a group that is already over taxed with its Constitutional duties, and does not have the time to explore all of the nitty details necessary to deliver quality care to people thousands of miles away from Congress.
Even worse, this power grab is a one shot process. Congress is so overtaxed that people are not going to be able to use the Democratic process to rectify any mistakes made in the initial writing of the bill.
Mr. Reid, the fact that you personally failed in your Constitutional duty as a Senator in your power grab of health care shows the world that the power grab is wrong headed and will lead the American people to great harm.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Black Friday IS RACIST
The term "Black Friday" was the creation of evil profit minded businesses and has gained a place in our lexicon by being repeated by evil doers like George W. Bush (all progressive articles need at least one jab at the former president to re-inforce political themes).
Anyway, "Black Friday" is a racist term and, like the term "Christmas," it should be struck from the progressive vocabulary.
Evil profit-minded businesses hire a class of ne'er-do-wells called accountants. These petty minded people toil away in dark places keeping the books for businesses (drooling in the process).
These evil people use red pens to signify losses, and black pens to signify profit (profits gained on the backs of persecuted workers, I might add).
The term Black Friday came into existence because many retailers would struggle through the year in the red and not see any black ledgers until the day after Thanksgiving.
Were sales to be bad, they would see only red for the year.
Don't you see the innate racism in all of this????????????
These horrible profit-minded businesses switch from using red pens to black pens in a symbolic hatred of Native Americans!!!!!!!!!
The regressive education system of old used similar racist tactics to oppress children. If Johnny wrote on his 'rithmatic lesson "2 + 2 = 5," the reactionary teacher would mark the paper with red pencil to punish the student for deviating from social norms. Associating bad math with the white hatred of Native Americans would stigmatize the child and create an anal rententive society where clerks at the Tasty Freeze could make correct change.
Progressive schools realized the self-esteem destroying tactics of the oppressive past. The modern-enlightend educator now simply awards Johnny for creative thinking.
The progressive accountant of the future will no longer celebrate a company's transition from red into black by changing pens, but will openly stand forth and question the fairness of a system where sometimes employers have years with profit.
With a glorious new leader in place and a Congress committed to progressive change, we can take great pride that fewer and fewer American companies are taking part racist tradition of switching red pens for black pens.
We, as a nation, should applaud our glorious leader who loves small business, and who has implement policies to help small businesses become even smaller!!!!
So class, we can conclude today's lesson by stating that evil profit-minded businesses are racist for using different colors of ink in their ledgers and that progressive wonderfulness will ensue when our glorious leaders raise taxes and health care expenses to the point that no businesses engage in the inherently racist act making a profit.
Praise be the one.
PS: If you are wondering, my web empire pulled in fifty cents on Black Friday. It was not enough to join my fellow profit-mongers in the ritual of changing the color of the pen, but it was sufficient for me to rub my hands together and think greedy thoughts. On Cyber Monday, I pulled in an astounding $30 ... not enough to go black, but we can't all be evil.
Anyway, "Black Friday" is a racist term and, like the term "Christmas," it should be struck from the progressive vocabulary.
Evil profit-minded businesses hire a class of ne'er-do-wells called accountants. These petty minded people toil away in dark places keeping the books for businesses (drooling in the process).
These evil people use red pens to signify losses, and black pens to signify profit (profits gained on the backs of persecuted workers, I might add).
The term Black Friday came into existence because many retailers would struggle through the year in the red and not see any black ledgers until the day after Thanksgiving.
Were sales to be bad, they would see only red for the year.
Don't you see the innate racism in all of this????????????
These horrible profit-minded businesses switch from using red pens to black pens in a symbolic hatred of Native Americans!!!!!!!!!
The regressive education system of old used similar racist tactics to oppress children. If Johnny wrote on his 'rithmatic lesson "2 + 2 = 5," the reactionary teacher would mark the paper with red pencil to punish the student for deviating from social norms. Associating bad math with the white hatred of Native Americans would stigmatize the child and create an anal rententive society where clerks at the Tasty Freeze could make correct change.
Progressive schools realized the self-esteem destroying tactics of the oppressive past. The modern-enlightend educator now simply awards Johnny for creative thinking.
The progressive accountant of the future will no longer celebrate a company's transition from red into black by changing pens, but will openly stand forth and question the fairness of a system where sometimes employers have years with profit.
With a glorious new leader in place and a Congress committed to progressive change, we can take great pride that fewer and fewer American companies are taking part racist tradition of switching red pens for black pens.
We, as a nation, should applaud our glorious leader who loves small business, and who has implement policies to help small businesses become even smaller!!!!
So class, we can conclude today's lesson by stating that evil profit-minded businesses are racist for using different colors of ink in their ledgers and that progressive wonderfulness will ensue when our glorious leaders raise taxes and health care expenses to the point that no businesses engage in the inherently racist act making a profit.
Praise be the one.
PS: If you are wondering, my web empire pulled in fifty cents on Black Friday. It was not enough to join my fellow profit-mongers in the ritual of changing the color of the pen, but it was sufficient for me to rub my hands together and think greedy thoughts. On Cyber Monday, I pulled in an astounding $30 ... not enough to go black, but we can't all be evil.
The Party is The People
The Constitution and Bill of Rights were submitted simultaneously to the people in 1787 to change the structure of the government from a dysfunctional confederacy to a union of states.
In a bit of poetic license, the document begins with the words "We the people," and The Bill of rights ends with the words "the people."
This short document brackets the definition of the United States between the words "the people."
In a comment that left me dumbfounded a progressive writing under the nom-de-plume Anonymous Coward wrote the following:
In twist that would make the Dark Lord Chomsky proud, Mr. Coward claims that, if you defined "the people" as "the government" then the 10th Amendment annuls itself. For that matter, one could say that the 10th Amendment annuls the entire Constitution as the Legislative Body could claim unto itself that it is the will of the people and is therefore omnipotent.
But, why should we limited this to the legislative branch. In keeping with the tradition of Caesar, one could say that the president is the manifestation of the spirit of the people. As the mind of this transcendent president is the people; therefore totalitarian powers lay within the hands of the one.
These were the ideas of Hegel (Hegel--as you know--laid the foundation of Maxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism, Moaism and the American public education system).
Of course, the Marxist ideology transformed progressivism and brought forth the idea that the president is merely a figurehead and that. Since we are all Marxists now, I guess one would probably say that the party is people. The transcendent president and legislator are manifestations of the god like party.
Golly, when we progressively give ourselves the totalitarian power to change the definition of words, then we can do all sorts of things.
Anyway, showing a complete lack of understanding in the way that logical systems work, Anonymous challenged me to list all of the times that Federal Control of Health Care is prohibited by the Constitution.
I mean, for someone to really means something they have to say it at least three times. Preferably, one needs to say it 10 times.
Things said just once don't matter.
For example, the 10 Commandments only say "Thou shall not kill" once. So, they clearly don't mean it. In the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton only lists entropy once; So, clearly Newton didn't think entropy was all that important.
If entropy was important, Newton would have given us like 30 laws of thermo-dynamics and entropy would be listed like a dozen times.
It is not as if the point of an axiomatic system is to figure out a set of logically independent axioms, and to state the axiom only once.
I realize that progressives are as dumb as stumps, and are incapable of reason, but I will recount the form of the Constitution for show:
Anyway, the Constitution is a very short document that opens with the line: "We the people [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution"
Using flowery language like: "All legislative Powers herein granted ..." the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the three branches of government.
The Constitution ends with the punctuation mark in the tenth amendment that all powers not granted by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution was then sent "to the people" for ratification.
The very form of the document indicates that the Constitution was creating a limited government.
Of course, in a world where progressive educators intentionally ripped the study of logic from the curriculum it is impossible to say anything as progressive reserve the right to redefine all terms as political expediency requires.
PS: The Ten Commandments only prohibited coveting thy neighbor's wife once; So, I take that to mean that thy neighbor's wife if fair game. The part of holding other God's before God didn't include golden calves.
In a bit of poetic license, the document begins with the words "We the people," and The Bill of rights ends with the words "the people."
This short document brackets the definition of the United States between the words "the people."
In a comment that left me dumbfounded a progressive writing under the nom-de-plume Anonymous Coward wrote the following:
The 10th Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
That last bit about "reserved to the states...OR to the people" (emphasis mine)means the people can exercise their power through their representatives and grant the government power to act on their behalf on issues provided it is not explicitly prohibited from acting by another section of the Constitution. What other section prohibits regulation of health care?
In twist that would make the Dark Lord Chomsky proud, Mr. Coward claims that, if you defined "the people" as "the government" then the 10th Amendment annuls itself. For that matter, one could say that the 10th Amendment annuls the entire Constitution as the Legislative Body could claim unto itself that it is the will of the people and is therefore omnipotent.
But, why should we limited this to the legislative branch. In keeping with the tradition of Caesar, one could say that the president is the manifestation of the spirit of the people. As the mind of this transcendent president is the people; therefore totalitarian powers lay within the hands of the one.
These were the ideas of Hegel (Hegel--as you know--laid the foundation of Maxism, Stalinism, Nazism, Fascism, Moaism and the American public education system).
Of course, the Marxist ideology transformed progressivism and brought forth the idea that the president is merely a figurehead and that. Since we are all Marxists now, I guess one would probably say that the party is people. The transcendent president and legislator are manifestations of the god like party.
Golly, when we progressively give ourselves the totalitarian power to change the definition of words, then we can do all sorts of things.
Anyway, showing a complete lack of understanding in the way that logical systems work, Anonymous challenged me to list all of the times that Federal Control of Health Care is prohibited by the Constitution.
I mean, for someone to really means something they have to say it at least three times. Preferably, one needs to say it 10 times.
Things said just once don't matter.
For example, the 10 Commandments only say "Thou shall not kill" once. So, they clearly don't mean it. In the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton only lists entropy once; So, clearly Newton didn't think entropy was all that important.
If entropy was important, Newton would have given us like 30 laws of thermo-dynamics and entropy would be listed like a dozen times.
It is not as if the point of an axiomatic system is to figure out a set of logically independent axioms, and to state the axiom only once.
I realize that progressives are as dumb as stumps, and are incapable of reason, but I will recount the form of the Constitution for show:
Anyway, the Constitution is a very short document that opens with the line: "We the people [...] do ordain and establish this Constitution"
Using flowery language like: "All legislative Powers herein granted ..." the Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the three branches of government.
The Constitution ends with the punctuation mark in the tenth amendment that all powers not granted by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. The Constitution was then sent "to the people" for ratification.
The very form of the document indicates that the Constitution was creating a limited government.
Of course, in a world where progressive educators intentionally ripped the study of logic from the curriculum it is impossible to say anything as progressive reserve the right to redefine all terms as political expediency requires.
PS: The Ten Commandments only prohibited coveting thy neighbor's wife once; So, I take that to mean that thy neighbor's wife if fair game. The part of holding other God's before God didn't include golden calves.