Finally, given the Fed's irresponsible moves that have aided and abetted two asset bubbles over the past decade-plus, playing a game of chicken with ruinous inflation, we see our favorite libertarian Republican Congressman gaining bipartisan support to bring necessary accountability to the Fed; of course, all the vested interests of the Fed are out in full force, crying like Chicken Little. No party impacting the national economy is above the law and public scrutiny, and that includes the Fed.
The Reid Plan: Public Option Opt-Out?
I view Reid's as little more than a cynical move: I'm sure that American taxpayers and businesses in states choosing not to participate would be subject to a pro-rata share of "health care reform" costs and regulations, and I'm sure that any pricing discrepancies between the federal government-rigged insurance markets and state-regulated markets will become a political issue, with Democratic politicians demanding inevitable massive subsidies to make up for the inherent inefficiencies and below-cost premiums for higher-risk patients under government-run health care.
In fact, Reid is largely counting on public concurrence with the progressive delusion that "government competition" will bring down or moderate the escalating costs of health care--his implicit message to undecided senators is that they will be targeted by angry citizens facing ever-escalating premiums. uncovered by this Reid health insurance government nirvana; in fact, this conjecture is patently absurd, especially when you consider that the government already pays over 45% of health care costs; does anyone really believe that health care expenditure cost trends are independent of the government? The government is part of the problem; increasing the footprint of the government is not the solution.
There is only one way the federal government could make a positive difference--by stripping away the Byzantine system of state mandates, largely reflecting the pressure of special-interest groups.However, and this is the key point of the debate, when you centralize the mandate system to the federal system (which, of course, papers over the Constitutional issue of the balance between state and federal power), what you do is essentially relieve special-interest groups of the burden of a fragmented 50-state approach to their objectives, replaced by a single point of efficacy. The critical point is, who establishes the mandates? Does anyone believe that Democrats are going to DECREASE versus INCREASE the number of mandates? And do you believe that costs go up when mandates are decreased or increased? (Clearly the latter.) This is little more than "spread the (health) wealth"; people want to shift their higher health costs, in many cases reflecting the consequences of their own personally irresponsible decisions (e.g., drug abuse, gluttony or inadequate exercise, driving unsafe cars, bike-riding or motorcycle operations without safety helmets, etc.), onto the rest of society.
So the Democrats are engaging in deliberate misleading arguments. Who really cares (besides those of us whon believe in the Constitution) whether they put the mandates in the bill or they delegate the decision to a progressive Democratic Administration whom will do the dirty work for them? All Obama has to do is appoint the "right" empathetic regulator. The Democrats can have their cake and eat it, too: they will disingenuously argue they didn't vote in the mandates that a government bureaucrat imposes by fiat. This is the same way progressives have always worked to promote their anti-liberty/responsibility agenda--just like the back door approach of legislating through unelected progressive judges on the federal courts.
Going back to the original point, the real intent of Reid's gimmck is to intimidate senators, daring them to vote against the "lower premiums" guaranteed by "public sector competition". In fact, you can't legislate away risk, and the idea that the public sector option can survive in a market when they assume all the higher risks, with insurance premiums set below their true cost, is ludicrous. A truly competitive system will see better-risk policyholders rushing to the exits, heading for more attractive private-sector options more adequately reflecting their own health risks/costs.
This does not mean I believe the status quo is acceptable; I agree that the government has screwed up the concept of health insurance, and it is government's responsibility to fix what it has broken and for which it is morally responsible. I think there must be a better system for handling higher-risk policyholders, but they should be expected to share in the cost burden, and the uncovered costs should be equitably absorbed across insurance policyholders. That's what assigned risk pools are supposed to do. What the Democrats should have done is to focus on ensuring existing assigned risk pools were properly funded and established (or perhaps the concept of a national assigned risk pool), and perhaps guaranteeing unlimited caps on lifetime benefits through government reinsurance. They could have mandated a catastrophic coverage program, where all equally share in the risk of catastrophic events.
Instead, we have politicians debating things like whether the American taxpayers should subsidize a mother's choice to kill her preborn child. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's"; the state must not extend an unwarranted, morally reprehensible intervention against the gift of preborn children, God's greatest blessing to mankind.
Ft. Hood Mass Murderer Paralyzed
Nidal Hasan reportedly is paralyzed from the waist down and his hands hurt. I'm generally empathetic towards the disabled, particularly those whom are not responsible for their condition, but I have to admit there is a certain justice to the fact that Major Hasan has to live each day, both mentally and physically, for the rest of his miserable existence on earth with the consequences of his acts of terrorism. He took away sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, or fathers and mothers, lives done too soon, from their heart-broken families and grieving nation.
Political Cartoon
On a day when the Senate is scheduled to vote on debating Harry Reid's move to fund and regulate a hostile government takeover of our free enterprise health care system, Chuck Asay reminds us of groups whom have been co-opted by progressive Democrats. (I do think Chuck has it wrong about the National Right to Life Committee, which strongly opposes Reid's
The little boy was walking down a path and he came across a rattlesnake. The rattlesnake was getting old. He asked, "Please little boy, can you take me to the top of the mountain? I hope to see the sunset one last time before I die." The little boy answered "No Mr. Rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you'll bite me and I'll die." The rattlesnake said, "No, I promise. I won't bite you..."
When he got back down to the bottom of the mountain, he reached in, took out the snake, and the snake bit the young boy...The boy replied to the snake "Hey! You bit me, you said that if I'd help you out, that you wouldn't bite me!" The snake replied "But you knew what I was when you picked me up!""
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Jim Brickman Song
Guest Christian/pop vocalist Michael W. Smith beautifully interprets pianist Jim Brickman's memorable love ballad. Maybe one day I will find the right lady to sing it to...
