Quote of the Day
Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be.
Albert Einstein
ObamaCare: Be Careful of What You Wish For! You Just Might Get It...
Any faithful reader of this blog knows that I love to repeat a famous quote by the Spanish-American philosopher,George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." What did the progressives learn from massive federal expansion and spending during the 1930's? What did the Democrats learn from the mid-term following the Clinton tax hike and the disastrous health care reform debacle?
George W. Bush should have known better than to attempt to make structural changes in social security reform. I am very empathetic to the need for fundamental change; what we have now is little more than a Ponzi scheme run by the federal government, and the Democrats have done little to promote fiscal responsibility, more than willing to let the Republicans play bad cop while they promise more unsustainable benefits and then run against the nefarious, steal-candy-from-a-baby, let-them-eat-cake GOP, whom the Dems claim are "gambling" with senior citizen economic security. What could be a worse gamble than the kicking the can down the road while adding more floors to a house of cards?
But the point is: social security is a sacred cow of American politics. Democrats understand that. But what is astounding is that the Democrats don't have a clue that most American are very happy with their health care providers and intuitively understand that more government meddling isn't the answer.
The Democrats sold their "reform" under accounting gimmicks and misleading statistics; I recently quoted Bill Clinton whom astonishingly talked down the world's best health care system by implying certain statistics about infant mortality and life expectancy were the result of deficient health care or lack of access to health care. Utter rubbish! It was more of an apples and oranges comparison. But there's a hidden agenda behind the smoke and mirrors: it is critical for progressives to argue that the health system is terrible so they can rationalize a progressive government intervention.
Take, for instance, the rationalization of the legislation on behalf of the uninsured, with the inference being that the remaining 15% cannot afford health care on their own. I know of liberal people whom aren't insured by design, because they don't want to pay for the costs of middlemen or to subsidize the costs of older, fatter Americans. Hospitals by law preceding the recent health care bill can't turn away patients for emergency care. In many cases, it's a cost saving move.
The point of this commentary, though, is not to rehash the whole health care debacle again; I've probably written a good dozen to two dozen commentaries on the basic issues. Rather, it's to point out the game playing going on behind the scenes as we now have a six-month anniversary.
Progressives are like 16-year-olds getting their first car; they are confused when people start talking about car repair costs, insurance, gas, tolls, and parking, preventive maintenance (oil changes), etc. They want to point out the freedom of the road, the excellent stereo system, and the car's style. So they want everyone to know because of THEM, you now can carry your slacker mid-twenties' son, that companies can't cut off your insurance because of catastrophic health conditions of your child, and that you qualify for certain "free" preventive health care.
Let's be very clear. Your grown son's health care costs can't be covered by the lost change found in an insurer's couch in the lobby. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I haven't been covered by my folks' health insurance since I graduated high school at 16; talk about moral hazard. The Democrats then get upset when insurers pass along those costs back to their customers in this vicious circle where healthier risks decide to self-insure and drop coverage, leaving only the older, sicker policy holder to cover their own costs. The health care insurance industry and their providers have paid for catastrophic expenses, but their profit margin is thin and they have to control the risk of catastrophic expenses, typically by capping lifetime reimbursements. If the insurance company now is told it's on the hook for much higher lifetime expenses, it has to pass along these costs to its customers. As for "free" mammograms and other medical care: is mammogram technology "free"? Don't doctors and nurses have the right to make a decent living?
It may be surprising to moderates or independents that conservatives are willing to focus on catastrophic costs--by reforming state/regional assigned risk pools. But the idea that you can add the remaining 15% of the country and add new mandates for preventive care and other services, given an already inflationary system with oversubscribed doctors and nurses, and still CUT costs is sheer hubris. We already see this in a number of ways; for example, New Yorkers pay more than twice what Pennsylvanians do for health insurance. Why? High regulations and expensive mandates that go well beyond traditional health insurance.
In the meanwhile, others speculate that progressives are using the price hikes reflecting the health insurers' increased costs to justify expanding beyond Trojan horse ObamaCare to the infamous public option, if not outright nationalization.
US Delegation Walk-Out on Iranian President Ahmadinejad's UN Address: Thumbs UP!
I'm sure that my readers have had to bite their tongues over the expression of my opinions at times. One of the things one must learn to tolerate in a free country is the expression of offensive opinions. People will come up with conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat. Given the fact even some Americans have bought into patently absurd speculations that the 9/11 tragedies were an inside job, should we be surprised that Ahmadinejad has repackaged much of the same?
I went to a website where some of the readers were echoing some of Ahmadinejad's provocative rhetoric. Among other things, one reader referred to the walkout by US diplomats as "childish behavior". I'm thankful that the Obama Administration is beginning to see that there is more to diplomacy than talk and interpersonal dynamics.
Political Humor
"Yesterday, President Obama's aide had to step in and pay more money after Obama only gave a fruit vendor a dollar for four apples. The aide said it was awkward having pay Obama's bill. Then China was like, 'Eh, you get used to it.'" –Jimmy Fallon
[Well, Obama needed one for meeting with the head of the teacher unions. Then promoting the new health care bill, Obama wanted to demonstrate his approach for containing federal health care costs: a three-day waiting period to see a provider. And, of course, he figured since you could buy an apple for a nickel during the Great Depression, an apple today must be worth two bits in the Great Recession. He also told the fruit vendor that he must be among the top 2% fruit vendors in the country, and it's good to spread some fruit around.]
"Well, you know what's interesting, O'Donnell said she dabbled in witchcraft, and her opponent, Democratic candidate Chris Coons, he had no comment. He wanted to comment, but he lost his voice, went blind and came down with boils. It was horrible." –Jay Leno
[Now, Jay: Christine O'Donnell will tell you to be fair, she was not responsible for Coons' going blind. Have you seen the baldie? You know what he is going to do when he can't find a woman...
And you know how Biden was Coons' childhood hero. That "bearded Marxist" college essay? It wasn't really his work; he was just copying from this smart British guy sitting in front of him in class.]
Musical Interlude: The American Songbook Series
Frank Sinatra*, "I've Got the World On a String"
(*My collection has Mel Tormé's interpretation, and I couldn't find a video performance; I trust that the reader will find Frank Sinatra's take an acceptable substitute.)
