Quote of the Day
I don't know the key to success,
but the key to failure is trying to please everyone.
Bill Cosby
ObamaCare: Round Two at SCOTUS
I also have a nutrition blog, and let me frankly say: I like broccoli. It's my favorite low-carb vegetable. I like it raw; I like it steamed; I like it prepared in cheese sauce. I had some today before I heard that Anthony Scalia and John Roberts discussed whether the government could mandate the purchase of broccoli. (I have no doubt the First Lady was all ears on the discussion of this issue.) I can only imagine the shock of George HW Bush, whose dislike for the wonderful crustaceous vegetable is well-documented. I can just hear the former President doing Dana Carvey doing him: "Wouldn't be prudent... Never going to eat it... Not at this juncture." To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall quoting Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say about broccoli, but I will defend to the death your right not to eat it."
I have repeatedly stated that the Democrats overplayed their hand on health care. The more problematic issue is NOT that up to 15% or more of the population doesn't have health care insurance. Just because you have uninsured people doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their ongoing health care expenses: they're just not doing it through a third party. Excluding catastrophic expenses, many people may find that it's a lot cheaper to pay expenses out of pocket than to pay, say, $14,000 a year for coverage. (And, in fact, progressives have resisted the point McCain was making back in 2008: provide equal protection of tax benefits for people not currently in a tax-advantaged employer plan. Either everyone should have tax benefits or nobody. If anything, I would argue against a tax-free basis, since I believe government subsidies have a corrupting influence on the health care market, with dysfunctional side effects, e.g., "free" goods or services.) I think the chickens have come home to roost on government meddling in health care and the recent credit and real estate bubbles; I don't have to tell the reader about the economic tsunami, the result of poor results from the corrupting effect of industrial policy in banking (with public and private sectors both playing roles). The government now has literally dozens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities for senior-citizen benefits--and we have $2-3T of annual revenue to pay for ALL government expenditures.
I have repeatedly addressed the better, more focused basis: catastrophic diseases or conditions, often resulting in medical bankruptcy. (And, surprise, surprise, most of those people have held health insurance, at least at the beginning of treatment.) I've also pointed out that the government could make improved pricing information available (on procedures, prescriptions, etc.). Mark J. Perry in Carpe Diem spotlights a current story where a New Hampshire city and employees shared a portion of cost savings from an elective program offering lower-cost alternative providers to the policyholder's doctor's recommendation.
To hear the Solicitor General dance around the question of what Constitutional limits, if any, to Congressional meddling in the economy, was amusing: he predictably argued that the health care industry was "more equal".
The SCOTUS justices are well-known for liking to swerve observers, by sometimes playing the role of devil's advocate. So one should always temper one's expectations, but I've read a number of news reports which seemed to agree, across the board, that the Solicitor General had a bad day at the office.
I would like to think that the justices realize that the partisan-controlled Congress and President passed a highly unpopular ObamaCare on a strictly partisan basis with corrupt bargaining and kaleidoscope accounting to intentionally dupe the American people, political malpractice and fraud of the highest order. You would hope that the justices realize that the very fact of ObamaCare is a perversion of the spirit and intent of the US Constitution on any reasonable basis.
I will comment on IBAP in a subsequent post (Cato's Michael Cannon has a current podcast on the topic--he has written on IBAP before (most populist conservatives know IBAP by Sarah Palin's nickname for it: death panel)). I need to count to a few thousand before commenting about it; I previously blackboxed the board thinking it might be something like the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I now view IBAP as sort of the Democrats' long-dreaded sequel to the Federal Reserve: if you love how the Fed handled financial crises, just wait until you see what IBAP does to health care....
Cato Institute vs. the Koch Brothers
I made a passing comment in a post on the dispute between the Kansas oil barons and one of the top libertarian think tanks, indicating that I sided with the embattled Cato Institute management; I should also note that one of Cato Institute's founders was Charles Koch. The Koch brothers are looking to become the primary owner of Cato and replace its existing management team. I want to first point out that I am well-aware that the far left has made the Koch brothers their poster boys, and my decision to support current management in its dispute has nothing to do with national politics: it has more to do with the perception of the loss of independence. David Koch has responded elsewhere, but I am not persuaded. (Of course, to many libertarians, I'm not a "real" libertarian and should mind my own business.)
I have to point out that there is a personal side to this story. I have a relative, of all things a closet liberal, whom works at Koch Industries. In the aftermath of 9/11, my Oracle DBA consulting prospects had dried up as the Chicago area lost more white-collar jobs than any other region in the country (particularly after the Arthur Andersen/Enron scandal). If you didn't have a long-term contract (like the major consulting companies), you were in trouble; I think I heard something like 100-200 smaller consulting companies went under.
I was contacted by some recruiter looking to staff this project doing an Oracle ERP upgrade project somewhere in Kansas. (In my experience, most recruiters won't reveal the company's name until the gig is nailed down, probably a defensive effort to ensure that I don't work around them.) I had done a string of relevant upgrade projects and didn't mind (unlike a lot of consultants) traveling to Kansas. It was as close in this business as there is to the gig being a sure thing.
Finally, we were heading down the home stretch, and he revealed the client's name: Koch Industries. I think I was in the process of nailing down travel arrangements when I decided to call my relative and clue him in. We would not be working together on this project (he's an engineer), but I figured that we might meet for lunch on occasion and he probably wanted me over to the house maybe for a weekend or two (rather than my flying home). Far from being happy for me, my relative was alarmed, rambling about some nepotism policy at the company. That seemed irrelevant, because there had been no interim contact with my relative, whom was totally unfamiliar with my work history and I would have been working in the IT division. I had absolutely no interest in post-project employment with Koch Industries or living in Kansas, and the topic had not even been raised by my recruiter. I saw it as a win-win: I needed a gig, and Koch would get the best Apps DBA consultant in the business at a bargain rate.
And then everything went absolutely dead. The recruiter failed to acknowledge any further contact (probably for legal reasons). I was left scrambling to cancel travel arrangements without even the benefit of a form letter rejection. Years later the relative called me up, wanting to let me know that Koch Industries had finally revised their nepotism policy. (Yeah, no problem with brothers running a company together--it's other employee relatives that the Koch brothers were concerned about.) I politely suggested to my relative that the Koch brothers should do something anatomically impossible. I would rather mop floors for a living than work for the Koch brothers. They could offer me a multi-million dollar contract to serve as a Cato Institute board member, and I would tell them to go visit UBL.
Back off, Koch brothers. Any attempt to takeover Cato Institute will be a pyrrhic victory. I will immediately take Cato Institute off my blogroll if the Koch brothers succeed and will follow the current management if they start a separate institute. (I doubt my blogroll results in a material impact on visitors to the websites, but the move would be more symbolic in nature.) This has nothing to do with the past, or the brothers' personal disagreements with Cato Institute management.
NPR/Peter Overby, "Koch Brothers Move To Control Cato Institute"