In every person who comes near
you look for what is good and strong;
honor that;
try to imitate it,
and your faults will drop off like dead leaves when their time comes.
John Ruskin
A Look at a Few State Ballot Measures
I saw on Drudge Report that America's Big Nanny, busybody billionaire Michael Bloomberg has given a large donation to the anti-tradition pro-Question 6 in Maryland; I am conceptually sympathetic to lesbian professor Merkus' concerns about tyranny of the majority, but first marriage is not like sorting socks: equating gender with incidental characteristics like race is totally disingenuous: family has at its core marriage and procreation, and procreation is biologically rooted in functional gender differences. I don't discuss my friends and family in this blog, but I personally know a number of interracial.or inter-ethnic couples--including married with children. In many states, traditional marriage was overturned by judicial or legislative fiat, which Merkus hypocritically doesn't have a problem with--an alternative type of tyranny--and state constitutions provide the only mechanism to remedy these abuses.
I haven't seen any vote-no on question 6 ads, but the latest heavily promoted Pro-6 ad features a sellout black preacher trying to rephrase it as pro-religious liberty and trying to recast the intellectually vacuous argument (used by Catholics-in-name-only politicians (mostly Democrats) to rationalize permitting the moral abomination of abortion) about imposing religious values on others--are prohibitions against murder and theft similarly impositions of Judaic-Christian values? The scientific facts of conception don't depend on adherence to any religious doctrine. There are pro-life atheists and traditional marriage has flourished across cultures for non-religious reasons (e.g., social stability, lineage, inheritance, etc.)
A couple of notes about intolerance and incivility of the anti-traditionalists--in the video below you see examples of egg pelting, rude gestures, and threats of wanting to run over traditionalists with their cars. Just as worrisome is the morally bankrupt suspension of a diversity head at Gallaudet University, that beacon of freedom of expression and academic freedom, for signing a Maryland petition resulting in question 6.
On Question 7 which expands crony Big Gaming, there's a perverse state protectionist argument going on how gambling Marylanders are spending their money in neighboring states, that the reason they're not gambling more in Maryland is not enough casinos and board games. (It's bad enough Marylanders are gambling on Democratic politicians with their tax money.)
Finally, in the People's Republic of California, this blog opposes tax-and-spend Proposition 30 and supports proposition 32, a union reform measure, among other things giving union members more control over deductions used to promote anti-taxpayer political agendas. Daniel DiSalvo of Manhattan Institute has outlined how unions have gamed the proposition system in California to make it all but ungovernable (HT Brian Calle).
On the Medicare Kerfuffle
Part of the problem when we discuss health care is prices: for example in 2009 I could swear I was my doctor's ATM as I went through a series of blood tests to set dosage for treating my hypothyroidism. My then insurance company sent me paperwork on the lab tests, which showed each test was listed at something like $125-150, but they paid something like $25.
I talked to a female relative on Medicare and she was in a state of denial about some of the statistics e.g., Medicare below market price reimbursements; in part, Obama has handed out misleading, if not outright false propaganda about private sector cost structures. government overhead is grossly understated (doesn't include government program employee costs. private companies must pay taxes, they have to underwrite and collect, etc. and there are apples to oranges comparisons ("the Heritage Foundation found that in the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year" "So how can Democrats claim that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance? They look at statistics comparing administrative costs as a percentage of total claims paid out (and not on a per beneficiary basis)." , i.e., this is an artifact of the nature and extent of expensive end-of-life care)
As Tanner points out:
Let's try to put the ongoing debate over the future of Medicare into a little bit of context. Last year, Americans paid $274 billion in Medicare taxes and premiums. At the same time, the program paid out $564 billion in benefits. That amounts to a shortfall of roughly $290 billion. Looking into the future, even the most optimistic estimate by the program's trustees puts Medicare's future unfunded liabilities at more than $38.6 trillion. More realistic projections suggest the shortfall could easily top $90 trillion.Here again the President engages in misleading used car salesman legalese/fine print:
First, the president claims that he is not actually cutting benefits for beneficiaries. That is technically true in that most of the cuts are reductions in payments to providers. But it is ridiculous to assume that cutting payments to doctors and hospital will have no impact on seniors. In fact, Medicare's own actuaries estimate that the cuts could force as many as 15 percent of hospitals to close. Similarly, at a time when physicians are already complaining that Medicare reimburses at a rate less than actual costs, additional reimbursement cuts will force many doctors out of practice or at least cause many to stop accepting Medicare patients. Seniors may still have their full Medicare benefits. They just won't be able to find a doctor who will take them.Here Tanner talks about disingenuous Dem double-counting:
The president also claims that his cuts have "extended the life of the Medicare trust fund by eight years." Again, technically true. But extending the life of the Trust Fund is not the same thing as extending the life of Medicare.
Any savings that the president does achieve would indeed be routed through the Medicare Trust Fund, where they would be used to purchase special-issue Treasury bonds. As an accounting measure, having more bonds means the Trust Fund will last longer. In the meantime, however, the government is counting on the revenue from the original purchase of the bonds to pay for the cost of the new health care legislation. Thus, it is using any savings from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, while pretending it is available to pay for future Medicare benefits. As Medicare's chief actuary points out, "In practice, the improved [Medicare] financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions."The point is--if and when these bonds are cashed where is the money coming from--a government surplus? And what do you think happens to ObamaCare subsidies when there is no Medicare surplus/cost savings?
Okay you can stop laughing now: save it for when you actually see Obama's name on the ballot next month
Goodman below is really talking about a mix of catastrophic health care and health savings accounts (funding out of pocket costs, including preventive care):
My Greatest Hits: Oct. 2012
- Miscellany: 9/03/12 Happy Capital & Labor Day
- Miscellany: 10/23/10
- Miscellany: 9/10/12
- Why a Pro-Liberty Conservative Supports Romney
- Miscellany: 10/08/12
The Four Tops. "Something About You"
