Great is the road I climb,
but the garland offered by an easier effort
is not worth the gathering.
Sextus Propertius
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
How many emergencies have resorted in government empire-building and/or an economy-crippling regulatory orgy? Just consider the aftermaths of 9/11 and the economic tsunami....
 |
| Courtesy of LFC |
Image of the Day
 |
| Courtesy of Illinois Policy Institute on FB |
 |
| Courtesy of Citizens Against Government Waste on FB |
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Courtesy of Jeffrey Tucker on FB |
- The Wall Street Journal (HT Reason) is reporting that the White House demo of the controversial ObamaCare website was nothing more than a static series of screenshots mock-ups. I just ranted over the weekend over how I was not impressed by the fact that HHS Secretary Sebelius had not checked the live website beyond creating a user account (because she didn't really need to buy insurance--that's not an acceptable excuse for failing to do QC (quality control) on the application before it ever went live; I would terminate a project manager for cause for doing the same). Reason suggests mock-ups are a typical industry practice and making an analogy that it would be like a auto company executive mistaking a prototype without a car engine in it. I would go further than it; it would be like an auto executive not even taking a car on a test drive before shipping the first production run to dealerships.
- I was annoyed by a Florida insurance provider on Sunday talk soup whom was basically shilling for ObamaCare; there was a discussion about how many policies had recently been cancelled. Not to worry--customers would be provided ObamaCare-compliant alternatives. The problem? State-compliant policies didn't have all the ObamaCare benefit mandates. When he was asked whether the new policy alternatives would be costlier, he sidestepped the discussion, pointing out people may be eligible for federal subsidies. Let's answer that directly: yes, there's no such thing as a "free mandate"; if the mandates were really free, they would already be in the policies. Crony Big Insurance in its corrupt bargain with Big Government, doing its part.
- In fact, even progressive California's state standards don't meet the core ObamaCare standards. This is from the LA Times:
Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc...Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month...Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law." She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said. HMO giant Kaiser Permanente is canceling coverage for about half of its individual customers, or 160,000 people, and offering to automatically enroll them in the most comparable health plan available. The 16 million Californians who get health insurance through their employers aren't affected. Neither are individuals who have "grandfathered" policies bought before March 2010, when the healthcare law was enacted....many are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul...Cavallaro received her cancellation notice from Anthem Blue Cross this month. The company said a comparable Bronze plan would cost her 65% more, or $484 a month. "I just won't have health insurance because I can't pay this increase," she said. Most Americans are required to have health coverage starting next year or pay a fine of $95 per adult or 1% of their income, whichever is greater.
- White House press secretary Carney conceded the obvious: that some people will have their policies cancelled because their plans don't meet ObamaCare's policy mandates. [It also seems about wanting to force better health risks into the risk pool to balance the costs of poor health enrollments.]
- Whereas the White House has been endlessly plugging guaranteed issue and community rating goals (i.e., the pre-existing conditions hype), it and the press have been less than diligent in revealing actual state experimentation with those policies. LFB points out how the individual policy market in New York went from 752K in 1994 to 34K 15 years later--and those remaining policyholders were paying among the highest rates in the nation, over double California's.
(via LFC) what is statism? i assumed it would have to do with people who want more state indepence for their state, im getting the impression that thats not the case from your post, in as few words as possible could you tell me what these people represent
No, I think you were initially referring to the principle of federalism; Statism has more to do with the primacy of government vs. the individual; this can occur at any level of government (in our system, local, state or federal). In our system, the state (vs. the State) can also trample on individual rights (e.g., various restrictions like occupational licensing, eminent domain, etc.)
(via LFC) This is a little off topic of LFC, but I'd like to address what Libertarian Girl asked: "Can Conservatives and Libertarians Get Along?"
When conservatives conflate the idea of the state and their traditional values then no. But if they stick to what being a "conservative" more precisely means: the care and love for family, liberty and a pursuit of happiness -- then yes. Libertarians and conservatives can get along very well.
The divide, in my humble opinion, is "conservatives" all too often confuse this idea of being "patriotic" or having loyalty to this traditional political system as essential criteria for being "conservative". It would seem the ethics they have righteously been taught and understand to nurture humanity -- these social norms -- this moral code -- they traditionally live by goes by the wayside as soon as politics enter into the question.
But, I think most agree "conservatism", in this context, is much easier agreed to. Those conservative ideas are ones worth holding on to. At the very least, it can be said history has proven the conservative lifestyle and ethos a successful one. This is something too few people take time to recognize, I think.
Indeed, from my experiences, most people are conservative by nature; even the vast majority of "democratic liberals".
Being "conservative" is not a political position or a political alliance. It doesn't mean Republican or "Constitutionalist". It means you love your neighbor as you would want him to love you. It would certainly help 'the cause' if those that lived by that simple general code could also apply it to their political philosophy.
I'm a fusion libertarian-conservative. Whereas descriptions may differ, we tend to focus on negative liberties (freedom of interference from others), non-intervention on economic and international policy and limited constitutional governance based on Western cultural values (like religious pluralism, the rule of law, etc.) We respect traditional institutions, like marriage, family, the church and community (often buffering against the State) and social/cultural norms (the virtues, Judaic-Christian values, etc.) To a certain extent, we also see local or state governance as a buffer/check on the central/federal government.
(SIS) references a Chris Cantwell post entitled "Is the NSA Spying on Barack Obama?" Cantwell quotes The (Devious) One, saying "The national security operations, generally, have one purpose and that is to make sure the American people are safe and that I’m making good decisions."
Obama making "good decisions"? LMAO. In what alternate universe? Spying on international leaders, like Merkel? What could possibly he be spying on that doesn't involve internationally meddling, which by definition is a bad idea..
(SIS) posted an image of a famous Mencken quote declaring all government evil and attempts to reform it futile. I want to excerpt part of a related thread:
IMPROVE it by reducing it...I've seen that video... I am not an anarchist; I think there is a legitimate need for MINIMAL government, especially at the federal level....
(moderator) That's fine... you can THINK whatever you want... you just don't have a right to force your ideal government on others. You have no right to infringe on other people's property and body, and to trap them to monopolies. You can believe in outright totalitarianism if you want... you just don't have a right to impose it on others.
Oh, my! Is the anarchist imposing his rules on others? The issue is not just interference by the State but any group that defines away your rights. I understand you in theory want security privatized--but arguing against reformers trying to narrow government is counterproductive, and I don't find Mencken virtuous for surrendering to the State.
minarchy is a utopia. as long as some government exists, there will always be people in it that want MORE scope and it WILL expand.
Minarchy did exist in the US, even in an imperfect form--look at the federal budget and stability of the currency before 1913. Do we underestimate the resistance to change and an intractable, self-preserving bureaucracy? Of course not. But if you want to speak of utopia, anarchy is the first in line.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel via Patriot Post |
Michael Martin Murphy, "What's Forever For"
