Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow.
The shadow is what we think of it;
the tree is the real thing.
Abraham Lincoln
Only in America: Living People are Dead,
And Dead People Vote
My New Bad Judge of the Year Nominee
From the Gray Lady:
In fact, Mr. Miller, 61, had simply drifted away to work in Georgia and Florida, he told the judge on Monday in Findlay, Ohio. Now, he said, he wanted to apply for a driver’s license and needed to reactivate his Social Security number.
The judge noted that Ohio law does not allow a declaration of death to be reversed after three years or more have passed.
“I don’t know where that leaves you, but you’re still deceased as far as the law is concerned,” Judge Davis told Mr. Miller during the 30-minute hearing, according to The Courier, a newspaper in Findlay.Apparently Ohio is the State of Denial. Somehow correcting a false declaration of death is NOT in the interest of justice? I am intrigued by how he managed to work in Georgia and Florida without using his social security number... Why does he suddenly need it now?
Sunday Talk Soup and ObamaCare
I'm getting sick and tired of unchecked disingenuous talking points in favor of ObamaCare; I'm principally referring to recent episodes of Meet the Press in particular. (I haven't listened to other podcasts yet.)
First, there's the response to the point that individual healthcare plans are being cancelled (because the ObamaCare programs need healthy and/or younger policyholders in the same risk pool with older or sicker people--meaning they are being forced to subsidize the costs of other policyholders, not just their own): the advocates are arguing that the reason that individual plans are being canceled is because they had no real standards or benefits (but ObamaCare does). That's, at minimum, misleading, if not outright false. Each state regulates health insurance, and many reputable insurers (like Blue Cross) participate in the individual plan market. It's true that they may be forced to pay for benefits that they don't want or need, but they are mostly paying more to subsidize other people because of guaranteed issue and community rating.
Second, they are trying to sell ObamaCare because it protects against catastrophic health costs. A PWC study showed almost half the insured have policies without lifetime caps, many state regulators require multi-million dollar caps and it only costs a nominal amount (like $3-10/month) to significant raise caps--because there are so few people experiencing lifetime expenses, say, in the tens of millions. (I would like to see more information on this: since the government is not reinsuring the nearly half, the private sector must be; if that's the case, why would they need competition from the government? Assuming the incidents of catastrophic care patients are evenly distributed, the majority of these cases occur in the already insured population.)
Third, there was discussion of "freeloaders" among the uninsured. I really don't like the fact Romney had raised this topic. The studies I've seen show that the uninsured use health services on a less frequent basis and pay around 40% of their own costs overall, and another 10-20% is picked up by charity, not the government. And many of the uninsured cannot afford insurance. Moreover, if the well-to-do are skipping out on their bills, why not simply reform collection services? I've also seen or heard some discussions that the amount of leakage in the healthcare industry is not out of line compare to what we see to cover theft, spoilage and related expenses in other industries.
Facebook Corner
(via LFC) How does the free-market protect us from predatory pricing? One large firm undersells their product to FORCE out ALL competition, then once all the other firms have been forced out because they can't compete with such low costs, said large firm raises prices to "recoup" their losses and can drive the price up even further and charge as much as they want. Especially if it is a vital good, like medicine, electricity, Ice Cream, etc....
Even a dominant supplier is not immune to the law of supply and demand. If and when it raises prices, it finds fewer buyers. It is not unusual for companies to cut prices to increase market share and/or promote brand awareness, but if the company doesn't have a competitive cost advantage, it's not sustainable. John D. Rockefeller drove down the price of kerosene 80% over his career and did so profitably. It's a win-win situation; why does the consumer care if Rockefeller became rich in the pursuit of letting them stretch their dollars? But fat profits lure competition. Most dominant companies relentlessly drive down costs and prices, innovate, etc.
LFC published a pro-environmentalist image justifying regulations.
Actually, transparency is a far better deterrent, if and when polluters violate the health or property of others, they can be held accountable. In dealing with tragedy of the commons, we should consider privatization solutions. A major problem with regulations is declining marginal benefits, and these dubious, arbitrary costs are passed along to consumers and adversely affect economic growth.
LFC presented a link to a Bloomberg op-ed "Libertarians Are the New Communists"
Wow, I'm really "shocked" that Statist propagandists would join in the partisan bashing of the handful of pro-liberty politicians on Capitol Hill. After all, these straw men have NOT managed to scale back trillions in spending and unfunded liabilities, roll back unsustainable public policy failures like ObamaCare, halted the erosion of civil liberties, get us out of the Middle East and Gulf Region, even managed to audit the Fed (never mind end it)... That these "progressive" apologists are smearing people adhering to the principles of the Founding Fathers is unfortunately entirely predictable.
LFC: Re: "Dead" Man Donald E. Miller (see Bad Judge above)
Maybe he should move to Chicago; dead people vote there all the time...
 |
| Via LFC |
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
Meat Loaf, "Not a Dry Eye in the House"
