Sticks in a bundle are unbreakable.
African proverb
No Sale
CBS reporter Major Garrett (HT Libertarian Republic) points out (1) the White House was well aware that a very large percentage of individual health policies would be cancelled, while at the time he was promoting that people could keep their existing health coverage, and (2) the White House was actually aware that the infamous website had serious issues a week out from going live. Obama's response is mostly focused on the second question: effectively, do you think I'm stupid? I was out promoting the website; obviously I didn't know about the problems.
I have zero patience for this pathetic response. I am not going to pretend I know Barry's schedule (although he seems to find the time to play a lot of golf and go on vacations), but this is his signature "accomplishment". It's a matter of due diligence, basic management: I would have asking about testing of the system, because I would know, if the launch was botched, the political opposition would seize on it. It's just a matter of getting one's ducks in a row; I don't think I've ever been in a go-live where managers weren't nervous all through the process; I recall when I did an upgrade project for a Wisconsin county, they actually pushed for an extra week of testing (I was ready to go on schedule); of course, the project was a fixed-bid, which meant extra costs for my agency because they had to staff through the extra week (the managers were hoping for a Phase 2 project award). Now obviously Sebelius gets most of the blame, and at minimum it was her responsibility to alert Obama of problems. If Obama has surrounded himself with yes men, he's an even worse manager than I thought. You have to have people around you whom are frank enough to tell you the good, bad, and the ugly. You cannot be caught flatfooted with hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions, losing more affordable health coverage and finding ObamaCare coverage costly many thousands more--or with an amateurish launch.
I'm nauseated by reports that Obama is seeking to once again resort to administrative fiat vs. a legislative compromise to deal with the cancellation problem (which seems similar in nature to the year's grace for businesses to get in line). The talking point is that these policies were grandfathered--unless they changed in significant ways. (It's easy to see how having a government mandate might result in less competitive pricing, but let's be honest: the reason why many individual policies have had lower premiums is because they were aimed at better health risks--the same people ObamaCare desperately needs to balance out subsidized health risks caused by guaranteed issue and community rating policies.) I haven't read the details to know the specifics of the cancellations, but it's likely that the rules and regulations made the grandfathered policies unsustainable given predictable inevitable policy modifications. I tried to do a limited Google search on the issue and stumbled across this PBS interview with Kaiser's Mary Agnes Carey, whom was essentially providing a pro-ObamaCare perspective, even to the point of arguing political compromise with the GOP was a lost cause. Keep in mind we are already paying for the half or so of uninsured costs not covered by them or charities, the costs of people filing for bankruptcy, so I see a lot of the financial arguments made by "progressives" as essentially bogus. A big point is that the uninsured use less services than the insured population, without necessarily worse health outcomes--if and when the uninsured get insured, they escalate use of health services, exacerbating sector costs. I hate the fact they are trying to posture these gold-plated policies as catastrophic policies; they could have emulated mechanisms like used in some state risk pools, e.g., a modest surcharge on overall insurance premiums where those with higher risk pay somewhat higher premiums than say an average risk, you might have to pay a higher premium if you've been without insurance for the first several months, etc. Another point you also see raised is the fact that many companies are self-insuring and using insurance companies not for underwriting but to handle paperwork, and reinsuring against higher than expected costs. This is not being made available to individuals. I could go longer on this rant, but I think I've made my point.
Facebook Corner
(LFC). "Laissez Faire Capitalism Vs Anarchy. Its been a very popular subject lately especially around the anonymous movement. Is it incomparable? Since anarchy is a style of society that still uses free market principles. Or is there a difference im not grasping?"
There's a difference between camps. Bastiat, the free-market economist, opposed "Property is theft" Proudhon. Anarcho-capitalists argue that everything, including functions normally reserved to government monopoly, should be subject to competition. The concept of government divorced from meddling in the economy does not necessarily imply the illegitimacy of government, which is the disagreement between AnCaps and minarchists.
 |
| Via LFC |
LFC: Caption this:
Dante's Inferno.
(LFC). Explain Rothbard "Then there is a second important fact to realize. If, other things being equal, the supply of money (in the broader sense) increases or decreases and thus brings about a general tendency for prices to rise or to drop, a positive or negative price premium would have to appear and to raise or lower the gross rate of market interest. But if such changes in the money relation affect first the loan market, they bring about just the opposite changes in the configuration of the gross market rates of interest. While a positive or negative price premium would be required to adjust the market rates of interest to the changes in the money relation, gross interest rates are in fact dropping or rising. This is the second reason why the instrumentality of the price premium cannot entirely eliminate the repercussions of cash-induced changes in the money relation upon the content of contracts concerning deferred payments. Its operation begins too late, it lags behind the changes in purchasing power, as has been shown above. Now we see that under certain circumstances the forces that push in the opposite direction manifest themselves sooner on the market than an adequate price premium."
I believe that he is saying that there is a difference in short term vs. long-term effects of increasing the money supply (or decreasing it). For example, we would expect, all things being equal, that interest rates should climb to reflect the loss of purchasing power through inflation. But in the short term, a surplus of money can drive down, say, interest rates (or increase bond prices). Furthermore, people may be flatfooted and not adjust adequately if and when inflation subsequently surges through the economy.
 |
| Via LFC |
Don't forget: capitalism is all about the consumer. The poor are consumers, too. Whether we are talking cheap textiles from Asia or inexpensive food, the poor are better off when they can stretch their limited resources. JD Rockefeller became wealthy driving down the cost of kerosene nearly 80%. Who cares if the Walton clan is wealthy, if Walmart brings lower everyday prices to everyone? They make money on volume...
 |
| LMAO: Via LFC |
The Libertarian Republic has a piece about Congressional Dems putting Obama on notice if he doesn't fix health care in 3 days, they may actually negotiate with the GOP, perish the thought!
Wow, the very idea--the Democrats may actually engage in a bipartisan measure with the GOP on healthcare? The only good thing is for once they actually understand their seats are at risk over the Democratic Party Unaffordable Healthcare Law...
The Libertarian Republic published a piece on whether we should be free to sell our bone marrow.
My understanding is that typically less than 5% of a donor's bone marrow is used and it regenerates within 4 to 6 weeks. As long as the donor is in good health, the transaction is voluntary and compensation attracts donations, I don't see any justification for the state to intervene in the matter.
Laissez Faire Capitalism isnt what most people think it is. It is voluntary exchange between consenting parties. It is NOT bailouts, corporate welfare, or special treatment for big business.
I regard the crony capitalism charge a total distortion of commerce in general, a deliberate smear. The idea is if you enjoy any success, you "stole" it via state force. I think that's why Cherokee Lizzie and Barry are pushing the "you didn't build that" nonsense. In fact, we often see corporations on different sides of issues. Take, for instance, the domestic sugar industry, which has enjoyed protected status since the start of the republic. The food industry is a big sugar consumer and would benefit from lower world prices--and advocates sugar reform. We can also point out that corporations are deluged with $1.8T in regulations and the highest tax bracket among the developed economies--how is this indicative of cronyism? I'm not in a state of denial that it does happen, but it is exaggerated out of context.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Steve Breen and Townhall |
Meat Loaf (with Marion Raven), "It's All Coming Back to Me Now". I love Céline's version of this Steinman classic (Céline will be covered later in this series); I remember blaring it out my car windows at night when I briefly lived in the St. Louis area in the mid-1990's. But there is something magical about the combination of Meat Loaf and Steinman. I didn't know the background story that Steinman originally intended the song for a female vocalist and actually blocked Meat Loaf from recording it; eventually relenting. Meat Loaf had tentatively scheduled it for the third volume of his signature Bat Out of Hell series, when, to his chagrin, Dion grabbed the song and hit #2 on the Hot 100. The Meat Loaf version, released several years later, did chart on some European charts, and I ripped the song for my iPod after buying Bat III.
