In shallow holes moles make fools of dragons
Proverb
Image of the Day
Obama and Health Insurance Is "Complicated"
I subscribe to Bill O'Reilly's talking points memo podcast, and yesterday guest host Laura Ingraham gave the following analysis on Obama's latest fumbled attempt to rationalize and/or excused his Administration's botched handling of the exchanges and the individual policy market in several states in chaos, with large percentages of current insured finding their policies cancelled:
"As Congress debated today whether to proceed legislatively to help the millions of Americans who have had their insurance policies canceled, I was thinking about one of the points the President kept making at his press conference Thursday, when he said, 'This is very complicated.' Yes, it is complicated, sir, but are you just realizing that now? Imagine if the President was as committed to governing and administering these programs as he has been to campaigning! He might have known that they didn't have the right team or technology in place to carry out this grandiose mission of health care reform. The President has apparently learned another important fact during the past four-and-a-half years, that government bureaucracies don't work very well. What a revelation! That was one of the main reasons Republicans were against Obamacare - most of them understood that once the Washington bureaucracy started to implement the law there would be terrible unintended consequences like policy cancellations, premium hikes, and doctor shortages. Of course, when Republicans made these arguments they were called 'obstructionists' and 'Tea Party fanatics.' A serious president would have taken the time to objectively examine Republican concerns about such a massive undertaking. A serious president would have done the due diligence and asked the right questions. A serious president would not see this current mess as a political problem to be managed, he'd see it as a national crisis."I don't necessarily disagree with Ingraham's take on the politics of the matter. But I think Obama's discussion of complexity is more subtle than an excuse for Administrative incompetency, worthy of Ingraham's scornful "duh" response. I think in an odd way he is trying to use the moment to express confidence in government "experts" to resolve the issues, and expect him to argue the "real" issue is "market failure" in the private-sector insurance sector, that it takes more than 4 years to resolve problems spanning over decades. Don't forget that they justified this on the nonsense that the public sector has a "superior" business model, to control and/or alleviate sector inflationary cost pressures. The idea is that government bureaucrats are "selfless", not motivated by the "corrupting" profit motive, that individual healthcare policies are scams under state regulation, a cancellation waiting to happen (which explains why we buy auto insurance through our employers rather than individually). (I'm being sarcastic, of course.)
In other words, don't underestimate Obama's ability to sell this mess not as a bug, but a feature. And if and when the website is as functional as your everyday Internet portal, expect Obama to heavily promote the improvements as evidence of government's ability to fix problems in the sector. Yes, healthcare may be "complicated" but government "experts" have the know-how to fix it. Never mind the chronic practical issues still plaguing Medicare and Medicaid....
As the Golden Anniversary of JFK's Murder Approaches
Some retrospectives are already appearing in print; I have had my differences with the Libertarian Republican blog, which among other things is a little too neo-con, immigration restrictive, focused on Muslim radicals and/or politically oriented for my tastes. However, just like I keep tabs on what Bill O'Reilly is saying, I'll sometimes filter through posts on the blog. One of the bloggers took exception to a Sabato op-ed (not cited there, but I believe it's here), particularly on foreign policy. (I actually like the op-ed; Sabato shows that JFK was more nuanced and fiscally conscious than today's strident "progressives", both in domestic and foreign policy: JFK pushed back on suggestions of an American invasion of Cuba, and he was fond of pilot programs versus full-fledged programs. Of course, to paraphrase the late Texas senator Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton and Obama were no JFK. Certainly Bobby and Ted were far more "progressive" in their politics. However, no matter how moderate JFK was in his progressivism, he did not share the natural skepticism of the classical liberal to government meddling (this comment is more directed to the nostalgic/revisionist discussion I found on the comment page):
Some people in this post are in a state of denial over the abysmal JFK administration. I, of course, regret his murder, and I think that people have largely given JFK a pass because of the tragedy. But as for being classically liberal, free markets, etc., let's get real: JFK was all in when it came to government intervention in domestic and foreign policy. His "New Frontier" was a blueprint for government meddling, expanding the State. Even his "supply side" economics (which in particular involved shaving the top rate from roughly 90% to 70%, modest compared to Harding/Coolidge) was more about try to coax more government revenue to cover mounting government expenditures. A true free market leader wants to starve the beast, not feed it.Facebook Corner
Just a preliminary note here. The Laissez Faire Capitalism group moderators love to stir the pot. It gets to the point that some commentators have suggested that the group must be fronted by anarcho-socialists. I have no desire to promote "progressive" trolls in my blog; I know, of course, a lot of people disagree with me. I think I would, of course, be honored if I had a huge following, if authors or professors I've read or respected quoted or cited my work, but I don't write with the expectation of external validation. As a professor or IT consultant, I rarely had line authority to compel others to act; I've had to rely on my powers of persuasion. And even when I've had the authority, I've generally not used it. Just to give an example. On the first day of taking the tech lead role on an Oakland ERP project, the IT manager had a brief meeting with me. If I had any issues with his staff, let him know, and he would take care of the problem. (I understood the politics: if the project failed, he didn't want the vendor pointing fingers at him or his staff.) But I never had to take him up on his offer nor use it as a trump card in dealing with his staff; in fact, the city DBA and I were good friends, and for years after I left the Oakland project (I had been commuting from Chicago over a period of several months, and Oracle started to phase in more local consultants as a cost-cutting move), the city DBA served as a reference. The IT manager was gracious, too; on my last day, he called a meeting with his staff and praised my efforts, saying that I was the rare consultant whose efforts the city felt that they had gotten their money's worth...
Below you will find my response to a Rothbard quote about how easy it is to be compassionate when you're spending other people's money; I agreed, pointing out morally hazardous aspects to the social welfare net and suggesting the hypocritical, judgmental nature of "progressives". It must have gotten under the skin of a progressive troll, who responded with a personal attack and an attack on the upper 1%, whom he insisted were the "real" parasites on society. I've really had my fill of left-wing nut jobs preaching zero-sum politics, ranting over crony capitalists, spinning their conspiracy theories, attacking Citizens United. Most of us right-libertarians have been talking about starving the government beast, simplifying tax policies and regulations, many of which are the result of special-interest influences. I am not a millionaire and have never made a penny, directly or indirectly, from this blog. I'm not hawking a book or any other merchandise. I don't think I know or have met anyone in the upper 1%. The difference is that I am not envious of the success of Gates or Buffett; they have earned their success--and not due to corrupt relationships in DC; they provided goods and services benefiting customers, employees and investors. Would I love to enjoy their type of success? Yes. At their expense? No. I didn't earn it.
When I wrote the response below, I also wrote as a Catholic; we recognize 3 theological virtues: faith, hope, and (the greatest) charity (Christian love). But we don't compel virtuous acts, and it is not the job of government to intervene in human affairs (beyond protecting the unalienable rights of the individual). Other institutions, in particular, religion, facilitate moral development. Christians are also taught not to stand in judgment of others. Oddly, I was accused of being judgmental and patronizing. In fact, I did not say or imply anything about people receiving short-term assistance, e.g., after a natural disaster or facing a medical emergency (although I would prefer these efforts be done in the private sector). But who makes the rules over the nature and extent of assistance and how it's funded? I maintain that it is handled more humanely, better, fast, and cheaper in the private sector.
 |
| Ron Paul via LFC |
 |
| Via LFC |
Agreed. I'm just surprised Paul as a medical doctor didn't use the analogy of amputation (vs. bandages) to deal with bureaucratic gangrene in government. We need to stop the measured trimming of the barber around the edges; it's time for a buzz cut.
 |
| Via LFC |
As a former professor (with 3 advanced degrees), I agree. I saw it in my students. To give a simple example, I once gave an assignment designed to come up with a simple application for a practical problem of personal relevance. For example, one of my farming students automated immunization schedules for his animals. You would not believe how many students came to me begging to be assigned a specific project specification. I always felt that students had an unrealistic expectation of what their MIS/other degree means in the real world; for example, you often have to cope with changing technology, incomplete specifications, poor documentation, and office politics; you have to cope with impossible deadlines and have to be articulate in persuading others to your point of view. College really doesn't prepare you for that.
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via LFC |
(Via LFC) If in free-market capitalism, knowing realistically that the rest of the world wouldn't suddenly adopt, how do we keep a fully operating national defense?
We would still have a national defense, but it would be at a lower cost (assuming limited threats of invasion from Canada and Mexico ). We certainly wouldn't have to outspend the next 10 largest countries combined or insert ourselves in the middle of other global region politics. As for how this could be done, we would probably see some sort of privatization.
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie and Townhall |
It looks as though the problem of spurious hits against older posts has been alleviated; there are still questionable cases where, say, something I wrote 2 years ago suddenly gets as many, if not more pageviews than fresher posts; it's always possible someone stumbles across an old post on an Internet search and spreads word by mouth. It's a matter of judgment; if the post reflects an analysis, say, of a then upcoming election, it's questionable. For the most part, I'll filter out older posts, although I reserve the right of discretion. It's difficult to know why some posts are more popular than others; I remember a couple of years back I did a photo captioning bit on a less-than-thrilled young girl at an Obama appearance which seemed to be popular. So in my new Facebook corner bit there have been a few captioning bits, one of them asking for song titles fitting Obama in my leading post; so that could the reason, although I did have a decent critique of GOP talking points on healthcare in the post. ("Progressives" love squabbles among conservatives/ libertarians.) I am pleasantly surprised to see my one-off essay on my emerging minarchist views has attracted viewers.
- Miscellany: 10/29/13
- Miscellany: 10/19/13
- Miscellany: 10/18/13
- My Emerging Political Views and Minarchism
- Miscellany: 10/20/13
Debby Boone, "You Light Up My Life". This love song is a pop masterpiece: a soaring, sweeping arrangement sung from the heart from the fresh-faced girl next door, which topped the top of the charts for a record 10 weeks; I think I initially heard a riveting lip-synced snippet of the song in a relevant Didi Conn film promotion at the time, but the beauty of the song goes beyond the stirring chorus.
