It is often overlooked that we have 3 branches of government. The Legislative branch makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces the laws and the Judicial branch interprets the laws. These days, the Supreme Court seems to live in another place, rarely viewed as an equal player in the game.
However, there have been many historical examples of the Supreme Court striking down laws as unconstitutional, nullifying the work of the other two branches. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison gave us the first case of the Court overturning an act of Congress. Over the couple of centuries since, there has been an ebb and flow to the prominence of the court in the lives of the citizens, but there has always been a sense that these 9 jurors are the final arbiters in great matters.
The genius of the Founders can be found sprinkled everywhere in the Constitution, but no more so than in Article 3: The Judiciary. If the Founders believed in Democracy and the power of the people to determine their fates, why allow a group of nine unelected, permanent justices to strike down the work of Congress? A law that was signed by the President? Did they create a king by committee?
They created a defense mechanism. The Founders believed that individuals possess certain inalienable rights and these were not open for modification based on a brief period of popular sentiment. If, for some reason, the people elected a Congress and a President that brought about a violation of basic human rights, the Supreme Court is there to restore liberty. The fact that they are not electable or directly influenced by the people gives them an opportunity for more reflection and a view of the longer term.
It is the job of the Judiciary to rule, without emotion, whether a law is in accordance with or contrary to the Constitution. Their job is not to rule on whether or not they like a law or think it would be nice to have. As Justice Scalia once said, "I have a pretty simple job and I have nothing to negotiate." He simply weighs an issue based on the Constitution and court precedent and makes a ruling. No constituents, no lobbyists, no special interests.
The Founders also gave us a mechanism for over-ruling the Supreme Court: we can amend the Constitution, as has been done 27 times. This rationally requires an enormous amount of effort and popular support, not done on a whim based on an election cycle or two.
Which brings us to today's topic: Obama v. Roberts. The recently passed health care law is rightly being challenged in lower courts based on its constitutionality. The argument goes like this:
The Constitution gave the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In that list of powers, the only one that could possibly permit this health care law is the Commerce Clause, which establishes that the federal government has a right to regulate commerce among the states. Now, a law requiring someone (who is presumably doing nothing and is therefore not engaging in commerce across state lines) to purchase health insurance is at a minimum stretching the Constitution and at most clearly in defiance. What exactly is the federal government regulating?
On that topic, I really don't understand how anyone can, in good faith, conclude that the health care law is constitutional. If the federal government can compel someone to stop doing nothing and to purchase health insurance, then the federal government can do anything and our traditional system of government is null and void. You may love the new health care law and you may really want it to be implemented, but you have to at least acknowledge that it flies in the face of our Constitution and the intent of the Founders.
Also on that note, President Obama is probably the most intelligent person to occupy the White House in decades. He was a professor of Constitutional Law. He knows very well the points I've made and, for some reason, he doesn't care. He knows that the right way to implement his vision of health care is through a Constitutional amendment and not in a rash moment of voter frustration with the previous administration. He, however, knows that the pubic greatly disapproves of universal health care and probably concludes that the ends justify the means. This is among the reasons that I am disgusted with our current President.
So sometime soon, in some fashion, the new law will make its way in front of Chief Justice John Roberts' court and will need to stand up to 221 years of Constitutional Law. This will be the biggest decision by the Court in memory. It will either fundamentally change the nature of our Republic or it will confirm the wisdom of the Founders.
I, for one, will be paying close attention.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
What's Right is Right
Recently Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chair, said that the war in Afghanistan was of "Obama's choosing" and "probably a lost cause". He derided the President for not studying history, because if he had, he would know that you don't engage in a land war in Afghanistan ... everyone who has tried has lost.
If Michael Steele does not resign, he should be fired. And if the Republicans let this stand, then they no longer occupy the high ground on principled foreign policy. This is outrageous.
After spending 8 years (rightly) denouncing Democrats for speaking this way about Iraq and Afghanistan, they cannot tolerate such behavior from their own party. Move swiftly and make an example out of Michael Steele.
Republicans should be rallying behind President Obama and the mission in Afghanistan. He is managing the war as he sees fit ... in other words, doing his job. Make suggestions on strategy or tactics. Recommend fewer or additional or different troops. Offer ideas on how we might do better. At least publicly, show a unified front.
But the last thing a government or party leader should do is call the war lost or say that we should not be fighting it. This is what Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Frank, Murtha and Dean did endlessly and to the detriment of the war efforts (many after voting for the wars in the first place). The result was an encouraged enemy, lower morale among the troops and allies who saw America wobbling. In other words, the Democrats knowingly did harm in exchange for remaining popular among their ever shifting base.
If a government or party leader wants to condemn a war effort and try to end it, do so privately behind the scenes or resign your position ... then live on a cable news network.
Republicans claim that they're more principled than Democrats on foreign policy, that they are true patriots.
Prove it.
Quickly.
If Michael Steele does not resign, he should be fired. And if the Republicans let this stand, then they no longer occupy the high ground on principled foreign policy. This is outrageous.
After spending 8 years (rightly) denouncing Democrats for speaking this way about Iraq and Afghanistan, they cannot tolerate such behavior from their own party. Move swiftly and make an example out of Michael Steele.
Republicans should be rallying behind President Obama and the mission in Afghanistan. He is managing the war as he sees fit ... in other words, doing his job. Make suggestions on strategy or tactics. Recommend fewer or additional or different troops. Offer ideas on how we might do better. At least publicly, show a unified front.
But the last thing a government or party leader should do is call the war lost or say that we should not be fighting it. This is what Obama, Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Frank, Murtha and Dean did endlessly and to the detriment of the war efforts (many after voting for the wars in the first place). The result was an encouraged enemy, lower morale among the troops and allies who saw America wobbling. In other words, the Democrats knowingly did harm in exchange for remaining popular among their ever shifting base.
If a government or party leader wants to condemn a war effort and try to end it, do so privately behind the scenes or resign your position ... then live on a cable news network.
Republicans claim that they're more principled than Democrats on foreign policy, that they are true patriots.
Prove it.
Quickly.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Nice Work, If You Can Get It
Barney Frank is the hero and, along with Chris Dodd, has his name on the title of the recent Financial Reform bill making its way through Congress. He has been getting high praise from liberals for his victory over greed and wall street interests.
That's like rebuilding the World Trade Center and calling it the Mohammad Atta Towers.
He took big money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the summer of 2008 he said the following:
OK, maybe Barney's not a bad guy (he is) and maybe he didn't have a conflict of interests (he did) and maybe he was unaware that Fannie and Freddie were artificially inflating the housing market (he wasn't). Maybe he just made a few mistakes.
OK - we all make mistakes. But where I come from, you get fired for this sort of thing and your reputation tends to suffer. You're not lauded with praise for closing the barn door after the cash cow is gone.
Obviously I don't come from Washington DC.
Or Boston.
That's like rebuilding the World Trade Center and calling it the Mohammad Atta Towers.
He took big money in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the summer of 2008 he said the following:
I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.Since 2003 he has been the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee and became its chair in 2008. In response to the Bush Administration's concern that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, he said:
"These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."And roundly blocked any attempt by the Bush administration to reduce Fannie and Freddie's contributions to the housing bubble (Bush wanted what the executive branch normally has, oversight and enforcement of the law, instead of Congress both establishing and overseeing these entities).
OK, maybe Barney's not a bad guy (he is) and maybe he didn't have a conflict of interests (he did) and maybe he was unaware that Fannie and Freddie were artificially inflating the housing market (he wasn't). Maybe he just made a few mistakes.
OK - we all make mistakes. But where I come from, you get fired for this sort of thing and your reputation tends to suffer. You're not lauded with praise for closing the barn door after the cash cow is gone.
Obviously I don't come from Washington DC.
Or Boston.
Friday, April 30, 2010
The Golden Goose
Most everyone owns a cell phone, but few people know what happens inside ... that there are millions of transistors working hard to handle your phone calls, web browsing, text messages, pictures, songs and every other app. People take it for granted that it "just works" and they really have no reason to peek behind the curtain. This is as it should be.
There is a part of our economy that most people don't understand: venture capital. We see companies like Google, Intel, Ebay, Apple, Amazon, Dell, Amgen and Cisco (just to name a very few) and generally have no idea what made them possible. The mechanisms for bringing together ideas, people and capital into the right situation are a complete mystery to all but very few.
But Venture Capitalists might be the most important players in our lives, enabling (or having enabled) almost all the recent technological advancement we see around us. And, up until recently, the US had a near monopoly on VCs and their investment vehicles. Nonetheless, we still are the epicenter, with approximately 75% of worldwide venture based capital existing in the US. But, that number is shrinking.
VC backed firms accounted for almost 90% of US job growth in 2008. That year, these firms contributed $2.9 trillion dollars to our economy*. And these are not generally low paying jobs.
Unfortunately, unlike the cell phone, people's ignorance of this critical process can be dangerous, especially when politicians are unfamiliar with the golden goose of VC investing.
George W. Bush was the first MBA president, but I saw little evidence of it. He held back quality immigrants that are the lifeblood of young tech firms. He allowed Sarbanes-Oxley to greatly reduce the likelihood of a start-up going public (exit strategies are key to attracting capital). He allowed tariffs, entitlements and a rising debt to reduce the amount of capital available to entrepreneurs.
Sadly, Barack Obama is arguably worse. I think Bush at least understood the basics of wealth creation, but Obama has never even participated in the private sector. Never had to make a payroll. Never had to raise capital. Never had to focus on a market. Never had to navigate the enormous red tape and government bureaucracy and go to the expense of hiring lawyers and CPAs to help. It's safe to say that in any room of business people, Obama is the least qualified.
And it shows. Noticeably absent from the stimulus package was any significant private sector infusion. Actually, the private sector would have preferred not to have a stimulus package and to simply either reduce taxes or just keep the enormous debt from getting any larger. I've already outlined in an earlier blog how I feel the Health Care legislation is unfriendly to small and growing businesses. And the rhetoric coming from the White House is hardly friendly to any capitalist, let alone the venture variety.
I'm certain that many liberals have good intentions, but they have no idea how their tinkering threatens the engine of growth that gives them the resources with which to do their tinkering. I know very few liberals who have actually seen the birth of wealth first hand, which is probably why they see it as a zero sum game, with benevolence derived from redistributing it.
Watching liberals try to manage the economy is like watching a surgeon open up a cell phone to improve reception. The physician is smart, educated, well intentioned and dedicated, but the most likely outcome is a broken phone. Don't mess with the Goose.
* Source: National Venture Capital Association
There is a part of our economy that most people don't understand: venture capital. We see companies like Google, Intel, Ebay, Apple, Amazon, Dell, Amgen and Cisco (just to name a very few) and generally have no idea what made them possible. The mechanisms for bringing together ideas, people and capital into the right situation are a complete mystery to all but very few.
But Venture Capitalists might be the most important players in our lives, enabling (or having enabled) almost all the recent technological advancement we see around us. And, up until recently, the US had a near monopoly on VCs and their investment vehicles. Nonetheless, we still are the epicenter, with approximately 75% of worldwide venture based capital existing in the US. But, that number is shrinking.
VC backed firms accounted for almost 90% of US job growth in 2008. That year, these firms contributed $2.9 trillion dollars to our economy*. And these are not generally low paying jobs.
Unfortunately, unlike the cell phone, people's ignorance of this critical process can be dangerous, especially when politicians are unfamiliar with the golden goose of VC investing.
George W. Bush was the first MBA president, but I saw little evidence of it. He held back quality immigrants that are the lifeblood of young tech firms. He allowed Sarbanes-Oxley to greatly reduce the likelihood of a start-up going public (exit strategies are key to attracting capital). He allowed tariffs, entitlements and a rising debt to reduce the amount of capital available to entrepreneurs.
Sadly, Barack Obama is arguably worse. I think Bush at least understood the basics of wealth creation, but Obama has never even participated in the private sector. Never had to make a payroll. Never had to raise capital. Never had to focus on a market. Never had to navigate the enormous red tape and government bureaucracy and go to the expense of hiring lawyers and CPAs to help. It's safe to say that in any room of business people, Obama is the least qualified.
And it shows. Noticeably absent from the stimulus package was any significant private sector infusion. Actually, the private sector would have preferred not to have a stimulus package and to simply either reduce taxes or just keep the enormous debt from getting any larger. I've already outlined in an earlier blog how I feel the Health Care legislation is unfriendly to small and growing businesses. And the rhetoric coming from the White House is hardly friendly to any capitalist, let alone the venture variety.
I'm certain that many liberals have good intentions, but they have no idea how their tinkering threatens the engine of growth that gives them the resources with which to do their tinkering. I know very few liberals who have actually seen the birth of wealth first hand, which is probably why they see it as a zero sum game, with benevolence derived from redistributing it.
Watching liberals try to manage the economy is like watching a surgeon open up a cell phone to improve reception. The physician is smart, educated, well intentioned and dedicated, but the most likely outcome is a broken phone. Don't mess with the Goose.
* Source: National Venture Capital Association
Monday, April 19, 2010
That Credibility Thing
Iran is a threat to the middle east, Israel, the world economy and to its own (mostly) innocent people. The Iran government has been rushing to build a nuclear weapon for the last few years and is finally within sight of their prize. In response, the Obama administration is "getting tough". On the list of possibilities are more sanctions and, as a last resort, military engagement.
If your reaction to this is "yea, right", then this article will make sense to you.
As was discussed in an earlier blog, the left gave away any chance to be taken seriously on this topic during the Iraq war. They gave up and headed for the safe ground of opposing anything Bush did or said. The Iraq war was costlier (in terms of lives, money and good will) than anyone predicted, so the left could look smart in opposition (and their constituents did them the favor of not noticing that most of them had voted for the war in the first place). And oppose, they did. At every turn and opportunity, without hesitation.
(As an aside, isn't it nice not to have Iraq to worry about? If things continue on this trajectory, within a generation Iraq could be a shining example of peace and prosperity in a troubled region. It could take the path of Japan after WWII and again contribute to the greater good.)
But the true cost of the left's immature and short sighted behavior is just becoming evident. When an opponent negotiator does not believe you will use your last resort, they will not believe or accept any of the ultimatums that come before it. Sure, Obama can probably get some tougher sanctions through the UN, but what do Iran's leaders care? They run a totalitarian regime with very little threat of a revolution. Under sanctions, the people will suffer, but not the leaders.
Also, remember that we have no "smoking gun" or hard evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it's all speculation. Would the Democrats ever allow CIA intelligence and bluster from the enemy to be a sufficient cause for a preemptive strike? No chance, not after the words that came out of their mouth after Iraq became difficult. Wouldn't they look foolish(er)?
Ideally, the left would have remained committed to winning the Iraq war and the west could have then turned its gaze to Iran - with the desired effect. Now, Obama lacks the fear factor and, whether he would actually use the military preemptively or not, the Iranian leadership believes their path to nuclear statehood is unobstructed.
I have heard a couple of commentators question the west's right to deny Iran a nuclear weapon: "Who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?" This statement boggles the mind. Iran's leadership supports terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. They deny basic human rights to their people. It's like saying convicted criminals deserve weapons just as much as the police.
A free, democratic Iran with a track record of being a good citizen of the world? Sure, they can have a nuclear arsenal without me writing a blog article about them. Today's Iran? Are you kidding?
Obama and the left have painted themselves into a corner. The irony is that their lack of credibility makes military conflict much more likely. If the threats don't work, it's all that's left.
If your reaction to this is "yea, right", then this article will make sense to you.
As was discussed in an earlier blog, the left gave away any chance to be taken seriously on this topic during the Iraq war. They gave up and headed for the safe ground of opposing anything Bush did or said. The Iraq war was costlier (in terms of lives, money and good will) than anyone predicted, so the left could look smart in opposition (and their constituents did them the favor of not noticing that most of them had voted for the war in the first place). And oppose, they did. At every turn and opportunity, without hesitation.
(As an aside, isn't it nice not to have Iraq to worry about? If things continue on this trajectory, within a generation Iraq could be a shining example of peace and prosperity in a troubled region. It could take the path of Japan after WWII and again contribute to the greater good.)
But the true cost of the left's immature and short sighted behavior is just becoming evident. When an opponent negotiator does not believe you will use your last resort, they will not believe or accept any of the ultimatums that come before it. Sure, Obama can probably get some tougher sanctions through the UN, but what do Iran's leaders care? They run a totalitarian regime with very little threat of a revolution. Under sanctions, the people will suffer, but not the leaders.
Also, remember that we have no "smoking gun" or hard evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; it's all speculation. Would the Democrats ever allow CIA intelligence and bluster from the enemy to be a sufficient cause for a preemptive strike? No chance, not after the words that came out of their mouth after Iraq became difficult. Wouldn't they look foolish(er)?
Ideally, the left would have remained committed to winning the Iraq war and the west could have then turned its gaze to Iran - with the desired effect. Now, Obama lacks the fear factor and, whether he would actually use the military preemptively or not, the Iranian leadership believes their path to nuclear statehood is unobstructed.
I have heard a couple of commentators question the west's right to deny Iran a nuclear weapon: "Who are we to decide who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn't?" This statement boggles the mind. Iran's leadership supports terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza. They deny basic human rights to their people. It's like saying convicted criminals deserve weapons just as much as the police.
A free, democratic Iran with a track record of being a good citizen of the world? Sure, they can have a nuclear arsenal without me writing a blog article about them. Today's Iran? Are you kidding?
Obama and the left have painted themselves into a corner. The irony is that their lack of credibility makes military conflict much more likely. If the threats don't work, it's all that's left.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Cuba and the Left
Many is the liberal that I've heard talk in glowing terms about the health care system in Cuba. The fact that communist countries often force their citizens to sacrifice many things in order to optimize a few should be no surprise to anyone. The fact that we still debate the merits of this is bewildering.
The US has recently taken half a step toward communizing (socializing? nationalizing?) health care, largely based on the argument that our capitalist system has failed. While this is a lie (see previous article), enough people bought it. Some talked about how "health care is too important to leave to the free market". Really?
What about food?
Food is just as or more important than health care, right? Is food too important to leave to the free market? The good news is we have a largely free and capitalist system of food production, delivery and distribution. The government does a little to ensure safety, but by and large it is capitalism's invisible hand that puts dinner on our tables.
It would be ridiculous for someone to say we need to nationalize the food system. Think about it. 99% of the people of the US have access to way more food than they need and the bottom 1% are well handled by charities. Very, very few people in our country starve. Competition among food growers has created amazingly high yields. Customers like organic foods, so it has become a large market. Innovation at the grocery store has reduced costs and have given us a myriad of choices on every aisle. You can practically eat a meal with the free samples.
Imagine Howard Dean on CNN screaming "We can't count on the greedy supermarket chains to deliver quality products! Millions will go hungry! Yeeaeaaaaaa!"
I mean, I think people would consider that ridiculous. I admit the possibility exists that I'm wrong.
Let's compare this to Cuba, the left's shining example. Their farms are horribly inefficient and provide only about 20% of the country's food needs. Supermarkets go for weeks without basic supplies such as bread or milk. Raul Castro has "reformed" things a bit ... farmers are now allowed to buy their own shovels and boots without having to wait for them to be handed out. But, not their pesticides or fertilizers. Can't push this liberty thing too far lest the state lose control. Must of last year's tomato crop rotted because government trucks failed to collect them on time. Food rationing is part of Cuban life.*
Maybe it would be instructive for liberals to spend some time in Cuba. Many that I know enjoy going to trendy restaurants and traveling to exotic destinations (conveniently forgetting about global warming for a few days). Perhaps it would be enlightening to see a place where opening a restaurant is illegal and it is forbidden for most citizens to leave the country.
Sadly, our health care system was not capitalist enough to be sufficiently successful. So, liberals said that capitalism was to blame and made it less so.
Yes, we can probably give government-run health care to everyone and even make it decent quality (for a while). But at what price?
* much of this data came from The Economist, March 27 edition.
The US has recently taken half a step toward communizing (socializing? nationalizing?) health care, largely based on the argument that our capitalist system has failed. While this is a lie (see previous article), enough people bought it. Some talked about how "health care is too important to leave to the free market". Really?
What about food?
Food is just as or more important than health care, right? Is food too important to leave to the free market? The good news is we have a largely free and capitalist system of food production, delivery and distribution. The government does a little to ensure safety, but by and large it is capitalism's invisible hand that puts dinner on our tables.
It would be ridiculous for someone to say we need to nationalize the food system. Think about it. 99% of the people of the US have access to way more food than they need and the bottom 1% are well handled by charities. Very, very few people in our country starve. Competition among food growers has created amazingly high yields. Customers like organic foods, so it has become a large market. Innovation at the grocery store has reduced costs and have given us a myriad of choices on every aisle. You can practically eat a meal with the free samples.
Imagine Howard Dean on CNN screaming "We can't count on the greedy supermarket chains to deliver quality products! Millions will go hungry! Yeeaeaaaaaa!"
I mean, I think people would consider that ridiculous. I admit the possibility exists that I'm wrong.
Let's compare this to Cuba, the left's shining example. Their farms are horribly inefficient and provide only about 20% of the country's food needs. Supermarkets go for weeks without basic supplies such as bread or milk. Raul Castro has "reformed" things a bit ... farmers are now allowed to buy their own shovels and boots without having to wait for them to be handed out. But, not their pesticides or fertilizers. Can't push this liberty thing too far lest the state lose control. Must of last year's tomato crop rotted because government trucks failed to collect them on time. Food rationing is part of Cuban life.*
Maybe it would be instructive for liberals to spend some time in Cuba. Many that I know enjoy going to trendy restaurants and traveling to exotic destinations (conveniently forgetting about global warming for a few days). Perhaps it would be enlightening to see a place where opening a restaurant is illegal and it is forbidden for most citizens to leave the country.
Sadly, our health care system was not capitalist enough to be sufficiently successful. So, liberals said that capitalism was to blame and made it less so.
Yes, we can probably give government-run health care to everyone and even make it decent quality (for a while). But at what price?
* much of this data came from The Economist, March 27 edition.
Halfway Across the Bridge
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
I've not read the new health care law in its entirety. I don't know all the effects it will have on our country. But, I've read excerpts and I have some educated guesses:
- Because young people, who are generally healthy, will now be required to purchase health insurance*, their premiums will be unfairly high because the insurance companies will need to pay for their new customers with pre-existing conditions and the elderly. Young people will voice their unhappiness and government will subsidise, thus raising the cost to the taxpayer.
- Because companies will be required to provide health insurance if they grow bigger than 50 employees, they will actively try to remain at 49 for as long as possible. This could involve splitting into 2 companies and growing independently. Tension will arise as the government tries to punish these companies and costly legal proceedings will further reduce the efficiency of our economy while the growth of small businesses is slowed.
- Because large companies are now required to cover all employees, they will become less profitable and will either lay off employees to compensate or they will have less money to invest in growth. Either way, the US economy will take a hit.
- Because companies want to avoid adding costlier employees (or want to stay at 49 employees), temp agencies will see a rise in demand. This will create an unnaturally large population of people without job security, working day to day or project to project. This will further dampen economic growth as these people hesitate to make long term investments, like buying a house.
- The large number of citizens with newly minted insurance will overwhelm the health infrastructure. Previously, these people were given care after they became sick (in ERs or free clinics). Now, they will have access to preventative care, optional procedures and regular check-ups. This will both increase the cost of health care in the US as a percentage of GDP and will also bring about some form of rationing. Not death panels, but rationing.
- Once the new health care law has been in effect for some time (2-5 years), like any government intrusion into a market, people will become disgruntled with the service and costs will skyrocket. Health care will go from 15% of GDP to 20% to 25%.
Left leaning politicians will then play the next card ... nationalization of health care. They will proclaim that capitalism has again failed (!) and the country will dutifully cross the rest of the bridge.
Bottom line: this plan is unsustainable and I am convinced that is by design. The left knows that the demonization of capitalism is almost complete and that society has an inexplicable tendency to attenuate its own freedoms. They will need to break health care before they can, in their minds, fix it and realize their dream of a single payer, government run system.
Obamacare is not a tool, it's a weapon.
* Insurance is no longer the right word. Since the insurance companies are no longer permitted to evaluate risk and exclude people, we now have a shared health care pool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)