Who are these people that go to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get their driver's license renewed and say "Oh yea, that's how I want my doctor visit to be."?
Or someone who has the pleasure of dealing with the IRS and concludes "Yep, I want to go through that to get my pacemaker approved."?
The pat objection to today's health care system is that it's too "profit driven" and not "caring" enough. Capitalism doesn't work for medicine (as if the reformers approve of capitalism anywhere else). Well, being "profit driven" can be accused of a lot of things, but failing to reduce costs is not one of them. And Amtrak is not profit driven . . . exactly how "caring" would you say it is?
The truth is, today's health care system is not capitalist (meaning, it is not a free market). This is true for at least 3 reasons:
1) The American Medical Association (AMA) controls the quantity and type of physicians that exist on the supply side of the market. They have successfully directed legislation to the point that it is illegal to establish a competitive entity. It's like creating a legal monopoly that controls the number of grocery stores . . . think how expensive your food would be.
This fact also limits the types of physicians out there. Today it is illegal for someone to open a wart removal clinic without going through the AMA required process of education and certification, becoming at least a general physician. You can't just go to a 2 year school to learn all about warts and how to remove them and then open an office. Those against free markets say that a highly educated doctor should do it because it might be skin cancer or some other serious condition. But, you can go to the drug store and buy a wart removal product that freezes them off. I doubt the checkout boy at the Walgreens is an expert in melanoma. As always, the perfect is the enemy of the good. A lot of people could be served by an array of low cost health practitioners, but the government, driven by the AMA, won't let it happen.
2) Health benefits from your employer are not taxed like regular income. This has created a culture of special treatment of benefits that raise costs. For example, does it really make sense for your health insurance provider to pay for your annual checkup? This is like your auto insurance company paying for your oil change. Sure, it sounds great, but why do I need to pay someone to pay my bill for me? It just raises cost. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so that perk of not having to pay for your oil change would only raise your auto insurance rate and lighten your wallet more than if you had just paid it yourself.
Treating health benefits like regular income would, among other things, have the effect of returning insurance to its proper place . . . as insurance. Just like home, life, auto, fire, flood, theft and locust insurance, it only kicks in when something bad happens. Otherwise, you pay out of your pocket to get through life. Watch how costs go down and how you think twice about going to the family doctor for a simple cough or sore throat if it's coming out of your pocket.
3) Malpractice suits are unpredictable (hence, unacceptable) sources of risk for physicians, therefore enormous amounts of wasted resources are spent to avoid putting one's career in the hands on 12 jurors, each of which sees a doctor as insensitive, overpaid and too tan. The amount of money taken out of the health care system and put in the hands of trial lawyers, insurance salesmen, accountants and, of course, harmed patients is staggering. Beyond belief staggering.
A government that allows such a system to persist must be one run by trial lawyers. Contract law is perfectly capable of handling any eventualities that may result when a human doctor treats a human patient. Simply put a price on whatever may occur in advance, in writing and make it part of what motivates you choose one doctor over another. If one doctor will pay you $2 million dollars if he accidentally misdiagnoses your heart condition and another will pay you $4 million, maybe the second doctor has a little more confidence in his skills. Or maybe the first doctor's fees are lower because he's not running every test under the sun. In any case, you now have information you can use to choose your doctor.
(Note: Doctors having different business models and for folks to choose their physician based on such things is distasteful to some people. I respect that. OK, no I don't. Grow up.)
So, instead of letting capitalism do what it's always done (maximizing efficiency and innovation) we're going to put the government in charge of our health care system, undoubtedly dooming us with what it has always done (maximizing bureaucracy and stagnation).
This brings us to a troublesome reality in the health care debate: it's not about health care. The motivation for these reformers is not to improve the system or to make it more efficient. The real goal, as is their goal in so many things, is to tear down the rich vs poor class structure. Everyone should get the same . . . fill in the blank: health care, education, housing, retirement, food, car, vacation, wardrobe, cell phone . . . the list is all encompassing. It's a classic socialist dogma that no man deserves a better life than another, despite how hard he worked or the risks he took. Anyone who lives well is doing so at the expense of another and should therefore not be allowed to do so.
(Challenge to the reformers reading this: Be honest, in your heart of hearts, this is your deepest motivation, isn't it? Take a minute and tell the truth.)
Ending these blogs on a positive note these days is difficult. Look around and it's clear the direction we're headed. But, at least your doctor and the DMV can use the same eye chart equipment. That'll save some money, right?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Talkin Bout My Generation
If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, would we have entered World War II? In both hemispheres? Would we have had the resolve to see it through? Or would we have watched from the safety and comfort of home while good people suffered at the hands of some of the most evil characters the world has ever known?
I like to think the Greatest Generation would have jumped into the fight anyway, for both our strategic interests and in defense of the innocent. History certainly would have been different, but in the end evil would have been defeated.
But after WWII, for some reason, we started to doubt ourselves. The peace-at-all-costs crowd gained influence over media and education (especially at the university level), making it more difficult to rally the nation around any cause that involves the military. Yes, in July of 1953 the fighting in Korea stopped and a line was drawn. No winner, no loser, just peace. But look at what became of the North and South since then, perfectly illustrating the true nature of collectivist versus individualist ideologies. I would like to ask the anti-Korean War protesters of the time: Was it worth it? Have 50 years of intense suffering by the North Korean people been preferable to steeling our resolve and winning the war?
And if Korea showed the slippage of our national pride, we hit rock bottom in Vietnam. Like Korea, we were there for a reason: to stop the spread of an evil ideology and to defend innocent people from its effects. But by this point the question "War, what is it good for?" had no one to answer. It was just too cool and a sign of enlightenment to denounce any war, for whatever cause.
But again, we watched the results unfold. Yes, we brought our boys home from the war, but we also condemned millions to death and misery in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in yet another stark example of what transpires in the absence of American influence. I wonder if Jane Fonda ever thinks about those poor people . . . she certainly is never asked about them during her "Larry King Live" appearances.
Over the last few years, we have seen this pattern continue to play out. After 9/11, we briefly regained our desire to assert American values in the shakier parts of the world. Afghanistan was obvious . . . go get the guys who attacked us. And at first, invading Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was well supported here at home. The naysayers were a small minority, especially when Saddam's statue came down so quickly.
But then things got difficult . . . a hard slog. Mistakes were made and the mission wasn't quite accomplished. Good men and women died and it was heart wrenching to watch. This is when public sentiment started to turn, led by some of the most opportunistic and shallow politicians the world has ever known . . . almost all from the Democratic Party. What happened during those long months when victory was not assured, when the path forward looked worse than the path back, when the only reason to keep going was a belief in core principles of our nation?
Character was revealed.
A philosophical rot has taken hold at our core. How many people do you know that were supportive or OK with the war at first and then jumped ship a year or two down the road? Take note of these people and be reminded not to rely on them for anything important. They will let you down. Again.
Fortunately President Bush did not waver and ensured Iraq was won before he left office. But, the price we will pay thanks to the wobbly left is impotence against Iran. This is an evil regime, on the road to becoming dangerous. If we, as a nation, had stayed committed to winning in Iraq and now turned our attention to Iran, we may have been able to gain influence without further military action. Now, there seems to be only one path: a nuclear armed Iran and a foolish hope they won't use it. They will.
It's no longer in style to believe that America is great, that our values are fundamentally noble. Apologies are in vogue. Bowing to monarchs that have no respect for individual rights and shaking hands with socialists who condemn America . . . Presidents used to not do these things.
Sometimes fighting for what you believe in requires actual fighting. There are people who want to tear down what we value. Embracing them will not change that. Do we really have to continuously learn that the hard way?
(PS - 20-April-2009, on the 2 year anniversary of Harry Reid's declaration: ''...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything ...")
I like to think the Greatest Generation would have jumped into the fight anyway, for both our strategic interests and in defense of the innocent. History certainly would have been different, but in the end evil would have been defeated.
But after WWII, for some reason, we started to doubt ourselves. The peace-at-all-costs crowd gained influence over media and education (especially at the university level), making it more difficult to rally the nation around any cause that involves the military. Yes, in July of 1953 the fighting in Korea stopped and a line was drawn. No winner, no loser, just peace. But look at what became of the North and South since then, perfectly illustrating the true nature of collectivist versus individualist ideologies. I would like to ask the anti-Korean War protesters of the time: Was it worth it? Have 50 years of intense suffering by the North Korean people been preferable to steeling our resolve and winning the war?
And if Korea showed the slippage of our national pride, we hit rock bottom in Vietnam. Like Korea, we were there for a reason: to stop the spread of an evil ideology and to defend innocent people from its effects. But by this point the question "War, what is it good for?" had no one to answer. It was just too cool and a sign of enlightenment to denounce any war, for whatever cause.
But again, we watched the results unfold. Yes, we brought our boys home from the war, but we also condemned millions to death and misery in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam in yet another stark example of what transpires in the absence of American influence. I wonder if Jane Fonda ever thinks about those poor people . . . she certainly is never asked about them during her "Larry King Live" appearances.
Over the last few years, we have seen this pattern continue to play out. After 9/11, we briefly regained our desire to assert American values in the shakier parts of the world. Afghanistan was obvious . . . go get the guys who attacked us. And at first, invading Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was well supported here at home. The naysayers were a small minority, especially when Saddam's statue came down so quickly.
But then things got difficult . . . a hard slog. Mistakes were made and the mission wasn't quite accomplished. Good men and women died and it was heart wrenching to watch. This is when public sentiment started to turn, led by some of the most opportunistic and shallow politicians the world has ever known . . . almost all from the Democratic Party. What happened during those long months when victory was not assured, when the path forward looked worse than the path back, when the only reason to keep going was a belief in core principles of our nation?
Character was revealed.
A philosophical rot has taken hold at our core. How many people do you know that were supportive or OK with the war at first and then jumped ship a year or two down the road? Take note of these people and be reminded not to rely on them for anything important. They will let you down. Again.
Fortunately President Bush did not waver and ensured Iraq was won before he left office. But, the price we will pay thanks to the wobbly left is impotence against Iran. This is an evil regime, on the road to becoming dangerous. If we, as a nation, had stayed committed to winning in Iraq and now turned our attention to Iran, we may have been able to gain influence without further military action. Now, there seems to be only one path: a nuclear armed Iran and a foolish hope they won't use it. They will.
It's no longer in style to believe that America is great, that our values are fundamentally noble. Apologies are in vogue. Bowing to monarchs that have no respect for individual rights and shaking hands with socialists who condemn America . . . Presidents used to not do these things.
Sometimes fighting for what you believe in requires actual fighting. There are people who want to tear down what we value. Embracing them will not change that. Do we really have to continuously learn that the hard way?
(PS - 20-April-2009, on the 2 year anniversary of Harry Reid's declaration: ''...this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything ...")
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Why Republicans Stink
In Mel Gibson's Braveheart, when William Wallace realizes he's been betrayed by the Bruce clan, it's a moment of surrender. If this is a lie, then what else? We know that the Progressives have lost all sense of our country's values and ideals . . . that's built into our view of the world. But the real downer is when Jefferson and Madison roll over in their grave . . . because of the Republican party.
Many conservatives are reluctant to Bush-bash, primarily because he kept the country safe from terrorists after 9/11 and because he was against abortion. Being pro-choice myself, I only share half their appreciation. But, I do not want to minimize the passion and dedication he gave to the fight against our enemies. I hope it goes down in history as the great accomplishment that it was.
George Bush likes to paint himself as a man of principal, one unmoved by political temptations. The first hint of this lie came in March 2002, while Bush still enjoyed the hearts and minds of the American public. After 9/11, we desperately wanted him to be great. But instead came a temptation too great: some rust belt swing state votes were needed for the upcoming Congressional election. So, a temporary steel tariff was enacted to protect a few jobs . . . without regard for the damage caused to American users of steel (no explanation of this is needed for free marketeers . . . I've lost the progressives here).
No Child Left Behind actually preceded the Steel Tariffs, but slipped under most conservatives' radar. Raising standards sounded like a good idea, but in hindsight (and this is always the case . . . which is why a conservative is a conservative) the rule of unintended consequences turns a good idea into one to regret. A true conservative would have abolished the Department of Education on the federal level, returned enormous amounts of money to the states and let them find the best solutions locally (any remaining progressives have just jumped ship).
These early worrisome notes to file became a thick anti-conservative dossier in the coming years. Farm subsidies, immigration (both open borders and the reluctance to issue H-1B visas to eager, talented foreign workers), Terry Schiavo, the failure to rally the world around removing Saddam Hussein, stem cells, Medicare Part D (prescription drug subsidies), automotive and bank bailouts . . . the list is long. And each example shows George Bush's disregard (disdain?) for the most basic conservative principal: government should stay out of people's lives except when necessary to defend liberty and freedom.
But, this rant is not about George Bush, it's about Republicans. Because during the first 6 years of his presidency, Republicans controlled congress and either led or followed the White House on every issue. Bush's first veto came 5 years into his presidency, and only then to keep down stem cell research. The strategy was "compassionate conservatism", an attempt to steal the Democrat's central message: that they're the party that cares. This would keep Republicans on top for a generation.
The result is the failure of Republicans on both fronts: they neither remained conservative nor retained power. But another, and more disastrous, failure is just starting to reveal itself.
Why do conservatives resist expansion of government power so universally, so consistently? Because we hate the poor? We're racist? (Welcome back, progressives.) We want to keep all the money for ourselves? We're cold-hearted?
Don't expand government power, no matter how tempting, no matter how noble the cause, because you have no idea who might inherit that power and how they might use it. We won't always have smart, wise, benevolent leaders (don't say it). This was part of the genius of our founders, part of why we've become the greatest country in history. It is very difficult to expand government thanks both to the text of the constitution and to the conservative nature of the citizens. Live free or die.
It seems to me that the constitution has been sufficiently weakened and the people sufficiently misled that 200 years of conservatism is currently in mid-flight out the window. Barack Obama inherited a down economy and a weakened constitution. He has more power than any President in our history and the Republicans gave it to him on a silver platter. What will this stranger do with it?
Many conservatives are reluctant to Bush-bash, primarily because he kept the country safe from terrorists after 9/11 and because he was against abortion. Being pro-choice myself, I only share half their appreciation. But, I do not want to minimize the passion and dedication he gave to the fight against our enemies. I hope it goes down in history as the great accomplishment that it was.
George Bush likes to paint himself as a man of principal, one unmoved by political temptations. The first hint of this lie came in March 2002, while Bush still enjoyed the hearts and minds of the American public. After 9/11, we desperately wanted him to be great. But instead came a temptation too great: some rust belt swing state votes were needed for the upcoming Congressional election. So, a temporary steel tariff was enacted to protect a few jobs . . . without regard for the damage caused to American users of steel (no explanation of this is needed for free marketeers . . . I've lost the progressives here).
No Child Left Behind actually preceded the Steel Tariffs, but slipped under most conservatives' radar. Raising standards sounded like a good idea, but in hindsight (and this is always the case . . . which is why a conservative is a conservative) the rule of unintended consequences turns a good idea into one to regret. A true conservative would have abolished the Department of Education on the federal level, returned enormous amounts of money to the states and let them find the best solutions locally (any remaining progressives have just jumped ship).
These early worrisome notes to file became a thick anti-conservative dossier in the coming years. Farm subsidies, immigration (both open borders and the reluctance to issue H-1B visas to eager, talented foreign workers), Terry Schiavo, the failure to rally the world around removing Saddam Hussein, stem cells, Medicare Part D (prescription drug subsidies), automotive and bank bailouts . . . the list is long. And each example shows George Bush's disregard (disdain?) for the most basic conservative principal: government should stay out of people's lives except when necessary to defend liberty and freedom.
But, this rant is not about George Bush, it's about Republicans. Because during the first 6 years of his presidency, Republicans controlled congress and either led or followed the White House on every issue. Bush's first veto came 5 years into his presidency, and only then to keep down stem cell research. The strategy was "compassionate conservatism", an attempt to steal the Democrat's central message: that they're the party that cares. This would keep Republicans on top for a generation.
The result is the failure of Republicans on both fronts: they neither remained conservative nor retained power. But another, and more disastrous, failure is just starting to reveal itself.
Why do conservatives resist expansion of government power so universally, so consistently? Because we hate the poor? We're racist? (Welcome back, progressives.) We want to keep all the money for ourselves? We're cold-hearted?
Don't expand government power, no matter how tempting, no matter how noble the cause, because you have no idea who might inherit that power and how they might use it. We won't always have smart, wise, benevolent leaders (don't say it). This was part of the genius of our founders, part of why we've become the greatest country in history. It is very difficult to expand government thanks both to the text of the constitution and to the conservative nature of the citizens. Live free or die.
It seems to me that the constitution has been sufficiently weakened and the people sufficiently misled that 200 years of conservatism is currently in mid-flight out the window. Barack Obama inherited a down economy and a weakened constitution. He has more power than any President in our history and the Republicans gave it to him on a silver platter. What will this stranger do with it?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
It's Bad Enough Being Wrong
Good intentions are, tautologically speaking, good. But they are way overrated. I would venture a guess that most of the world's mistakes have been made with the best of intentions.
Today a lot of folks make themselves feel good by talking about how we can help the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged, by shifting money around. And this conversation almost exclusively involves one mechanism: The US Federal Government, aka Wealth Moving and Storage.
I know this greatly simplifies the "Progressive" movement, but it is accurate. The Church (any church) has been dismissed as an arcane maintainer of the status-quo (at best) and a hypocritical corrupter of society's moral fiber (at worst) . . . and is certainly no longer viewed by the mainstream as a legitimate provider to the needy. Progressives give lip service to other private charities and organizations, but real "change" has to come through the government.
This thought process can be broken down into 3 stages:
1) A desire to help the downtrodden
2) The belief that you are helping by making unearned resources available to them
3) The conclusion that government is the best (only?) way to implement this
Few people will disagree with #1. I'm all for it. Sign me up.
Things get tricky with #2. As a parent, I see every day the danger of giving kids too much versus teaching them that things of value must be earned. I have seen far too many recipients of welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or subsidized housing become institutionalized, never learning that such dependence is not normal. Prolonged addiction (to anything) can skew a person's view of reality.
There is a role for charity in a civilized society and it is almost always best done locally. Help someone when they are down on their luck, but don't cripple them by making help permanently available. Raise expectations and humans almost always respond. Making unearned resources available to someone should be a last resort, for a limited time.
But, rational, intelligent people can disagree on this. There are different points of view and ways to explore ideas. I have an opinion, but others do also. I respect that. I might be wrong.
Point #3 is not tricky, not at all. If you believe that making unearned resources available to a certain class of people is proper and best . . . fine. I disagree, but fine. However, when you promote the involuntary confiscation of wealth in order to put your vision into practice, then you've crossed the line. You've gone from being wrong to being a thief. Or, one who votes for thieves.
Progressives (née "liberals") are so sure, so righteous, that their way is best, they lose no sleep. They would never (well, most would never) sneak into a house at night to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but they have no problem enabling the democratic process to do so.
There are many ways to help the poor, to educate, to elevate. But none of them can be accomplished without cooperation from the recipient, a desire to grow beyond the need for help. To proceed without such cooperation and through a government program, sadly, is just a waste of everyone's time and money . . . both of which were stolen.
Today a lot of folks make themselves feel good by talking about how we can help the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged, by shifting money around. And this conversation almost exclusively involves one mechanism: The US Federal Government, aka Wealth Moving and Storage.
I know this greatly simplifies the "Progressive" movement, but it is accurate. The Church (any church) has been dismissed as an arcane maintainer of the status-quo (at best) and a hypocritical corrupter of society's moral fiber (at worst) . . . and is certainly no longer viewed by the mainstream as a legitimate provider to the needy. Progressives give lip service to other private charities and organizations, but real "change" has to come through the government.
This thought process can be broken down into 3 stages:
1) A desire to help the downtrodden
2) The belief that you are helping by making unearned resources available to them
3) The conclusion that government is the best (only?) way to implement this
Few people will disagree with #1. I'm all for it. Sign me up.
Things get tricky with #2. As a parent, I see every day the danger of giving kids too much versus teaching them that things of value must be earned. I have seen far too many recipients of welfare, Medicaid, Food Stamps or subsidized housing become institutionalized, never learning that such dependence is not normal. Prolonged addiction (to anything) can skew a person's view of reality.
There is a role for charity in a civilized society and it is almost always best done locally. Help someone when they are down on their luck, but don't cripple them by making help permanently available. Raise expectations and humans almost always respond. Making unearned resources available to someone should be a last resort, for a limited time.
But, rational, intelligent people can disagree on this. There are different points of view and ways to explore ideas. I have an opinion, but others do also. I respect that. I might be wrong.
Point #3 is not tricky, not at all. If you believe that making unearned resources available to a certain class of people is proper and best . . . fine. I disagree, but fine. However, when you promote the involuntary confiscation of wealth in order to put your vision into practice, then you've crossed the line. You've gone from being wrong to being a thief. Or, one who votes for thieves.
Progressives (née "liberals") are so sure, so righteous, that their way is best, they lose no sleep. They would never (well, most would never) sneak into a house at night to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but they have no problem enabling the democratic process to do so.
There are many ways to help the poor, to educate, to elevate. But none of them can be accomplished without cooperation from the recipient, a desire to grow beyond the need for help. To proceed without such cooperation and through a government program, sadly, is just a waste of everyone's time and money . . . both of which were stolen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)