Frank Rich attributed opposition to the health care reform to us angry white male's homophobia. That's right, the reason we object to this multi-trillion dollar spending and unconstitutional power grab is because we are uncomfortable with Barney Frank's gayness. That's the argument being advanced by the NY Times.
I think that the Republican Party made a calculated decision, a political decision, that they would not support whatever we did.Well, I give him credit for not perpetuating the racism/extremism narrative. But it does contradict some of what he said after the health care summit last month, when he acknowledged that there were "legitimate philosophical differences" between Republicans and Democrats.
Here’s a story to keep in mind the next time you are hit up for your alma mater’s annual fundraising drive. This morning the Boston Globe reports that the number of colleges in the Boston area that charge over $50,000 in tuition, room, board, and mandatory fees is expected to double in the 2010-2011 this year.
Tufts,
Many of these schools no doubt have generous financial aid programs to lower the cost for some students. But these elite institutions pride themselves on being impeccably liberal, more compassionate, kinder, and gentler than for-profit corporations, who are assumed to be rapaciously money-grubbing. And yet these educators have no problem raising their prices more quickly and to a greater extent than IBM or Apple or AT&T would ever dream.
What makes this all the more galling is that these universities have some of the largest endowments in the country. And this is even after those endowments took a big hit in the recession, in one case (Harvard) as large as 30%. (The decreases were due in part to the colleges’ reckless investment strategies, which were similar to the ones for which private investment firms have been excoriated). In other words, while their tuition goes through the roof, these schools are sitting on a heck of a lot of cash.
Here are endowments of some of the $50k schools as of the end of FY 2009, ranked according to a 2010 study by the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
1. Harvard $25.7 billion
4. M.I.T. $8 billion
8.
9. Northwestern $5.4 billion
11. U of
17.
18. Cornell $4 billion
21. Vanderbilt, $2.8 billion
22.
23. U.S.C. $2.7 billion
24. N.Y.U $2.1 billion
26. Brown $2 billion
40.
44.
49. Tufts $1.1 billion
50. Smith $1.1 billion
65.
Which raises the question: why give your charitable donation to a wealthy university, when there are so many worthy organizations that are in much greater need?
(via Newsalert and Instapundit)
Unearned Income Medicare Contribution on 3.8% on investment income for taxpayers with AGI in excess of $200K/$250K (unindexed).Definition of unindexed: sooner or later, everyone pays.
Depending on how actuarial value is calculated, HSA-qualified plans (those with high deductibles) may become illegal. This is especially true if the calculation does not include contributions to an HSA.But I thought if I liked my plan that I would be able to keep it?
I agree, she is very powerful, in a King George III kind of way. Under the proposed legislation, the Federal Family Education Loan program that includes private lenders would end on July 1 and all federal loans would be issued through the government.Granted, the government already controls the student loan market and takes on the default risk of most of these loans, so by eliminating these private companies that originate and service the loans, there will be some savings. That is precisely the argument that the administration is making:
Obama administration officials have argued that the change would amount to nothing more than removing the middlemen from transactions that allowed lenders to pocket billions of dollars in profit at the expense of taxpayers.In other words, if the government is going to subsidize, control and regulate the entire market for student loans, why waste money on these private sector companies who are profiting from these taxpayer subsidies? Why not just remove the middleman?
Even though it’s not single-payer, and even without the so-called “public option,” this is still a government takeover of health care – and here’s why we keep saying that.Case closed as far as I'm concerned. Watch the whole thing here.
The entire architecture is designed to give the federal government control over what kind of insurance is available for patients, how much health care is enough, and which treatments are worth paying for.
This plan assumes that everything is connected to everything else. You can guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions only if you have healthy people in the insurance pool to spread costs; and you can only do that by requiring everyone to buy health insurance; and you can do that only if you subsidize people; and once you start handing out subsidies, you have to impose artificial limits that further inflate the true costs and further strip decision-making power from patients and doctors.
It creates a Health Insurance Rate Authority, a Washington-controlled price-setting board. This will usurp State governments’ role in regulating insurance and premiums, and will further smother the normal market forces that would otherwise encourage innovation and cost-saving efficiencies.
It empowers Washington to decide what kind of insurance will be available. The proposal gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services and a new Health Benefits Advisory Committee – an unelected group of Federal bureaucrats – unprecedented Washington-centered power to create and change the requirements for “acceptable coverage.”
It gives the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force new powers to further limit patient choice, allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to unilaterally deny payment for prevention services contrary to Task Force recommendations.
It empowers a “comparative effectiveness board,” created by last year’s “stimulus” bill, that will restrict providers’ decisions about what treatments are best for their patients.
When Han Solo made the kessle run in 12 parsecs, no doubt some bureacrat was there to say that the kessle run should never ben done in under 18 parsecs, as it's wasteful of fuel and desctructive to wormholes. Wasn't the entire point of the Star Wars saga the right to make it a free galaxy. What's the point of a free galaxy, if you can't make the kessle run in 12 parsecs?and
The reason the first three Star Wars movies were so terrific and the second three sucked so bad is actually very simple. The first three were about rebels shooting guns and driving fast and speaking with American accents. The second three were about politicians, discussing treaties, holding court, and speaking with British accents.
The Martin Aircraft Company has created its own jetpack for public use, and the units are apparently for sale to anyone who can pass the company's own internal training sessions. That's right, this sucker is classified as an Ultralight and therefore requires no FAA pilot's license. What's more, Martin says the Jetpack costs the same as a high-end car or motorcycle. Sign us up!
…. With 600-pounds of thrust, Martin claims its Jetpack can accommodate pilots up to 280 pounds. The five gallons of fuel carried onboard are enough to get you 31.5 miles in any single direction... as the crow flies, as they say. Plus, just imagine how lovely everything will look at the Jetpack's 8,000-foot ceiling.
Let us flip back to an epic series of Senate Finance hearings in 1992. They represented a remarkable meeting of minds across a broad swath of health-care wonks and economists (not interest groups) that the original sin was the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance from taxable income—imposed carelessly by the IRS in 1943 so defense contractors could compete for workers without transgressing Roosevelt-era wage and price controls.
Everybody knows this turned "insurance" into something else. Call it prepaid health care, as Milton Friedman did. Call it a giant tax Laundromat for the nation's private health spending.
It became a massive subsidy to third-party payment, an incentive to channel every ache and pain through an "insurance" bureaucracy. It became an incentive for the most economically competent Americans—the secure, high-earning employees of corporate America—to overspend on health care, treating it as a free good.
What a surprise that the medical-industrial complex reorganized itself in light of this central driver. Nobody was looking for price tags so price tags disappeared, as did any competition on price, and any clarity on price versus value. Voilà.
I had previously suggested in my writings and lectures on universities that professors who use their classrooms as platforms for their political agendas represent a small but significant minority, which I have estimated to be about ten percent of a given faculty. The other ninety percent are scholars who are professional and observe the guidelines on academic freedom which enjoin faculty from presenting students with “ready-made conclusions” on controversial matters. Or so I thought. After auditing Professor Goldman’s course I will have to revise that judgment.
Posts
All Comments
