Thursday, September 17, 2009
Peter Schiff to Run For Senate in CT
When asked whether voters should be concerned about his lack of experience, Senatorial candidate Peter Schiff responds: "No, not at all, the fact that I have no experience ruining the country is my greatest attribute!" (That is not a typo. He said ruining, not running.)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
John Stossel Moving to Fox
After 28 years at ABC News, John Stossel is moving to Fox. This is mostly great news, since Fox will allow him to do 1 hour of programming each week, while at ABC, he produced only one or two of his hour long documentaries a year.
Unfortunately, now there is no one that I can think of at the three major networks who will provide an opposing point of view. Last week, I heard Mark Levin rant , "You'll never see a program on ABC or NBC about the wonders of the free market", and I said to myself, "That's not true, what about Stossel!" Well, now he is right.
With the incredible success of the Glenn Beck Show, the popularity of the on-line show Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, and now the addition of John Stossel, it is clear that Fox News Channel has been making an effort to provide programming that emphasizes a more libertarian point of view, while downplaying the Weekly Standard, "two cheers for capitalism", big government brand of conservatism that has dominated their "all star" panels. Why are they doing this? Ratings. There is clearly an audience out there for this type of programming.
The more important question is, is there a similar shift going on in the conservative movement?
[Update]
From Instapundit:
Unfortunately, now there is no one that I can think of at the three major networks who will provide an opposing point of view. Last week, I heard Mark Levin rant , "You'll never see a program on ABC or NBC about the wonders of the free market", and I said to myself, "That's not true, what about Stossel!" Well, now he is right.
With the incredible success of the Glenn Beck Show, the popularity of the on-line show Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, and now the addition of John Stossel, it is clear that Fox News Channel has been making an effort to provide programming that emphasizes a more libertarian point of view, while downplaying the Weekly Standard, "two cheers for capitalism", big government brand of conservatism that has dominated their "all star" panels. Why are they doing this? Ratings. There is clearly an audience out there for this type of programming.
The more important question is, is there a similar shift going on in the conservative movement?
[Update]
From Instapundit:
"A couple of readers wonder why I think the move is “too bad.” It’s because with Stossel at ABC, some viewers might be exposed to non-conventional (at ABC) views. I very much doubt that ABC will replace Stossel with someone of similar libertarian inclination, though I’d love to be proven wrong. Fox viewers, on the other hand, will appreciate the quality of his work, but it’s not likely to be the same kind of wake-up call it is to the Barbara Walters crowd . . ." .
Contradictions in Obama's Speech
I saw three major contradictions in President Obama's speech:
First, Obama states, "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." This statement is followed by a laundry list of mandates that insurance companies will be required to comply with if they wish to stay in business. If your insurance company wants to keep its current customers premiums low by not accepting customers with pre-existing conditions, too bad, it will be against the law. Want to buy a plan that does not cover routine checkups, but instead provides only basic catastrophic coverage? Again, too bad, that will be illegal as well. So how exactly does the current plan "in no way require you to not change what you have?" It doesn't. Michael Tanner makes the same point in his the NY Post column from this morning.
Second, the President repeatedly claims that under his plan, insurance will become more affordable. But what about all of these mandates? How will that make coverage more affordable? It seems to me that these mandates will have exactly the opposite effect. For example, what kind of homeowners insurance would be cheaper? The kind where you have to purchase it before the hurricane arrives, or the kind where you can wait until after your house blows away before you have to start paying premiums?
And finally, David Henderson over at Econlog highlights a contradiction about the cost of the plan and how the plan will be financed. First, Obama says "I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects." Sounds good. But then later in the speech, he says "Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for this plan." Which is it?
[Update]
On the "how are we going to pay this" contradiction, I now realize that Obama was saying that the public option insurance plan will be self sufficient, but that the entire plan, which includes subsidies for people to buy insurance and other programs, will need to be paid for. So my original post was misleading, but I'm not sure the story gets any better. The public insurance plan will allegedly be self sufficient, but only after the government gives away hundreds of billions that will then be used to buy insurance from the government.
First, Obama states, "Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." This statement is followed by a laundry list of mandates that insurance companies will be required to comply with if they wish to stay in business. If your insurance company wants to keep its current customers premiums low by not accepting customers with pre-existing conditions, too bad, it will be against the law. Want to buy a plan that does not cover routine checkups, but instead provides only basic catastrophic coverage? Again, too bad, that will be illegal as well. So how exactly does the current plan "in no way require you to not change what you have?" It doesn't. Michael Tanner makes the same point in his the NY Post column from this morning.
Second, the President repeatedly claims that under his plan, insurance will become more affordable. But what about all of these mandates? How will that make coverage more affordable? It seems to me that these mandates will have exactly the opposite effect. For example, what kind of homeowners insurance would be cheaper? The kind where you have to purchase it before the hurricane arrives, or the kind where you can wait until after your house blows away before you have to start paying premiums?
And finally, David Henderson over at Econlog highlights a contradiction about the cost of the plan and how the plan will be financed. First, Obama says "I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects." Sounds good. But then later in the speech, he says "Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for this plan." Which is it?
[Update]
On the "how are we going to pay this" contradiction, I now realize that Obama was saying that the public option insurance plan will be self sufficient, but that the entire plan, which includes subsidies for people to buy insurance and other programs, will need to be paid for. So my original post was misleading, but I'm not sure the story gets any better. The public insurance plan will allegedly be self sufficient, but only after the government gives away hundreds of billions that will then be used to buy insurance from the government.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Is It Really Possible to "Opt-Out" of the Public Option?
I often hear the argument from supporters of the so-called "public option" that anyone who does not want to participate can simply "opt-out" and keep their current insurance. There are many problems with this argument.
1) Just like it is impossible to "opt-out" of the public school system, it is impossible to "opt-out" of the public option for health care. Yes, you may choose not to use the public insurance plan, but you cannot opt-out of paying for it.
2) The plan as proposed by the House provides for specific mandates that the private sector insurance companies must comply with in order to be considered a "approved plan". Again, you will have the option to not use the public insurance plan, but your options will be limited to those plans that the government approves. (We actually have this now, but on a state by state basis.)
3) Because the public plan will be subsidized by the government while private plans will be subject to onerous and costly regulations and mandates, this "reform" will crowd out private sector competitors, and leave most of the public, especially lower and middle income families, with no option other than the public option.
Health care reform means tax code reform, tort reform, and allowing for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Do those things and the market will solve the problem of skyrocketing costs by itself without costing taxpayers a dime.
1) Just like it is impossible to "opt-out" of the public school system, it is impossible to "opt-out" of the public option for health care. Yes, you may choose not to use the public insurance plan, but you cannot opt-out of paying for it.
2) The plan as proposed by the House provides for specific mandates that the private sector insurance companies must comply with in order to be considered a "approved plan". Again, you will have the option to not use the public insurance plan, but your options will be limited to those plans that the government approves. (We actually have this now, but on a state by state basis.)
3) Because the public plan will be subsidized by the government while private plans will be subject to onerous and costly regulations and mandates, this "reform" will crowd out private sector competitors, and leave most of the public, especially lower and middle income families, with no option other than the public option.
Health care reform means tax code reform, tort reform, and allowing for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Do those things and the market will solve the problem of skyrocketing costs by itself without costing taxpayers a dime.
Obama Advocates Personal Responsibility
"And that's what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself." - Barack Obama in speech to schoolchildren
It would be awesome if he said that in his speech tomorrow night but replaced the word education with the words health care.
It would be awesome if he said that in his speech tomorrow night but replaced the word education with the words health care.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Friendly Facebook Debates on Health Care
I try not to be too outspoken about my political beliefs on Facebook, but I am not shy about politely responding to a friend who is. Below are two discussions I've had in recent days:
And then there is this one. Perhaps not so friendly, but it was all in good fun.
Facebook Friend: "No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they become sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."
Me: "Interesting. I guess someone who does not purchase health insurance before they get sick is at risk of going broke, just like someone who fails to buy homeowners insurance before their house burns down is at risk of going broke, and someone who doesn't buy disability insurance is at risk of going broke if they get disabled and can no longer earn an income, and someone who doesn't buy any life insurance might cause his family to go broke if he dies prematurely.
I'm not sure there is any way around this. Fortunately, we live in a compassionate society and we don't have people dying on the streets because they don't have any money to pay for health care."
Other person: "You know what I like? Paying into a system here in England. It's not perfect, but it's nice to know I don't have to worry about huge bills should I fall and break my leg or get some horrible food poisoning. I hope they work something out in the US soon."
Me: "I don't worry either. I have a contract that I pay for with a private (but overly regulated) insurance company, and I am fairly confident that they will live up to their end of the bargain. They have an incentive to do so, both because they are contractually required to, and they have a reputation that they must protect if they want to keep and attract new customers. I also believe my life insurance, my disability insurance, my homeowners insurance, and my auto insurance will also pay off if and when I need it.
I wish the insurance didn't cost so much, but that's what happens when the insurance companies are mandated to provide me with all kinds of coverage that I don't really need. It also does not help that there are 133,000 pages of health care regulation in the U.S. Federal Register. There are other important reasons health care costs are so out of control, but those also have nothing to do with the free market, because unfortunately we haven't had one in health care for a long time."
And then there is this one. Perhaps not so friendly, but it was all in good fun.
Facebook Friend: "I am hoping that the health care plan Obama's pitching includes a provision whereby anyone protesting against "government health care" loses whatever Medicare or Medicaid coverage they might have."
Me: "Maybe we could have a rule where anyone in favor of government run health care is not allowed to benefit from any medical breakthroughs or other innovations that come from the private sector."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Torture and Eliot Ness
The Washington Post wrote on Saturday:
After reading this article, I thought of the interrogation scene from the movie The Untouchables, where Sean Connery's character "Malone" stages a mock execution, a Canadian Mountie expresses his disapproval, and Eliot Ness, despite the fact that he is obviously uncomfortable with the harsh tactics, comes to Malone's defense. (Watch the first two minutes of the link below).
I've watched this movie several dozen times, and never once thought that Malone was torturing the Capone gang member. Regardless of whether it is torture or it isn't, one thing is certain: I want Malone, and guys like him, on my side.
And wouldn't it be nice if the administration acted a lot less like that Canadian Mountie and little bit more like Eliot Ness?
The tactics -- which one official described Friday as a threatened execution -- were used on Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, according to the CIA's inspector general's report on the agency's interrogation program. Nashiri, who was captured in November 2002 and held for four years in one of the CIA's "black site" prisons, ultimately became one of three al-Qaeda chieftains subjected to a form of simulated drowning known as waterboarding. The report also says that a mock execution was staged in a room next to one terrorism suspect, according to Newsweek magazine, citing two sources for its information.
After reading this article, I thought of the interrogation scene from the movie The Untouchables, where Sean Connery's character "Malone" stages a mock execution, a Canadian Mountie expresses his disapproval, and Eliot Ness, despite the fact that he is obviously uncomfortable with the harsh tactics, comes to Malone's defense. (Watch the first two minutes of the link below).
I've watched this movie several dozen times, and never once thought that Malone was torturing the Capone gang member. Regardless of whether it is torture or it isn't, one thing is certain: I want Malone, and guys like him, on my side.
And wouldn't it be nice if the administration acted a lot less like that Canadian Mountie and little bit more like Eliot Ness?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Will on Clemente
Every five years or so, George Will comes out with a collection of his newspaper and magazine columns. It is a sign of my conservative nerdishness that I look forward to them so much. When he hits a groove with his columns, it's really something, and his collections can be like a scrapbook of the political arguments of a particular era. For example, his previous collection, With a Happy Eye But . . . America and the World 1997-2002 contains a section of brilliant, scathing columns published during the debate over the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. Will was, and is, an outspoken critic of government regulation of political speech, and his columns puncture every gassy, self-congratulatory argument made by the bill's proponents.
Which is why (he says, finally approaching his point) I'm finding his latest collection, One Man's America, so interesting. It displays both Will's trademark arch tone, incisive wit, and a fencer's ability to hit his opponent right on the mark, as well as a few ideological tics that became increasingly noticeable during the Bush years. I'll be posting about the good and the not-so-good of the book over the next few days. For starters, something light:
Longtime Will fans know that he is a great lover of baseball. (His Men at Work is a fascinating look at how major leaguers approach their jobs). One section of One Man's America consists of columns about football, basketball, and sports culture. The section is titled "Games." The next section, about three times as long, focuses exclusively on baseball and is titled "The Game"--emphasis very much in the original.
Anyway, a column from May 2006 on Roberto Clemente, inspired by David Maraniss's biography of the great Pittsburgh Pirates slugger, displays Will's love for the game, his eye for fun detail, and his ability to pack an entire novel into a single sentence. To illustrate Clemente's great power at the plate, Will writes about two at bats with the most feared tough-guy pitchers of his day.
Don't you want to know more about Gibson's broken leg, and Drysdale's bloody ear -- what they said about it, how they felt, and all the rest? I know I do. But Will has a knack for knowing when a few words is enough to propel the reader along. That isn't as hard as hitting a Bob Gibson slider, but it ain't beanbag.
Which is why (he says, finally approaching his point) I'm finding his latest collection, One Man's America, so interesting. It displays both Will's trademark arch tone, incisive wit, and a fencer's ability to hit his opponent right on the mark, as well as a few ideological tics that became increasingly noticeable during the Bush years. I'll be posting about the good and the not-so-good of the book over the next few days. For starters, something light:
Longtime Will fans know that he is a great lover of baseball. (His Men at Work is a fascinating look at how major leaguers approach their jobs). One section of One Man's America consists of columns about football, basketball, and sports culture. The section is titled "Games." The next section, about three times as long, focuses exclusively on baseball and is titled "The Game"--emphasis very much in the original.
Anyway, a column from May 2006 on Roberto Clemente, inspired by David Maraniss's biography of the great Pittsburgh Pirates slugger, displays Will's love for the game, his eye for fun detail, and his ability to pack an entire novel into a single sentence. To illustrate Clemente's great power at the plate, Will writes about two at bats with the most feared tough-guy pitchers of his day.
A Clemente line drive broke the leg of one Hall of Fame pitcher (the Cardinals' Bob Gibson, who pitched to three more batters before collapsing) and, Maraniss believes, hastened the retirement of another, the Dodger's Don Drysdale. In August 1969, after a Clemente shot whistled into the outfield, Drysdale flicked what felt like an insect off his neck, but discovered blood on his fingers. Clemente's drive had torn the skin off the top of Drysdale's ear. Shaken, Drysdale walked Clemente the next time up and retired six days later.
Don't you want to know more about Gibson's broken leg, and Drysdale's bloody ear -- what they said about it, how they felt, and all the rest? I know I do. But Will has a knack for knowing when a few words is enough to propel the reader along. That isn't as hard as hitting a Bob Gibson slider, but it ain't beanbag.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Ron Paul on 'Cash For Clunkers' and the myth of economic stimulus
Congressman Ron Paul intelligently points out in this video that the Cash For Clunkers program will hurt the poor the most, because it destroys the vehicles that poor people depend on.
He also tells this story about economic stimulus in general: "Imagine someone had a new business that needed customers, and to get new customers, they took money out of their savings account, walked out onto the street and started handing out money to people telling them 'you can have this money as long as you spend it in my store'. And so they come to the store, spend the money, and the owner rings up the cash register and says 'wow, today I made a lot of money'. This whole notion that government can stimulate the economy is just as absurd as that."
He also tells this story about economic stimulus in general: "Imagine someone had a new business that needed customers, and to get new customers, they took money out of their savings account, walked out onto the street and started handing out money to people telling them 'you can have this money as long as you spend it in my store'. And so they come to the store, spend the money, and the owner rings up the cash register and says 'wow, today I made a lot of money'. This whole notion that government can stimulate the economy is just as absurd as that."
Monday, August 3, 2009
A good approximation of "Cash for Clunkers"
In my view, if you think "Cash for Clunkers" is such as great idea, then you should be more than willing to knock on your neighbor's door and ask them for the $4500 "cash for clunker" payout directly. I could imagine the scene playing out something like this:
"Hi neighbor, I have an old beat up car, and I think it would be a great idea if you gave me $4500, and in exchange, I will junk this car and then use the money as a down payment on a new car."
"Wait, who gets the new car? You or me? I don't need a new car".
"That's okay, I get the new car".
"Ok, so what is in it for me?"
"By giving me $4500, you may not benefit directly, but this will certainly stimulate the auto industry, and that will help everyone. Plus, my car uses lots of gas and emits all kinds of pollution, so it would really be in your best interest to pay me to get a new car".
"But I need that $4500. I need to pay off some credit cards, and I also need to buy a new dishwasher. I'll tell you what, why don't you go buy a new car with your own money and leave me out of it."
"I was trying to be nice about this and make you feel good about participating, but it turns out that you don't actually have a choice. If you refuse, eventually US Marshalls will show up at your door with guns and a warrant for your arrest. I would get me that $4,500 as soon as possible."
[Update]
Jim DeMint pointed out on Fox News Sunday that it is actually our children who are paying for these used cars. So, in my example above, I guess that would mean that you should go to your neighbor and ask them if it is okay if your neighbor's child put up the $4500.
"Hi neighbor, I have an old beat up car, and I think it would be a great idea if you gave me $4500, and in exchange, I will junk this car and then use the money as a down payment on a new car."
"Wait, who gets the new car? You or me? I don't need a new car".
"That's okay, I get the new car".
"Ok, so what is in it for me?"
"By giving me $4500, you may not benefit directly, but this will certainly stimulate the auto industry, and that will help everyone. Plus, my car uses lots of gas and emits all kinds of pollution, so it would really be in your best interest to pay me to get a new car".
"But I need that $4500. I need to pay off some credit cards, and I also need to buy a new dishwasher. I'll tell you what, why don't you go buy a new car with your own money and leave me out of it."
"I was trying to be nice about this and make you feel good about participating, but it turns out that you don't actually have a choice. If you refuse, eventually US Marshalls will show up at your door with guns and a warrant for your arrest. I would get me that $4,500 as soon as possible."
[Update]
Jim DeMint pointed out on Fox News Sunday that it is actually our children who are paying for these used cars. So, in my example above, I guess that would mean that you should go to your neighbor and ask them if it is okay if your neighbor's child put up the $4500.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
