Health Care Fiasco

In John Stossel’s book Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, he showed a flowchart, an incredibly tangled web of bureaucratic nonsense required to fire a public school teacher in New York City.  This irrational system allowed teachers accused of sexual improprieties with their students to sit on administrative leave with pay.  It makes it impossible for bad teachers to be reprimanded, and doesn’t encourage any innovation or merit-based advancement.

It was funny, because on the news I saw a very similar flowchart describing the way the health care system is shaping up.  I was immediately struck by the similarities.  Somehow this administration is going to push through a universal health care plan that we can’t afford, and that’s most likely going to fail as utterly as the public school systems are failing.

The universal health care proponents don’t care.  They’ve decided, as part of the train-wreck that they call their ethics, that it’s okay to take money from private citizens to pay the medical bills of those who can’t afford them.  This is thievery even under the best of circumstances; for the government to do it is thievery with a topping of unbelievable incompetence.  Here’s a suggestion: Why doesn’t the government work on fixing Medicare and Medicaid before even thinking in the direction of health care reform?  You know, those two wasteful, inept programs that are going to bankrupt America?

Here’s something else:  If Obama and the government is solely interested in health care, in improving the lives of Americans, in making sure they have adequate health care; if they really want to help people and not simply expand their power, control, and tax revenue, why not give a tax credit?  Give every business a tax credit for providing health care for their employees, and they’ll find the best plan they can for those employees.  It will cost them nothing, and the businesses with the best plans will attract the most skilled workers, pushing other businesses to get equal or better plans.  The taxpayers don’t have to pay anything, the government doesn’t have to be involved to screw everything up, and every employee gets health care.

But wait, if we do this, the government will lose money!  Tax revenues will take a major dive!  Government will have to cut spending in a major way!  And the scheming little crooks in Washington, the self-serving free-loaders, the conniving imps who could teach Wall Street bigwigs a little something about greed, would never have that.

Obamanomics 101

Does being a liberal Democrat turn off some kind of reality switch in your brain?  Honestly, President Obama went to college, right?  He studied and even taught constitutional law, a subject that does not suffer dunces, from what I understand.  I mean this as a compliment; I think Obama is an extremely smart person.

But then I heard him talking about his new health care plan, and the charge that government-run agencies inevitably perform terribly in contrast to the private sector.

Addressing this topic in relation to health care, Obama scoffed.  Why, he asked, if government is so terrible at everything, are all the health insurance companies saying they won’t be able to compete with it?  “That’s not logical,” he said, leading me to wonder if our president can define the adjective “logical.”

Mr. President, the private health insurance companies won’t be able to compete with your health care monstrosity because yours can’t fail.  You won’t let it.  You can keep pumping cash into it no matter how badly it performs.  You can undercut any private insurance company because you don’t have to turn a profit to keep running.  You just take the money from us through taxes and use it to prop up your program.  The private insurance companies don’t have the bottomless pockets of Uncle Sam to back them – and they also don’t have the law-making power of Washington in their corner.

Furthermore, where do you think the price cuts are going to come from, Mr. President?  Say a private company charges $1000 for insurance, and your program comes in and offers it for $800.  Who takes that loss?  The doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and private medical practices, that’s who.  They’re going to be squeezed; not you.

And of course, let’s not forget about the fact that taxes will be raised (are already being raised) to pay for this health care program.  I love how Obama’s big slogan during the campaign is that “for 95% of Americans, their taxes will not be raised one bit.”  What, are ninety-five percent of Americans tee-totalers, or Amish, or diabetic?  Because from what I hear, taxes on alcohol, gas, and soda are going up.

What’s illogical, Mr. President, is to ignore reality in favor of idealism.

Obama the Very Ordinary Politician

The other day I heard the president give a speech to a roomful of Democrats about the need for this monstrous new spending bill.  After it was over, one word came to my mind: Pathetic.  And not only is this the most appropriate word for his mewling monologue, it’s the kindest.

A couple times during the speech, Obama referenced the economic experts, suggesting that this isn’t what he wants to do; it’s what the experts are telling him must be done.  Yes, the economic experts that he hand-picked.  What about all the other economic experts who say this “stimulus” bill is garbage that won’t work?  Perhaps President Obama should read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal – unless he only listens to economists who agree with Democratic social programs?

Obama also suggested that we shouldn’t listen to the “cable chatter” out there trying to convince us that this plan is wrong-headed.  A clear allusion to Fox News, as Obama has referenced many times when he’s feeling particularly pouty about Sean Hannity.  So now Obama’s telling us to stop listening to those pesky dissenting points of view?  Yes, that’s brilliant.  Let’s just accept a trillion-dollar bill without listening to its opponents.  (And by the way, I see just as many supporters of that corpulent bill on Fox News as I do opponents of it.)

There was also Obama’s witticism about how huge a deficit and national debt was waiting for him wrapped in a big bow when he came into office.  It got some laughs and applause in this Twilight Zone that we find ourselves in.  We’ve gotten to the point where Obama blasts Bush for a huge deficit, and yet his solution is to make it twice as big!

When the subject of all the unnecessary pork in this bill came up, the president let loose with the standard sniveling liberal excuse: Everyone else is doing it, so why not me?  In all seriousness, Obama justifiied the wish-list spending in this bill by saying, “Tell me what bill of this size hasn’thad extra pork.”  I’m so glad we have a president who can justify – with a straight face – spending millions of taxpayer dollars on butterfly parks and Frisbee golf courses in the middle of a recession.

But the overall tone of the president’s argument came down to a standard politician scare tactic.  Obama’s doing the same thing he so often accused the Bush administration of doing: The politics of fear.  This time, instead of terrorism, it’s the threat of economic collapse and unemployment.  Obama’s saying, “Accept this bill now or you’re hurting Americans.  Stop questioning my plan or your neighbor will lose his job.  Swallow all the Democratic pork-barrel spending and social engineering dollars now.  Why?  Because you have to.”

Obama’s saying, “You’re either with us or against us.”  Sound familiar, Mr. President?

Social Welfare Gone Crazy

I got into an argument with a guy in here who has some rather socialist views.  (Not surprisingly, he’s originally from Europe.)  The question was:  Should a government force its citizens to pay for the welfare of others?  But the twist here was that these hypothetical welfare recipients refuse to work.  They’re perfectly able to go get jobs and support themselves, but they choose not to for whatever reason.  Should we be forced to pay for their basic needs (food, housing, health care, etc.)?

It quickly became a matter of morality, because this guy claimed that we should in fact be forced to pay.  He said that otherwise, it would be like standing there while someone starved to death.  No matter how many times we said, “But it’s his choice – he could go out and get a job and feed himself,” he didn’t budge.  Nope, we’re immoral greedy people because we don’t think we should have to pay for it.

In situations like this, it’s impossible not to quote Ayn Rand: “Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away?  And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it?  If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?  Does virtue consist of serving vice?”

If course this situation is obviously absurd.  But let’s look closer.  Should we pay for drug addicts?  By choosing to use drugs, aren’t they virtually the same as someone who chooses not to work?  What about people who are simply lazy?  John Stossel has interviewed homeless people who admit flat-out that there arejobs to be had – they just won’t take them.  They’d rather live on the streets and demand compensation from the government than work flipping burgers.

When I was a teenager, I worked jobs flipping burgers and making minimum wage.  I had a roommate who did the same, and between the two of us, we managed to afford an apartment in a complex that had a free gym.  It was right across the street from a community college.  We had cars, video games, and money for food, and we also had enough spare cash to get stoned or drunk several nights a week.  We could have gotten by on a lot less.  We could have walked to work, not smoked cigarettes and not partied every other night.

Admittedly, I squandered my life, but the opportunity was never, ever denied to me.  The opportunity was the easy part.  The hard part was my thick skull and lack of goals and responsibility.  I could have worked two jobs and went to night school, earned a degree, or learned a trade.  I could have studied the stock market and invested.

Yes, there are plenty of Americans who have it much worse than I did.  You might even make the argument that the economy was still good when I was a teenager (in the late nineties).  But this doesn’t wash completely.  There are still people out there making it today, sacrificing and busting their asses.  People working two jobs and going to night school, single parents earning degrees, poor kids earning scholarships, etc.  People who have no problem flipping burgers to pay their way toward something better.

Of course there are Americans in need of help, and I’m not saying we should deny them.  But is the opportunity really the major problem here?  Is the playing field really as uneven as pandering politicians would have us believe?  If we’re going to hold those who do well to the high moral standard of helping others, shouldn’t we hold those who do poorly to the high moral standard of helping themselves?

Why We Should be Proud of the Rich Getting Richer

Politicians (especially presidential nominees) are always promising to “make things fair for the working class Americans.”  Of course, rarely do things immediately and magically turn around after one of those politicians is elected.  Surprise, surprise.  Have working-class Americans ever noticed that they constitute most of America?  I mean, every politician has to appeal to them if they want votes.

Besides, I don’t mean to sound cold-hearted here, but is there something inherent in being a working-class American that requires help?  Are they at some sort of disadvantage?  Why?  Because the “rich are getting richer?”  So what?  Why do you care if the rich are getting richer?  If anything, shouldn’t you be proud that they’re investing and managing their money wisely?  Shouldn’t that inspire you?  Maybe you still don’t think it’s fair that some people have so much, but how does it help your position to complain about what someone else is doing?

I’m so tired of hearing people whine about America not being “fair,” and hearing politicians promise them that they’ll make it so.  Didn’t their parents ever tell them, when they were sniveling little children, that life isn’t fair?  That they’re going to have to work their asses off from adulthood on?  That sometimes they’re going to make bad choices and suffer the consequences?

Making things “fair” in American rings kind of hollow for me.  Don’t get me wrong – there should be fair opportunity for everyone, absolutely.  How about we start with tax cuts for everything?  Wouldn’t a flat tax be the very definition of “fair?”  How about we get rid of all government subsidies?  How about we let everyone compete in the free market equally?

But some Americans don’t want fair opportunity; they want their subjective idea of fairness enforced by legislature.  They think wealthy Americans should be taxed more heavily and have to follow different rules.  For some reason, they’ve decided that people should have the right to pursue success, wealth, and happiness – but only up to a certain arbitrary point chosen by them.  For some reason, they just don’t think it’s fair that others are earning a lot of money and they’re not.

I don’t think the definition of “fair” is to take other people’s money and redistribute it.  Furthermore, “fair” doesn’t seem like a very respectable goal to me.  Why settle for fair, when everyone can have the opportunity to go as far as they want?  These people have a rather defeatist view: Rather than attempt to elevate themselves, they want to lower others.

Why is it that people who complain about the wealth distribution in this country always think the solution is to steal from the prosperous, rather than urge everyone to become prosperous?  Do they have such low opinions of themselves and humanity in general?  Do they think these people they want to “help” are incapable of helping themselves?  How about none of us settle for being handed “fair” and instead strive to earn excellence?

Why We Should Pay for Our Own Health Care, Part II

I’ve been told that if Obama’s universal health care plan is implemented, the only thing that will change is who pays the bill.  While this is bad enough (I’ll get to why I think so in a minute), it’s simply not true.  The medical institutions may still be privately owned, but they wouldn’t have to compete for the business of those receiving health care benefits.  There won’t be scrutinizing consumers to demand lower prices anymore, just a bloated bureaucracy answering every problem with more money.  I’m sorry, but quite a lot changes in this nightmare scenario.

This is like saying that if a nation made the switch from private education to public education, the only thing that would change is who pays the bill.  Take one look at the shambles of the public education system in America, and you’ll see what happens to an industry that’s bogged down by government handouts and regulation.  If the government stepped in and mandated health care for everyone who couldn’t afford it, we’d see a similar result.  We know this because we’ve seen it time and again.  History makes a compelling case.

The only thing that would change is who pays the bill.  Of course, the “who” in this case is the American people, the taxpayers.  My question is, why should we?  I don’t mean to be a heartless bastard here, but why should I have to pay for a stranger’s medical bills?  This is a two-way street: I certainly don’t want someone else to be taxed to pay mymedical bills.  According to Obama, he even wants us to pay the medical bills of illegal immigrants!

Maybe I am a heartless bastard.  Here’s something else to reinforce that: Consider the hundreds of thousands of Americans who require health care every year because they spend their whole lives eating junk food, smoking, drinking, an not exercising.  These problems are massive for the poor who can’t afford health care, but they are problems created by bad choices.  Should hardworking people be forced to pay the medical bills of people who willingly and knowingly smoke, drink, and gorge themselves into hospitals?

Next, how about we pay for nutrition counselors, and diet pills, and personal trainers, and stop-smoking programs, and self-esteem seminars?  Remember Big Brother’s solution in Orwell’s 1984 that required citizens to exercise in front of the TV/camera every day?  Should we expect something like that from the Obama administration too?

What You Earn is Whatever You Can Get

I got into a discussion with someone a while back who was very earnest about the wage gap in this country and the plight of middle-class Americans.  His point was that a blue-collar worker toils at physical labor all day long for his entire life.  He does it knowing he’ll never be rich or live comfortably.  He does it to support a family.  He works hard, much harder than many people who make a lot more money and don’t deserve it (like actors and rock stars, for example). 

It was a matter of proportion.  He was arguing that a blue-collar laborer should be making more since he’s busting his ass, providing a useful service, and probably doing it for a nobler purpose.  Conversely, the entertainer is a millionaire only because of the whim of some fans, and doesn’t really work hard comparatively.  It wasn’t fair, he said, that people make so much money for frivolous reasons.

I shocked him by disagreeing.  I told him that I think that rich actors and rock stars earn every penny of their money. (How they might squander it later on is a separate issue).  I told him that I don’t think a man’s sweat and physical toil are the measure of what he earns.

Predictably, of course, he accused me of being a “rich white kid.”  Though it’s irrelevant to the point, I had to dispel that assumption by telling him that I grew up in trailer parks and low-income housing with a single parent, eating hot dogs and Hamburger Helper.  When I turned fourteen and got a job, I was never given a single thing again; not even clothes or school supplies.

People who think like this guy are always certain that some should be “earning” more money, and some are “making” more money than they’re earning.  But they’re not talking about what is earned here – they’re talking about what they think these people deserve.  They’re basing their opinion about what a person earns on how much they need.  A blue-collar laborer has a family to feed and barely makes ends meet – he might not even be able to pay for his kids to go to college.  Therefore, he should be earning more.

I was called callous and heartless when I told him that “deserve” is not the same thing as “earn.”

What you “earn” is simply this: the amount of money people are willing to pay for your good or service.  That’s it.  That’s the only rational way to determine it.  How else can the amount someone has earned be measured objectively?  You may think a blue-collar laborer deserves more for his service (and maybe he does), but stop and think for one moment what it would mean to legislate it:  It means you would have to force someone else to pay more for that service than they are otherwise willing to pay.  How is that fair?

What do you think would happen if people were awarded money based on what they need, rather than what they earn?  It’s called communism, and it’s horrible not simply because it’s a bogeyman word, but because it doesn’t work.  No one would have any reason to produce any good, provide any service, or work at all.  Think about it:  The harder you work, the more that’s taken away from you and given to others.  You are punished for achieving, and rewarded when you do nothing.  Guess which one people choose.

How much a person needs is not an indicator of how much they’ve earned.  This does not in any way suggest that we should ignore those in need.   It does, however, suggest that we should not take from those who earn – even if it’s to give to those who need.

Why We Should Pay For Our Own Health Care

After John McCain showed up on The O’Reilly Factor and talked about his plan for health care (giving people vouchers so the companies will be forced to compete and lower their prices), I was drawn into a discussion with a few guys.  They liked Obama’s plan:  The government simply pays for everyone’s health care.  One guy even told me that it’s “not fair that rich people get to have better health care than poor people.”

I was incredulous.  Let me get this straight:  Wealthy Americans are just trying to get the best health care their money can afford, and somehow they’re doing something wrong?

Rich people can afford better health care, just as they can afford better lawyers.  Maybe you don’t think it’s fair, but what’s the alternative?  Should the government force rich people to purchase health care from less competent doctors?  Make a law that one can’t spend over a certain arbitrary amount on health care?

No, here is what the people want:  They want the government to force the best doctors and pharmaceutical companies in the field to lower their prices so that everyone can afford them.  It sounds great, right?  Maybe if you don’t think about it any further.  You don’t need a degree in economics to know that if you do that, those doctors and pharmaceutical companies won’t be the “best” anymore.  The “best” will disappear because they’ll have no incentive to do any better than meeting a government baseline.

This guy told me that countries like Canada, Sweden, and even Iraq gives every citizen free health care, so the United States should be able to do it, as well.  In return, I asked him where the richest people in the world go when they need an operation.  Where does the best medication come from?  Where are the best hospitals?  Where are the best advances being made in the medical field?

“America” is the answer to those questions.  If a billionaire Saudi prince needs a dangerous operation, does he go to Sweden, Iraq, or Canada to get the best care his money can afford?  Of course not; the very notion is laughable.  He comes to America.  The free market is what drives success.  If doctors and pharmaceutical companies are forced to compete to survive, they’re forced to get better and more efficient – and more affordable.

I don’t much like this country’s fascination with cosmetic surgery, but it’s a prime example of the power of the free market.  Cosmetic surgery is continuously getting better, safer, more cutting edge, and more affordable.    The reason is that health insurance doesn’t pay for it; the government won’t give you money to make your tits bigger.  Those in the industry are forced to compete for your business, and you can shop around for the best deal.  As a result, cosmetic surgery is advancing like Moore’s Law is chasing it.

Why is it that the Democrats’ solution to any problem in America is at the cost of someone else?  Besides rescinding the Bush tax cuts to pay for his health care handouts, Barack Obama also wants to raise the capital gains tax.  Are the millions of Americans who invest in the stock market doing something wrong?  If not, why does he want to punish them?  Should they earn less so that others can be given more?  Democrats always say we should work together, that we have a social responsibility . . . what about the social responsibility to not consume more than you earn?  What about the social responsibility to not take the money that other people earn at the point of a gun, Senator Obama?

Why Americans Should Come To Their Senses About Barack Obama

I’ve been saying for months that I think Obama is going to be our next president.  I wish it weren’t so, but I don’t see how McCain can compete with the record turnouts of Democratic voters and the energy of Obama’s speeches.

I don’t get it.  People talk about how Obama is going to bring change, pull people together, and achieve bipartisan solutions.  How?  On what position can Barack Obama – arguably the most liberal senator in America – come to bipartisan terms with Republicans?  Where can he meet them halfway?  On nationalized healthcare?  On raising the capital gains and estate taxes?  On rigid gun control?  On surrendering in Iraq?  On more social entitlements?  On immigration reform?  On environmental standards?

How is President Obama going to get Republicans to work with him on these issues, considering his rather leftist views?  Oh, I get it.  He won’t have to – he’ll have a Democratic Congress to hand him whatever he wants.

Let’s forget all those questionable connections Obama has, or the fact that he renounced his church and former friends twenty years too late – and only because it was politically expedient.  How does he get away with doubling the capital gains tax?  I just had a discussion with a friend of mine.  Her working-class family (like many others) is currently investing for retirement.  Why is Obama going to punish them?  Honestly, how is it not penalization to make it more difficult for working-class families who invest in the stock market?  I thought Obama was trying to help families?

Another thing my friend was concerned about was the estate tax.  In Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, he said he wanted to raise the estate tax or else much of America’s wealth will “end up in the hands of those who didn’t earn it.”

My friend was a little upset to hear a politician saying that her son didn’t deserve what she worked to give him.  Who wouldn’t be outraged at that?  Who the hell is Barack Obama to decide whether someone’s child deserves the money their parents want to leave them?  If our kids haven’t earned it, who has, Senator?  The poor?  What did they do to earn it, if we’re going to use your rationale?

I also remain unconvinced that pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do, especially now that we appear to be making so much progress (the Sunni are fighting with us!).  A stable democracy in Iraq will keep America safe.  There’s a reason terrorist groups like Hamas would like to see Obama become president – they think he’d be softer on the war against Islamic terror.  Pulling out of Iraq can definitely qualify in that regard.  In January, I don’t want to wake up on Inauguration Day to the footage of thousands of Muslim fascists celebrating in the streets and shouting that they “defeated America.”

Saving face is not a trivial goal.  This isn’t about pride; it’s about practicality.  If you give in to an enemy who’s bent on destroying you, he doesn’t call it quits; he simply tries to go further next time.  They already think – perhaps even with a grain of truth – that while America’s military might is unparalleled, we don’t have the will to back it up for the long haul.  A show of strength saves lives and prevents more bloodshed.  Confrontations always involve a standoff to see who will back down first.  Barack Obama would have us back down first.  It’s foolhardy.

But hey, whatever.  Maybe I’m dead wrong.  Maybe pulling out of Iraq will somehow make the situation better with the Islamic fascists.  Maybe they’ll suddenly respect us.  Maybe raising taxes and taking away personal responsibility will make our economy stronger.  I want McCain to win, but since I don’t think he will, I’m rooting for Obama.  I genuinely hope he does well and things improve.  Wanting to see him fail is irrational; it’s like hoping that harm will befall America.

Robin Hood was a Thief – And a Democrat

I don’t understand why people continue to tell me that the wealthy should be taxed more than anyone else.  I got into a discussion the other day with a guy who thought I was literally crazy for suggesting that a baseball superstar making tens of millions a year should be taxed the same percentage as – yes, I know it’s practically blasphemy – a schoolteacher making under forty thousand a year.

In Barack Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, he echoes Michael Moore and bewails the fact that CEOs of corporations make over two hundred times the salary of their employees.  Yeah, so what?  Why should you care?

In his book, Obama also points out dryly that the “wealthy in America have little to complain about” and goes on to give a laundry list of excessive luxury items on which they should not spend their money.  Maybe.  But Americans have a right to be as superficial and covetous as they want, Senator.  You don’t have to like people who buy gold-plated toilets, but that doesn’t give you – or Warren Buffet – the right to say that the government should require them to be any different.

How about this for a shocker:  The poor in America have little to complain about.  As we all know, “poor” in America means something quite different from “poor” in say, Ethiopia or Bangladesh.  In America, most people living below the poverty line still have homes to live in, cars to drive, and cable TV to watch.  The number-one health problem for poor Americans is obesity.  Obesity.  Think about that for a moment.

So many people have an emotional knee-jerk response to this issue.  “No fair!” they shriek.  “The average American works hard and tries to raise his or her family and they get shafted.”  Yes well, “average” Americans have the same opportunities as the richest men in America have.  Plenty of “average” Americans have made decisions that have led them to be highly successful.  Plenty of “average” Americans have become wealthy because of determination, innovation, entrepreneurship, and smart business and investing skills.  Maybe part of the problem is that so many people seem perfectly fine with labeling themselves “average.”

I’m not saying there aren’t problems in America, and I’m not saying that we should be heartless and unresponsive to these problems.  But why should the answer be to penalize people who are doing well?  Big corporations are making lots of money because they’re efficiently providing a good or service for people.  The CEOs of monster corporations are Americans, too; they have a right to run their business the way they want.  Why should they be forced to pay more of their money than anyone else?  Because they’re rich and therefore have an “obligation”?

Why?  They don’t owe you anything.  They didn’t wrong you or steal from you.  They had to make their money following the same rules that you follow.  The rich are getting richer?  So what?  Why do you care what other people do?  Stop whining.  Earn your own money instead of demanding that others give you theirs.

A big corporation just ran you out of business?  Tough.  Stop whining.  What, are you saying that big corporation didn’t have the right to try to do better than its competitors?  Isn’t that exactly what your business was trying to do?  This is what happens in competition.  You don’t have to be happy about it.  The world is a tough place.  But you didn’t get shafted; you simply lost.  Get over it and do better next time.