Thanks for your continued readership, though my guess is that these posts are more cathartic for me than helpful to you.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
I'm moving
I'm moving my blog over to my MobileMe account. (Hey - I'm working at an Apple store now, so that's the place for me!) Click on the title of this post to be redirected, or click here.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Who's Counting?
1. Read Thomas Sowell's latest column, here.
2. Contact your ERs (Elected Representatives).
3. Tell your ERs to get government out of health care provisioning.
4. If your ER listens to you and responds positively, vote them back into office.
5. If your ER ignores you and responds in a way that give government more power, fire them.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Raise Taxes to Pay for Health Care Reform???
Good Grief!
Read the article in this morning's Washington Post, then come back here to read my response.
Did you read the whole thing? Or did you get frustrated and give up in the first few paragraphs?
Fundamentally, the premise of this argument is flawed. It presumes I have a responsibility, an obligation to help my fellow patient, and it intends to legislate my contribution. I reject that foundation. While I do have a personal responsibility, one to which I personally adhere, to extend charity, neither the state nor Federal government has any mandate to force me to do so.
You can tell me all day long, till we're both blue in the face, that I'm selfish. Very well. I'm selfish. I earned my money. No one else has a right to it, least of all by legislative mandate.
You want to improve the infrastructure I use to drive? Fine: collect taxes or tolls when I drive. Want to protect me from enemies, foreign and domestic? Great: use my taxes to pay for an army.
Want to take money away from me, my family, our household and our life to give it to someone who habitually neglects their own family and life? No way.
Does that paint me as greedy? Am I without compassion for those "less fortunate" than I? Am I ignoring the plight of the "victims"?
I think those who take money from someone else are greedy, and those whose money is taken are victims.
All that said, how can those who teach economics write an article that ignores economic history? When tax rates are lowered, it historically spurs the economy and tax revenues actually increase. When tax rates are increased, revenues historically fall. And when citizens have more disposable income, they give more to charity, which does a MUCH better job of filtering out the scammers and leeches so they can focus on extending a welcomed helping hand to those who actually need some help.
Want to pay for an ill-begotten government program doomed for failure? Lower tax rates. Want to dramatically improve health care in this country? Get the government out of the way and let charities and health care facilities partner in the effort. Get the government involved when there's a violation of civil liberty, but not until then.
Read the article in this morning's Washington Post, then come back here to read my response.
Did you read the whole thing? Or did you get frustrated and give up in the first few paragraphs?
Fundamentally, the premise of this argument is flawed. It presumes I have a responsibility, an obligation to help my fellow patient, and it intends to legislate my contribution. I reject that foundation. While I do have a personal responsibility, one to which I personally adhere, to extend charity, neither the state nor Federal government has any mandate to force me to do so.
You can tell me all day long, till we're both blue in the face, that I'm selfish. Very well. I'm selfish. I earned my money. No one else has a right to it, least of all by legislative mandate.
You want to improve the infrastructure I use to drive? Fine: collect taxes or tolls when I drive. Want to protect me from enemies, foreign and domestic? Great: use my taxes to pay for an army.
Want to take money away from me, my family, our household and our life to give it to someone who habitually neglects their own family and life? No way.
Does that paint me as greedy? Am I without compassion for those "less fortunate" than I? Am I ignoring the plight of the "victims"?
I think those who take money from someone else are greedy, and those whose money is taken are victims.
All that said, how can those who teach economics write an article that ignores economic history? When tax rates are lowered, it historically spurs the economy and tax revenues actually increase. When tax rates are increased, revenues historically fall. And when citizens have more disposable income, they give more to charity, which does a MUCH better job of filtering out the scammers and leeches so they can focus on extending a welcomed helping hand to those who actually need some help.
Want to pay for an ill-begotten government program doomed for failure? Lower tax rates. Want to dramatically improve health care in this country? Get the government out of the way and let charities and health care facilities partner in the effort. Get the government involved when there's a violation of civil liberty, but not until then.
Friday, August 21, 2009
What crisis?
In the president's own words, the "vast majority" of Americans will be able to keep their current insurance, the current doctor. (This is correct, as far as it goes, but if the President were under oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", that "whole truth" part would cause him to stumble. "Vast Majority" will be able to keep their current care, all other things being equal, which is not reality. More in a minute.)
So back to the "vast majority" item: if we take the President's own estimate (final paragraph in linked item) of the number of uninsured, we're talking about roughly 15% of the current US population.
Fine. 15% is fairly significant. But wait; there's more. The percentage has remained fairly consistent for ten years (it was 15% in 1998 also). But ten years ago, it's estimated that nearly half of that 15% was uninsured for only a period of time (perhaps due to unemployment or some other factor), rather than chronically uninsured. So that means that really, only about 7.5% was chronically uninsured. Which means that 7.5% of the population was uninsured by choice (as I was recently, until a new employer's cost for insurance made economic sense for me to opt in to their plan).
Let's factor in today's higher unemployment rate, and let's say that 10% of the population is chronically without insurance. That's 30.4 million. That means that 90% of the current US population doesn't need fixing.
So, where's the crisis?
I know, I'm a cold-hearted son-of-a-gun, and I'm reducing this to logic, and I'm without compassion. But let's remember that if I'm not taxed to pay for someone else's health care (via the inherent inefficiencies of government administration), I'm free to contribute my disposable income to the charity I see as most capable of efficiently providing the emergency or long-term care needed by someone who can't otherwise obtain it, for whatever reason. (And yes: when my tax obligation was lower than it is now, I was in fact contributing more to charities with proven track records of successful provision to those in need.)
OK. So on to the "all other things being equal" section.
So back to the "vast majority" item: if we take the President's own estimate (final paragraph in linked item) of the number of uninsured, we're talking about roughly 15% of the current US population.
Fine. 15% is fairly significant. But wait; there's more. The percentage has remained fairly consistent for ten years (it was 15% in 1998 also). But ten years ago, it's estimated that nearly half of that 15% was uninsured for only a period of time (perhaps due to unemployment or some other factor), rather than chronically uninsured. So that means that really, only about 7.5% was chronically uninsured. Which means that 7.5% of the population was uninsured by choice (as I was recently, until a new employer's cost for insurance made economic sense for me to opt in to their plan).
Let's factor in today's higher unemployment rate, and let's say that 10% of the population is chronically without insurance. That's 30.4 million. That means that 90% of the current US population doesn't need fixing.
So, where's the crisis?
I know, I'm a cold-hearted son-of-a-gun, and I'm reducing this to logic, and I'm without compassion. But let's remember that if I'm not taxed to pay for someone else's health care (via the inherent inefficiencies of government administration), I'm free to contribute my disposable income to the charity I see as most capable of efficiently providing the emergency or long-term care needed by someone who can't otherwise obtain it, for whatever reason. (And yes: when my tax obligation was lower than it is now, I was in fact contributing more to charities with proven track records of successful provision to those in need.)
OK. So on to the "all other things being equal" section.
First, President Obama says, "If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan." (All other things being equal.) Now, check this link. (And note: there's that "vast majority" phrase again.)
Second, I've heard small business owners say in very public forums that their accountants have determined that the fine imposed by health care legislation for not providing insurance is actually less than the cost of health insurance mandated by the reform legislation being considered... in some cases, over $30,000 per month less. Here's what that means from an economic perspective: 70% of America's employers likely will consider (whether they act on their consideration or not) dropping their employees' health coverage, and opt to pay the fine. That means those employees will want to get the "public option" that President Obama does or does not want, depending on which day it is, or which audience he's addressing, or some other random factor. That means government costs go up. That means (in a Democrat administration) taxes go up. (In a Republican administration, taxes would go down, because Republicans, those right-wing hate-mongers, know that when you reduce the penalty for production, production and consumerism increases, and tax revenues actually go up.)
So if the President's health-care reform is passed, people will lose their current insurance coverage and doctor, and taxes will go up.
Not interested. Back to the drawing board.
Second, I've heard small business owners say in very public forums that their accountants have determined that the fine imposed by health care legislation for not providing insurance is actually less than the cost of health insurance mandated by the reform legislation being considered... in some cases, over $30,000 per month less. Here's what that means from an economic perspective: 70% of America's employers likely will consider (whether they act on their consideration or not) dropping their employees' health coverage, and opt to pay the fine. That means those employees will want to get the "public option" that President Obama does or does not want, depending on which day it is, or which audience he's addressing, or some other random factor. That means government costs go up. That means (in a Democrat administration) taxes go up. (In a Republican administration, taxes would go down, because Republicans, those right-wing hate-mongers, know that when you reduce the penalty for production, production and consumerism increases, and tax revenues actually go up.)
So if the President's health-care reform is passed, people will lose their current insurance coverage and doctor, and taxes will go up.
Not interested. Back to the drawing board.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
First, quoting from MSNBC’s “FirstRead” article posted 8/20/09:
"...the president wrote a 1,200-word New York Times op-ed on the health-care debate, and it didn’t mention the words “public option” in it ANYWHERE."
Wonder what the President was referring to when he made his first point in the op-ed: "First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job."
Since he didn't use the words "public option", MSNBC believes he must not have meant this as a public option. Right?
Much of the President's op-ed was simply empty rhetoric: "We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs" and "we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors" and "reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."
Great words. How will this all happen? More government intrusion into my life and your life (and yours, and yours), for someone else's benefit. You and I will have less control over dollars we earn; we will be less able to contribute to private and charitable entities that have mastered the work involved in meeting emergency and ongoing needs of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to afford the care they need at the moment.
We want a smaller government, not a bigger one. All I need for the government to do is stand back and let me do what I need to do. If someone (or some company) targets me in a predatory manner, let the government shield me from predatory behavior. It’s the government’s job to step in and protect me from those who would intentionally do me harm. It is expressly not the government’s role to provide a service in competition with private organizations. And face it: every time they try, they fail: USPS, Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security.
I certainly do not want the President to fail, unless his goal is to further infringe on my rights as a citizen. In that role, his intentions become at odds with my best interests.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have the support of Paul.
"...the president wrote a 1,200-word New York Times op-ed on the health-care debate, and it didn’t mention the words “public option” in it ANYWHERE."
Wonder what the President was referring to when he made his first point in the op-ed: "First, if you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage for yourself and your family — coverage that will stay with you whether you move, change your job or lose your job."
Since he didn't use the words "public option", MSNBC believes he must not have meant this as a public option. Right?
Much of the President's op-ed was simply empty rhetoric: "We’ll cut hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and inefficiency in federal health programs" and "we’ll be able to ensure that more tax dollars go directly to caring for seniors" and "reform will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable."
Great words. How will this all happen? More government intrusion into my life and your life (and yours, and yours), for someone else's benefit. You and I will have less control over dollars we earn; we will be less able to contribute to private and charitable entities that have mastered the work involved in meeting emergency and ongoing needs of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to afford the care they need at the moment.
We want a smaller government, not a bigger one. All I need for the government to do is stand back and let me do what I need to do. If someone (or some company) targets me in a predatory manner, let the government shield me from predatory behavior. It’s the government’s job to step in and protect me from those who would intentionally do me harm. It is expressly not the government’s role to provide a service in competition with private organizations. And face it: every time they try, they fail: USPS, Amtrak, Medicare, Social Security.
I certainly do not want the President to fail, unless his goal is to further infringe on my rights as a citizen. In that role, his intentions become at odds with my best interests.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have the support of Paul.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Back In MN!
Greetings!
Have to say, the last year-and-a-third have been a great experience for me professionally. That said, I am so glad to be back in the Twin Cities - home each night after work, able to play with the kids, mow the lawn, work on the house, visit with the neighbors... very nice.
New position at Gillette is shaping up to be very rewarding: lots of room for process development here, I must say!
I'll keep ya posted.
Blessings, and 73s!
Have to say, the last year-and-a-third have been a great experience for me professionally. That said, I am so glad to be back in the Twin Cities - home each night after work, able to play with the kids, mow the lawn, work on the house, visit with the neighbors... very nice.
New position at Gillette is shaping up to be very rewarding: lots of room for process development here, I must say!
I'll keep ya posted.
Blessings, and 73s!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
We're in Des Moines, now, the kids and I. Rolled in Friday night about 7:45 or so. Watched a movie while eating frozen (well, cooked, but not ordered out) pizza. Saturday called Mom and talked with her awhile - she's busy working on cleaning the house - then went to the Science Center (glad they have a reciprocal agreement with Science Museum of MN - kids had a BLAST!) and hung out at the mall awhile. Came back to the apt to do some spelling bee stuff and art work - Brennan is excellent at freehand stuff. Maura spelled probably 30 words, sounding each one out, and had great fun. Watched Monsters Inc, talked to aunt Barbara and Grandma H on the phone.
Back home Sunday - meeting Mom at the half-way point, maybe grab a little something to eat, then the kids and Mom go home and I'll be back in Des Moines for another work week.
Back home Sunday - meeting Mom at the half-way point, maybe grab a little something to eat, then the kids and Mom go home and I'll be back in Des Moines for another work week.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Marriage and Parenting
Just a quick post:
In marriage, sometimes you just feel like throwing your hands up in the air and proclaiming, "I can't win!"
Forget about winning. Don't try to win. Winning implies there's someone else who isn't winning.
Instead think about succeeding. There's enough room for everyone in a family to succeed.
See ya next time.
In marriage, sometimes you just feel like throwing your hands up in the air and proclaiming, "I can't win!"
Forget about winning. Don't try to win. Winning implies there's someone else who isn't winning.
Instead think about succeeding. There's enough room for everyone in a family to succeed.
See ya next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)