Ever see a G20 meeting? Lots of longhairs in ski masks burning cars, throwing flaming bottles at cops holding shields. I have a few questions for the rabble:
Who made the bottle you just threw? the gasoline you put in it? the cloth you used as a fuse? who mined the phosphorus used for the match? who cut the lumber for the stick? who packaged it? who made the trains, planes, or trucks that transported everything to where you're so pissed off? who paved the roads? who made the asphalt for the roads? who built the bridges they used? who grew the food you eat? who made the clothes you wear? how can you do all this without being part of any of the production? why don't your parents or your government cut you off so you can figure some of this out?
I hate those jackasses. Hate them. It's un-Christian, I know, but I do. Pray for me and vote Republican this year and every year The second part may not save my soul, but it will save the country.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
School Vouchers
A doctor I know stunned me the other day by saying he would pay double his property taxes to get more money for teachers. That jaw-droppingly stupid bit of volunteerism showed me how badly we're losing the fight. Even (supposedly) bright people eventually succumb to the repeated lie, in this case that teachers are underpaid. The natural extension of that line of thought (I nearly said crap.) is that we, the cheap-ass taxpayers, are the culprits for the country's pathetic educational outcomes.
I presume teachers know their salary before they accept the position. Why is it okay on signing day, but an outrage on the first day of classes? The answer is simple: teacher's unions. I've heard them complain for my entire life, and no amount of cash, reduced hours, or increased benefits has satisfied them. I don't fault them; it's their DNA. I fault those who've been elected to defend against their relentless siege. The answer? Vote them out so something else can be tried.
Education is our country's best example of government as a poor provider of services. Outcomes are horrible and getting worse, yet it's no one's fault. Like all public sector failings, they just need more money. And why wouldn't we give it to them? Look at how well they take care of it. The U.S. is now the proud home of four high schools costing over $200,000,000 to build - the most recent being $560,000,000 in Los Angeles. Since that school is built on the site where Liberal icon, RFK, was murdered, apparently cost had no relevance. In fact, when the School Board was asked about the cost, their answer was that it was funded by a bond issue, so it really didn't cost anything. And we turn our children over to these people! My suspicion is that when the dropout rate at this palace continues at the old rate, 40%, fists will rise into air. Somehow, the students will have been short changed because the rich don't pay enough taxes.
Vouchers were an experiment that worked, and as a result suffered summary execution under the Democrats. Teachers unions need Democrats, and Democrats need union money and votes. Four hands held the pillow over Voucher's face.
Free market choices work if given a chance. This November, throw out any incumbent who took money from a teacher's union. Even better, if a candidate in your district promises to dismantle the Department of Education and return decisions to the states, send them a check and stick their sign in your front lawn or window.
I presume teachers know their salary before they accept the position. Why is it okay on signing day, but an outrage on the first day of classes? The answer is simple: teacher's unions. I've heard them complain for my entire life, and no amount of cash, reduced hours, or increased benefits has satisfied them. I don't fault them; it's their DNA. I fault those who've been elected to defend against their relentless siege. The answer? Vote them out so something else can be tried.
Education is our country's best example of government as a poor provider of services. Outcomes are horrible and getting worse, yet it's no one's fault. Like all public sector failings, they just need more money. And why wouldn't we give it to them? Look at how well they take care of it. The U.S. is now the proud home of four high schools costing over $200,000,000 to build - the most recent being $560,000,000 in Los Angeles. Since that school is built on the site where Liberal icon, RFK, was murdered, apparently cost had no relevance. In fact, when the School Board was asked about the cost, their answer was that it was funded by a bond issue, so it really didn't cost anything. And we turn our children over to these people! My suspicion is that when the dropout rate at this palace continues at the old rate, 40%, fists will rise into air. Somehow, the students will have been short changed because the rich don't pay enough taxes.
Vouchers were an experiment that worked, and as a result suffered summary execution under the Democrats. Teachers unions need Democrats, and Democrats need union money and votes. Four hands held the pillow over Voucher's face.
Free market choices work if given a chance. This November, throw out any incumbent who took money from a teacher's union. Even better, if a candidate in your district promises to dismantle the Department of Education and return decisions to the states, send them a check and stick their sign in your front lawn or window.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Medical Insurance for Dummies
Question: what's the biggest mistake in medical insurance?
Answer: getting it through an employer.
Think about it. You pay for all the other insurance in your life. Premiums are calculated on your individual risk factors. Multiple insurers compete for your business. States have insurance departments that (supposedly) act as gatekeepers on coverage terms, premium hikes, company solvency, and policyholder disputes. And by the way, assessments to the insurance companies fund the whole shebang, not the taxpayers.
Am I crazy? Couldn't medical coverage enter that marketplace? (I realize those are two separate questions.) How did the employer get in the middle of this you ask? Answer: the government, via tax policy. They allow corporations to deduct the premiums, the only form of insurance that's deductible, and as we all know, tax deduction equals subsidy. Oh wait, I forgot. Not all corporations are eligible. Sub-chapter S corporations and LLC's, which include virtually all small businesses, can't deduct the premiums. Why the different treatment? Could it be a union thing? Is it possible that the government wanted to add a bargaining arrow to the union quiver? Nah...
As you might suspect, I think medical insurance is no different than car insurance, and it can be priced the same way. I don't pay the same as the teenager with the Corvette, and I don't want to pay the same as the obese, diabetic, smoking drunk. Believe it or not, actuaries can come up with right numbers. Hey Michelle! You want a "weller" America? (It's a perfectly crumulant word.) Let people start paying for behavior choices.
Progressives will argue that health care is different because every person, whether insured or not, accesses the system; so in practice, it's not an insurance situation; it's how do we cover the costs. That's true...sort of. Why can't the solution stay in the private sector? Let insurance companies offer basic policies (broader coverages can be added for additional premiums) and calculate the premium on the risk characteristics of the buyer (like all other insurance). Have Uncle Sap pay the premium for the man/woman/family under a specific income level. The fly in this soup, of course, is that a basic policy would necessitate denial of treatment in certain instances; but that's a topic for a future blog entry.
The wandering point of this edition is that jobs are jobs. Health insurance is health insurance. Stitching them together complicates employment and must end if we're going to re-start the economy. Vote for those who'll yank ObamaCare out by the roots. It's the only way to permit fresh thinking into the problem.
Answer: getting it through an employer.
Think about it. You pay for all the other insurance in your life. Premiums are calculated on your individual risk factors. Multiple insurers compete for your business. States have insurance departments that (supposedly) act as gatekeepers on coverage terms, premium hikes, company solvency, and policyholder disputes. And by the way, assessments to the insurance companies fund the whole shebang, not the taxpayers.
Am I crazy? Couldn't medical coverage enter that marketplace? (I realize those are two separate questions.) How did the employer get in the middle of this you ask? Answer: the government, via tax policy. They allow corporations to deduct the premiums, the only form of insurance that's deductible, and as we all know, tax deduction equals subsidy. Oh wait, I forgot. Not all corporations are eligible. Sub-chapter S corporations and LLC's, which include virtually all small businesses, can't deduct the premiums. Why the different treatment? Could it be a union thing? Is it possible that the government wanted to add a bargaining arrow to the union quiver? Nah...
As you might suspect, I think medical insurance is no different than car insurance, and it can be priced the same way. I don't pay the same as the teenager with the Corvette, and I don't want to pay the same as the obese, diabetic, smoking drunk. Believe it or not, actuaries can come up with right numbers. Hey Michelle! You want a "weller" America? (It's a perfectly crumulant word.) Let people start paying for behavior choices.
Progressives will argue that health care is different because every person, whether insured or not, accesses the system; so in practice, it's not an insurance situation; it's how do we cover the costs. That's true...sort of. Why can't the solution stay in the private sector? Let insurance companies offer basic policies (broader coverages can be added for additional premiums) and calculate the premium on the risk characteristics of the buyer (like all other insurance). Have Uncle Sap pay the premium for the man/woman/family under a specific income level. The fly in this soup, of course, is that a basic policy would necessitate denial of treatment in certain instances; but that's a topic for a future blog entry.
The wandering point of this edition is that jobs are jobs. Health insurance is health insurance. Stitching them together complicates employment and must end if we're going to re-start the economy. Vote for those who'll yank ObamaCare out by the roots. It's the only way to permit fresh thinking into the problem.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Mmmm.... That's Good Kool-Aid
Got a good bit of feedback from a reader. The upshot was that, yes, market forces would be valuable in restoring prosperity, but government is the public's only protection against "greed," AND until the economy rights itself, "they have to do something." Barkeep, another double shot of Progressive Kool-Aid, if you please.
When the debate is framed that way, the Progressives have already won. The question isn't if there should be government initiatives; it's how many. You can't see me now, but I'm punching myself in the forehead and it really hurts. If I have an overarching theme in this blog exercise, it's that government control in the economy is always bad. I won't ascribe evil intent to the Progressives, but their failures litter the globe. Voters willing to surrender any more cash or freedoms to that cabal of nitwits don't seem to know that repeating an action, and expecting different outcomes, is a definition of insanity.
Government, a corrupt pillager in its own right, has shown no capacity to protect us from...pretty much anything. In fact, they've had quite the opposite effect. Take real estate. Beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, bureaucrats by the thousands star-gazed while the real estate bubble swelled. Fannie and Freddie spent the 80's and 90's perfecting the scam. In the 2000's, the head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, pocketed many millions in bonuses from "profits," all the while funneling gigantic campaign contributions to the likes of Barny Frank and Chris Dodd. So far, the taxpayer has eaten $150 billion in losses on Fannie, and we're not done yet. Gee, I wonder how a cesspool like Fannie escaped effective oversight for so long?
After the 2008 collapse, and the evil Wall Street bankers were paraded in front of the cameras for Frank and Dodd's show trials, where was Raines? Not even a subpoena. He was free to tend to his part ownership in the new exchange that will trade carbon credits. Should Cap & Tax ever pass, he could turn his catastrophic stewardship of Fannie Mae into a personal fortune approaching a billion dollars. And that, my dears (as Fagan called his team of pickpockets), is how they protect us from "greed."
For those who still believe government "has to do something," my only question is, "What's your favorite Kool-Aid flavor?"
When the debate is framed that way, the Progressives have already won. The question isn't if there should be government initiatives; it's how many. You can't see me now, but I'm punching myself in the forehead and it really hurts. If I have an overarching theme in this blog exercise, it's that government control in the economy is always bad. I won't ascribe evil intent to the Progressives, but their failures litter the globe. Voters willing to surrender any more cash or freedoms to that cabal of nitwits don't seem to know that repeating an action, and expecting different outcomes, is a definition of insanity.
Government, a corrupt pillager in its own right, has shown no capacity to protect us from...pretty much anything. In fact, they've had quite the opposite effect. Take real estate. Beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, bureaucrats by the thousands star-gazed while the real estate bubble swelled. Fannie and Freddie spent the 80's and 90's perfecting the scam. In the 2000's, the head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines, pocketed many millions in bonuses from "profits," all the while funneling gigantic campaign contributions to the likes of Barny Frank and Chris Dodd. So far, the taxpayer has eaten $150 billion in losses on Fannie, and we're not done yet. Gee, I wonder how a cesspool like Fannie escaped effective oversight for so long?
After the 2008 collapse, and the evil Wall Street bankers were paraded in front of the cameras for Frank and Dodd's show trials, where was Raines? Not even a subpoena. He was free to tend to his part ownership in the new exchange that will trade carbon credits. Should Cap & Tax ever pass, he could turn his catastrophic stewardship of Fannie Mae into a personal fortune approaching a billion dollars. And that, my dears (as Fagan called his team of pickpockets), is how they protect us from "greed."
For those who still believe government "has to do something," my only question is, "What's your favorite Kool-Aid flavor?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)