The Obama Biden Communist Health Care Plan

Here's the Obama Biden Health Care Plan (I doubt many people even read any of it):

* Require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions so all Americans regardless of their health status or history can get comprehensive benefits at fair and stable premiums.

Forcing insurance companies to provide additional coverage. Companies will either raise overall prices or go into debt or go out of business. The government required mortgage lenders to also provide home loans to distressed lenders. And we see the ramifications of that now. Also, aren't insurance companies already stressed financially?

* Create a new Small Business Health Tax Credit to help small businesses provide affordable health insurance to their employees.

Tax credits (ala child tax credit and earned income tax credits) can result in money being paid to such companies from the tax payers. Thus, we're being forced to provide this money to such businesses whether we want to or not. Supports someone else's cause...but I doubt it's what most people would want to do. But if they want to...great, hold a "make a donation to your favorite insurance company" telethon.

* Lower costs for businesses by covering a portion of the catastrophic health costs they pay in return for lower premiums for employees.

So, the tax payers are being forced to pay for health costs...whether they like it or not. Again, being forced to pay for someone else's cause.

* Prevent insurers from overcharging doctors for their malpractice insurance and invest in proven strategies to reduce preventable medical errors.

Dictating pricing and charging policies of insurance companies...a further stress on their already stressed situation.

* Make employer contributions more fair by requiring large employers that do not offer coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of their employees health care.

Forcing companies, in a down economy, to pay out more expenses will result in either layoffs, offshoring, more debt, or going out of business. GM is a large company. So is Ford. Do we want to force such companies to pay out more expenses and further stress their operations? It's no wonder large companies offshore work to China...they don't have to pay for their additional health care costs.

* Establish a National Health Insurance Exchange with a range of private insurance options as well as a new public plan based on benefits available to members of Congress that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health coverage.

Oh boy. It's "lets create another unaccountable government sponsored enterprise" time. That worked out well for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Can't wait to see this exchange burn our tax dollars. Maybe we should call this new agency Burny Mac.

* Ensure everyone who needs it will receive a tax credit for their premiums.

Same issue with tax credits...when it results in a drop below 0 in taxable income, it results in income actually to the tax reporter. So it is a welfare handout. So the actual tax payers are being forced to pay for someone else's cause and needs. We're not asked like a charity. We're forced. Biden doesn't mind because he doesn't contribute to charities. He'd rather force others to pay for his causes.

* Lower drug costs by allowing the importation of safe medicines from other developed countries, increasing the use of generic drugs in public programs and taking on drug companies that block cheaper generic medicines from the market

One sound/kind principle amongst a Communist Health Plan.

* Require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data

More expenses on hospitals. Will stress them out. Hospital workers might start job hunting now.

* Reduce the costs of catastrophic illnesses for employers and their employees.
* Reform the insurance market to increase competition by taking on anticompetitive activity that drives up prices without improving quality of care.

Too tired to respond to the last two.

Current Case Study: Why Communism and Regulation Don't Work

The other day, after the market tanked, the newspapers were reporting that US congress passed the $700B bailout bill due in large part to the fact that the market tanked after they didn't pass it the first time: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7652112.stm.

Now today, after the bill passed on Friday, the financial markets are in turmoil despite the bill, and as some theorize, because of the bill being passed: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7654025.stm

So a $700B taxpayer funded bailout involving communistic state ownership of private assets, and added regulation measures were put in place in a hurried fashion in part due to a market panic. Yet the market panicked anwyay. And yet we are now stuck with the tax burden, increased levels of communism in America, and more regulation.

If any case is a good example for why using legislation and regulation to try and manage a complex market system doesn't work...this is it.

Can we get our money and freedom back now?

The Burden of Pelosi

In May 2008, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House Speaker, sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-3221
which forced tax payers to insure up to $300 billion of refinanced loans for "distressed borrowers".

In January 2008, Pelosi sponsored this bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5140&tab=summary
which imposed additional regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then today, Pelosi said this shortly before the vote on the bailout act:
“Madam speaker, when was the last time anyone ever asked you for $700 billion? It’s a staggering figure. ... But only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies to our country. Policies that were built on budget recklessness. ... And now eight years later, the foundation of that fiscal irresponsibility, combined with an anything goes economic policy, has taken us to where we are today.... No regulation, no supervision, no discipline."

And after it didn't pass she said:
"We must work in a bipartisan way in order to have another bite at the apple in terms of some legislation,"

Is this lady a burden on our economy or not?

Extremities, Existence, and Safety: Worrying Themselves to Death

Another retort to a questioning of whether or not taxation is necessary, is that it is an extreme viewpoint.

Ask yourself this in considering that position: Are the "liberals" who claim that George Bush is evil or that Republicans are selfish espousing extreme viewpoints? Are the "conservatives" who claim that Barrack Obama is evil or that Democrats are too loose with other people's money espousing extreme viewpoints?

If you only surround yourself with straight Democratic and/or Republican party line viewpoints, then indeed other viewpoints will seem extreme. But isn't banging your head against a wall doing things the same way over and over again a bit extreme?

Another retort to a questioning of taxation is that we're asserting that government should not be allowed to tax its citizens at all (and presumably therefore cease to exist).

The government does not exist solely to tax. We didn't have required Federal income taxes prior to the early part of the last century, and the IRS was even formed until the 1950s. Yet, the US government existed from 1776 through the 1800s and early part of 1900s...largely without personal income taxation.

The bottom line retort to a question of taxation's necessity is that the people who advocate it, state that they're willing to give up some of their income for safety assurances.

Which hits straight to the point of my position on taxation. They want other people (be it strangers, their family, their friends) to pay for their causes because it makes them feel good. They feel that this is ok. That selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of their will on others....is ok.

Which means that they must feel it is ok for other people to assert their selfishness, self-centeredness, and imposition of will on the government even if it affects them adversely.

Do you see any long term (or even short term) issues with this on the state of the union?

What about the roads?

A common argument for taxation is that because someone uses the services put forward by someone else's cause, that someone should pay for them. However, in this case, we are forced to use the services.

The roads and national defense argument is a common retort. Throw on to the pile other causes like forcing people to pay for the health care of others, and forcing people to pay welfare for others, and forcing people to pay for military offensive measures, and forcing people to pay for educating other people's kids, etc....and you should see where the dead end and cyclic cock-fighting takes you.

But addressing roads and military "defense" (not offense). I admit those are thornier issues. However, for roads, I can see why in the earlier part of the century, the short sighted approach was to make these Federal and State roads. While the option to privatize many roads would be nice, why not simply require people who want to drive on Federal or State roads pay for those services if you need/use them? You then get a voucher or ticket to ride as it were. Maybe even call it a "license". We already have DMVs in place to enable this. Want to drive on a road, pay for a license to drive on that road. I prefer the concept of tickets and vouchers. If you don't want to drive on those roads, don't pay for them. If you're caught driving on the road, you get fined or charged by the authorities (either private or government financed) policing the road. The important thing is, that you don't pay for the road outright through taxes.

As for those poor people who can't afford to pay for the road, well the taxes they don't have to pay for the road will be added income they can use to buy their license. And I'll make bet that many employers would include getting licensed for specific roads as part of a benefit.

Defense is another issue, will address that later.

Raising and Cutting Taxes - The Wrong Question

The recent Democratic National Convention featured some talk about raising and cutting taxes for people of different economic status.

Rather than ask the question, should we raise or not cut tax for the wealthy, the middle class, the poor, etc, I think people should simply ask, is it right and OK to impose their wills and agendas on other people and force them to pay for their causes?

We have to pay taxes for government spending. Government spends money on things that are driven by people's causes and political agendas. Everyone pig piles onto this spit fire jockeying for their own cause to be paid for, which means forcing other people, likely even your friends and family, to pay for your cause, if your cause is one of the things funded.

That is one of the most selfish, self-centered, mean, manipulative, and evil things an individual can do. Force someone else to do something against their will. It flies directly in the face of liberty, and it is morally wrong and a despicable trait.

If a friend, through their manipulative ways, forced you to pay for some work to be done on their house or one of their family members' house, how would you feel about them? Would you want to keep them as a friend? Or would you think it fair?

This is what's involved with trying to get representatives of government to manipulate the purse strings of a centralized legally-enforced tax system and manipulate a central bank to do their bidding. Do you think that's ok? Or do you think it's selfish, manipulative, and evil?

We're in a Recession! (of useful information about the economy)

So, a recession means, per the National Bureau of Economic Research's definition, that there is a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". Yet, when I venture out of my home, be it in Virginia, Kansas, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, as I have recently; or as I drove across country from California to Virginia last November, restaurants are always packed to the gills with people, people are out buying things at stores, shopping malls are packed, and most everyone I know is gainfully employed. And as a business owner, its damn near impossible to hire people, people are demanding higher rates, and people are negotiating versus just clamoring for jobs. Furthermore, my company has more and more work coming our way than we can handle.

None of these observations are indicative of a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". And I don't live an isolated life. I venture out of the home and socialize with friends and family. I travel frequently for business so I get to see other parts of the country. I had the unique opportunity to take a long and leisurely drive across country from California to Virginia last year to see close up and personal how people were living. And I run a business that works with other businesses in a technology field, and thus I have a day-to-day up close and personal view of what the economy is doing at a micro-economic level for business. In other words, I'm not reading in a book or newspaper somewhere about what the economy is doing, I'm living in it.

Yet, I will occasionally hear that we're in a recession. Who's conveying this message? Most of where I hear this is coming from mainstream media. Is it true? An ivory white tower organization and bunch of pinheads can say we're in a "significant decline of economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months". But as I live and participate in this economy, it seems to me to be a bold faced lie. You can paint a picture however you want with facts and figures, but when it doesn't jive with reality of day to day life, you have to wonder about the source of this information.

I guess if stated enough times, people will start to believe it, and we'll start to behave as if we are in a recession. But then again, remember, it's an "election year". Come November, after the election, depending on the results, we'll magically have been transported into a new economy. And everyone will forget the dire straits we were in leading up to that day we all went into a building, pulled a few levers, and collectively erased from memory the fact that we were ever in a recession.

Turn off, tune out, and drop in

This past week, as I traveled across country and back for a project, I was walking through airports, stopping at gas stations, and watching TV in the hotel room and at restaurants, an image was impressed upon me. Really, the proper word is 'forced' upon me. I usually avoid watching mainstream TV and avoid looking at mainstream magazines and newspapers. But with the boredom that comes with travel, I'm inevitably taken with picking up a magazine or newspaper, or turning on a TV. And each time thereafter, I remember why I tend toward avoiding current mainstream venues for information. Mainly because it isn't information, rather it's a force-fed message from organizations focused more on influencing political opinions or simply entertainment. No news. Just agendas and entertainment.

This time around, the image I was being force fed was that of Barrack Obama as a statesman and President. I caught myself thinking that he was already elected President of the US. Between the frequent shots of him shaking hands with dignitaries around the world, to dramatic close-ups of him praying on the cover of Newsweek, to everything else, it seems mainstream media this past week was manufacturing the image of Barrack Obama as our elected President. Maybe this image is what is conveyed on a daily basis when I'm not traveling, but I only was slapped with the image this week.

It's telling of a contrast. I get my daily dose of information when not traveling from words. Usually from sources like the BBC and a more broad source of information from the Internet. I purposely avoid most mainstream US media sources. I occasionally peruse mainstream media sites, but I give them no more or less time than other sources. However, during travels, I'm usually only blasted with their info hoses, and usually in visual form. Whether I want to hear it or not. It's kind of like cigarette smoke. I'm in a restaurant, bar, or hotel...a TV is on somewhere, and its blowing smoke my way. Or I'm in an airport or gas station, and the news stands have their dramatic close ups of their pre-elected official.

While I'm hit with the temporary suspension of reality and think that Barrack Obama was already elected President of the US. Reality sets in fairly quick and I realize the source. It reminds me, counter to Timothy Leary's suggestion, to "turn off, tune out, and drop in". That is, turn off mainstream TV, tune out of mainstream news and magazines, and drop in to reality. Seek real information from a broader source, less affected by political agendas and the need to entertain. Unless of course you simply want to march to the tune of the political drumbeats because it's in step with your own beliefs. It's comforting and entertaining, but not even remotely informative.

Independence Day 2008

The other day, a friend sent me and a few other friends an email about the 4th of July. Summarizing this email, it described the actions of a few men who organized to draft a resolution that would dissolve allegiance to the British Crown and declare the freedom and independence of the United Colonies. The declaration also went on to state the rights of individuals for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This small crew of men, initially about five men, knew that their positions and actions were considered treasonous. The authorities at hand, were within their current legal rights to restrain, jail, and execute them.

While many colonists at the time felt the same way and were dissatisfied with the British Crown, it was Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and a few others that were risking their lives in organizing the push for American independence, and what would lead to the Declaration of Independence.

Today in America, there are many dissatisfied with American politics. Many feel that their tax dollars are being spent on causes that they do not support. They're being taxed and not represented. They're free to vote appropriately, yet voter turnout is low. Their choices are generally between two parties, Democrat or Republican. Yet many choose not to vote, or if they do vote, they vote against the other party.

Contrast this to the actions of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, the Founding Fathers, and ultimately to the men and women they led into the War of Independence. Actions for which they risked their lives for liberty. For modern Americans, we're free to vote, assemble, and organize to change government. Yet many don't vote, vote frivolously, or do not orchestrate desired change.

A fog of complacency and powerlessness has sunk across the land of America. We've let mainstream media dictate whom we feel are viable candidates and issues to address. We've let laws enacted that have restricted our liberty. We've left the keys of government and our finances largely in the hands of individuals whom we feel do not represent our interests. We As a result, we have widespread political malaise and have enabled the actions of a few to dictate the lives of us all.

This is Independence Day 2008 contrasted against Independence Day 1776.

A Nation Less Free

Much discussion about political and cultural matters occurs in the print media, televised media, and day-to-day with discussions between friends and acquaintances. We may often think, correctly or not, that these discussions transfer to considerations of the politicians who make and pass the laws that affect us. This is our perceived system of "representation". That somehow, politicians "hear our voice" and reflect laws appropriately to address "the issues".

Irrespective of whether or not media and day-to-day discourse translates directly to political debate in the Capitol, we can simply turn on C-SPAN or the news and see politicians going at it, with fervor over similar issues. Then, in a manner mostly unmonitored by the public at large, the outcomes of these discussions manifest themselves as laws. Laws that affect us, regulate our lives and restrict what we may and may not do. The laws also restrict what others may and may not do, which in turn may indirectly affect us and what we may and may not do.

Our lives are regulated and restricted, either directly or indirectly, by the causes of other people. Not necessarily causes that we support, but rather, other peoples causes. We pay the price. Our freedom restricted. Our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...regulated. All as a result of other people's causes.

While you may agree with some of the causes that manifest as law in principle. Inevitably, given the jockeying and positioning of the many individuals and organizations that influence and affect the discourse that ensues, someone else's cause, not one that you deem desirable, will affect you and restrict what you do.

Was this intended for the American experiment and way of life? Regardless of that debate, we can simply ask "Is it right?"

Is this regulation and restriction of our lives due to other people's causes natural, a self-evident truth, and part of the way humans should live their lives? Are we intended to live our lives this way? Or, is living a free life, free from encumbrances and forced causes of others, an inherent right of human beings, and perhaps other living things?

If so, a system of government to support such rights, while permitting open discourse, would not allow such jockeying for causes to manifest itself in laws that affect us and restrict our rights. Thus, it would be constitutionally illegal to create laws that limit freedom to begin with. And we'd live in a society where laws are passed conservatively versus voluminously as we have now.

Has America, as it operates right now, lost consideration for the inherent rights of human beings to live free lives unencumbered by the causes of others?

A Start

Creating a blog has been an itch that I've not yet scratched. I recall the first time I heard someone mention the word "blog". They asked, "Do you have a blog?" I thought he was referring to some medical condition of sorts...something that would typically need to be scratched.

That was 2002. So, six years later, I'm finally scratching my blog. And now I'm blogging about it.

I promise this won't be your typical blog. I make every promise in my bones that this will be non-typical. If at any point a post becomes a boring exercise in me just writing for the sake of writing, I promise I'll give that blog a courteousy flush.

StaX