Why are we not arguing about the principles behind the collective bargaining issues we face in this country? As someone who has studied human resources, manufacturing and entrepreneurship, I have a few thoughts. These thoughts get down to the heart of the issue and if we know our hearts, we might not have these problems. A couple of questions:
If I am employed as a public servant, do I have the right to walk away from the bargaining table if I don't feel that my employer is being as generous as morally possible? Can you take the word morally out of the previous sentence and have a situation where both people believe that each party has the other's good measure at heart? My employer is the public, so I have to rely on its representatives to understand what is morally and financially possible. Because of this, there should indeed be standards. I believe they should be enforced between the parties with a possible mediator or several mediators used if possible. This is the definition of binding arbitration, and although it is not always the answer, it's a darn site better than the monopoly of a union with un-checked power.
I've always found it interesting that the unions believed that they must compel membership in order to enforce the morality of the public. So far, and I've done a few searches, read a few articles, I have yet to see a valid defense of compelling union membership. Why would a union not be voluntary? I was incensed that I had to pay union dues at the University of Montana, because I don't believe the union at U of M represents my ideas politically. At the university, we have the right to ask the union to donate the money on our behalf. I felt I would be donating on behalf of an organization I do not support politically. No-win, no-win situation; not my favorite.
The other side of this argument is a straw man: why should I benefit from the actions of the union on my behalf? Frankly, I am not opposed to sitting down with my employer and negotiating my own salary and benefits, who knows, I might do better than the union leaders. In fact, I know I could do better. I do believe that unions serve a purpose, but in the case of the public unions, I do not, unless membership is voluntary. As a public employee, you should be prepared to be paid what your community can afford to pay you. Binding arbitration in this case is warranted. Why do public service unions want mandatory union membership? I'll tell you why...power. The power of the unions to exert influence over politicians who see voting blocks and stumble over themselves trying to ingratiate themselves. It's sad and pathetic, and it's our political system, but those unions should not include those who do not believe in the union agenda.
I don't know a single person who would pay teachers less than they thought was morally and financially possible. I don't believe that the money paid to teachers is the main problem, but it is one that should be handled with efficiency; one I think that should be run privately, but that's another argument for another time.
I also believe that there are statistics to bear out that more money does not equal satisfactory performance. WI spends more per student than any other state in the union. I think it's significant enough proof that 2/3 of their 8th graders not being proficient in reading is not due to money paid to teachers. Top of the line teachers should earn $80,000 to $100,000 per year, but that depends on the area. We might even want to pay teachers more than we have...usually the public is in favor of fair pay; again, not the issue. In Missoula, I would think that something a little less, $80,000 [for those with a master's degree] would be the top end of my scale here (even though housing prices were once quite high here, housing is selling for 12% less now). This is all subjective, of course, and therefore standards should apply.
Housing price pressure, by the way, will directly affect the budget of the states a year and a half from now. Have we taken that into consideration? Here in Montana we have the right to appropriate the money from other resource-rich counties to pay for our teachers. Lucky us. Other states, like WI must rely on taxes, big ones. They have the 5th highest property tax burden in the country in the paper industry, anyway. What is fair? I think, again, binding arbitration might not be pretty, or politically powerful, but it would do the job. The rest of the folks could then simply re-up their membership in the Democratic Party to satisfy their political urges.
Teachers have a great reputation and they are not helping it by striking in WI. Instead, the political organizations that have come out of the woodwork are doing what they do best, agitating. They don't care about the teachers, not really. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the union leadership doesn't care about the teachers either. Just read some of the harrowing cases that have come before the Right-to-Work organization and you can get a feel for how the unions abuse not only membership dues, but the members themselves. True, no organization is perfect, even union organizations, but we sure treat them like they are. They are the untouchables, the ones whom we cannot insult lest we bring the wrath of God down upon our conservative selves.
I think it is time to take a hard look at these unions and I hope that some of that effort will come from inside, from those who are not satisfied with their membership and wish that they could just go back to work. Where are you? Come on in, the water's fine, a little warm, but you'll get used to it. I sure wouldn't want to be in their position, it's hard to buck your union, but when you start the process of questioning mandatory membership, their arguments break down. After all, what is wrong with voluntary union membership? Ask the question! It's the heart of the matter.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Danger of Words (It's Not What You'd Think)
The outrage we feel at the gunman's cavalier decision to take someone's life and the strange compression of time and space we feel inside ourselves when we think of the act itself combine to create a state of shock, rudely interrupted by the occasional poking and prodding, somewhat like what my daughter does to our unfortunate cat, by outraged politicians who see this as their opportunity to say, "I told you so!" The thought that conservatives in their anger about losing freedoms granted in our Constitution are somehow responsible for the decision by a deranged killer to put bullets into 6 or more of our citizens is ludicrous; you'd think that a simple prayer and calls for justice would be enough. But not for those who feel they are somehow wronged by the pundits who speak out against tyranny, no, not good enough! After all, there might be something to that phrase, "Don't retreat, re-load" that came from a strong leader, a woman no less, in the Republican party. Of course, if that was a call to arms against the 2,000 plus page legislation that now threatens our country's economic future, I missed it. I naively thought that my right to vote in the last election sent a crystal clear message.
Do our detractors wish that we would whisper sweet nothings in cool voices, or would they rather that we just shut up and agree with them? What does it take, then, to get my Senator's attention? Perhaps a bunch of crazy Montanans shooting their rifles into the air and whooping it up outside the offices of our fine representatives? With my luck, we'd all be thrown in jail. So, As I check to make sure my firearms are locked in tight for the night, my fellow citizens can be assured that my intent is simply to excercise my rights as a free American and to protect my home and family, nothing more. You were scared, weren't you? After all, I have written words that were hot and fiery in my short career as a blogger and longer one as a writer, but never once, not in all the time during which I have had to suppress deep-seated anger at this administration's lack of concern for our freedoms have I, even once, thought about taking the life of my congressman or a nearby 9-year old girl. I certainly hope you are all relieved and that we can get back to it without losing, once again, the freedoms that are promised us in our founding documents.
Do our detractors wish that we would whisper sweet nothings in cool voices, or would they rather that we just shut up and agree with them? What does it take, then, to get my Senator's attention? Perhaps a bunch of crazy Montanans shooting their rifles into the air and whooping it up outside the offices of our fine representatives? With my luck, we'd all be thrown in jail. So, As I check to make sure my firearms are locked in tight for the night, my fellow citizens can be assured that my intent is simply to excercise my rights as a free American and to protect my home and family, nothing more. You were scared, weren't you? After all, I have written words that were hot and fiery in my short career as a blogger and longer one as a writer, but never once, not in all the time during which I have had to suppress deep-seated anger at this administration's lack of concern for our freedoms have I, even once, thought about taking the life of my congressman or a nearby 9-year old girl. I certainly hope you are all relieved and that we can get back to it without losing, once again, the freedoms that are promised us in our founding documents.
Monday, October 25, 2010
We Are Supposed to Be Different!
I've argued with everyone over the years: my customers, my high school buds, my colleagues at work, my many friends, and the occasional wild-eyed partisan with whom there is no argument; and in each of these conversations, some louder than others, there has always been an undercurrent suggesting that somehow the rest of the world's governments treat their populace with more care, somehow more humanely than we do here in the United States. I was always perplexed with this comparison until one day, I saw it all very clearly: we were supposed to be different!
We fought a revolutionary war to make sure that we did not take on the burdensome taxes found in the European model of government. We fought and died to make sure that we had the right to make boatloads of money in this country and secured this right in the blood of our countrymen to retain most of those dollars for ourselves and our posterity. We are supposed to be different! We are supposed to be able to keep our money! If you want to be taken care of, you can go anywhere in the world, as my friends and foes alike clearly indicate, where you can get your health care from the government and you can retire at age 62!
But we are different. We are the only country on earth where it IS different. As Ronald Reagan said, "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." And, according to those who would argue that most other governments offer health care, this is most certainly true. And in accepting this level of government care, these citizens have given up their right to keep the money they earn; sometimes up to 75% of their wealth! And in return? In return, they get government run health care, retirement, and all the inefficiencies associated with government run programs.
Sure, we want Social Security, a safety net, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.; we don't want to see people living in the streets. And I believe that we can provide that safety net, but at levels that are reasonable (a topic for another Blog). Social Security, after all, was meant to be an insurance program for people who didn't have wealth when they met their retirement age. No longer is it marketed in that way; now, it is the sole retirement account of so many who will depend on it when they hit the age of 65.
This age, of course, should be at least 72, and you can wait until then to take your money (it will be more money if you do), but we've re-branded Social Security as a retirement account while impeding its growth by attaching the Social Security fund to treasury bills. So, the choice is clear to those who are paying attention: we can give up our freedoms, let the government take over, or we can be different! We can be the country where people come from all over the world because we innovate, create, and produce due to the incentive we have built into our Constitution that says we can keep what we've earned; I say: let's be different!
We fought a revolutionary war to make sure that we did not take on the burdensome taxes found in the European model of government. We fought and died to make sure that we had the right to make boatloads of money in this country and secured this right in the blood of our countrymen to retain most of those dollars for ourselves and our posterity. We are supposed to be different! We are supposed to be able to keep our money! If you want to be taken care of, you can go anywhere in the world, as my friends and foes alike clearly indicate, where you can get your health care from the government and you can retire at age 62!
But we are different. We are the only country on earth where it IS different. As Ronald Reagan said, "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth." And, according to those who would argue that most other governments offer health care, this is most certainly true. And in accepting this level of government care, these citizens have given up their right to keep the money they earn; sometimes up to 75% of their wealth! And in return? In return, they get government run health care, retirement, and all the inefficiencies associated with government run programs.
Sure, we want Social Security, a safety net, unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.; we don't want to see people living in the streets. And I believe that we can provide that safety net, but at levels that are reasonable (a topic for another Blog). Social Security, after all, was meant to be an insurance program for people who didn't have wealth when they met their retirement age. No longer is it marketed in that way; now, it is the sole retirement account of so many who will depend on it when they hit the age of 65.
This age, of course, should be at least 72, and you can wait until then to take your money (it will be more money if you do), but we've re-branded Social Security as a retirement account while impeding its growth by attaching the Social Security fund to treasury bills. So, the choice is clear to those who are paying attention: we can give up our freedoms, let the government take over, or we can be different! We can be the country where people come from all over the world because we innovate, create, and produce due to the incentive we have built into our Constitution that says we can keep what we've earned; I say: let's be different!
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Outrage and Epithets!
This topic almost puts me over the edge. I admit it. I find it hard to take and I'll tell you why. When I was a young conservative at San Diego State, we had a "sit-in" to demonstrate our objection to a Sandanista thug who was coming to speak at the student union. We brought our signs, which said stuff like, "Nicaragua Freedom Fighters NOW!", "Support Nicaraguan Freedom," and Sandanistas Supported by Communists." We sat out on the lawn where we had obtained a permit to sit, quietly.
As the faculty members at San Diego State University, most of whom we had identified as members of the Philosophy, Humanities, and English Depts. filed by, they spat on us, threw garbage at us, and called us "Baby Killers." It was outrageous, and there was no mention of it in the San Diego Union or the school paper. For years, the left has had marching orders that have included epithets and outrage all focused on obtaining favorable press coverage. My boyfriend in collge once obtained a list of protest suggestions from one of the Nicaragua protest groups (left-wing). I forget exactly what was on it, but I know the gist of it was that they were to obtain the most press coverage possible and there was mention of how to draw the opposition out and make them look bad in the press. There is such a double standard here, and I am tired of being demonized for my beliefs, which, for the most part, I have expressed peacefully, and with as many reference to facts as possible.
I don't give two hoots if the Tea Party started chucking half-eaten hot dogs at those idiots (eegads, I called a liberal an idiot) who just instituted a law that creates 159 new government offices and programs, and killed the free market for health insurance (I'll pause while liberals google the word "free market" [thanks Ann], and have essentially given over 20% of our economy to an economic entity that allocates resources with little thought to the most efficient methods and practices. We have become Europe with its lagging economy and lack of innovation, and if there is outrage over that fact, I support it wholeheartedly.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if this exercise of government power a la Max Baucus (God, it just kills me that the state of Montana actually provided the IDIOT who wrote this bill) ended in violence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and our president who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar should pay close attention here, because the English king had imposed taxation without representation, and had required citizens to house the red coates. Well, when you think about it, our Congress just passed a bill that the majority of the country (by any poll, anywhere) does not agree with. They turned the House of Representatives into the English Parliament in one fell swoop where the majority rules with an iron hand. That is a prescription for violence if I ever saw one.
I know that from a personal perspective, my husband, a small businessman who has worked hard for years hauling pool tables and keeping his store open, is ANGRY; in big red letters. He is joined by many small business people who clearly see this as an intrusion of the most egregious sort. Ammunition sales in the United States have increased 300% in the last five years, and with increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, inevitable increases in inflation and interest, and our debt ratings being downgraded, it is simply inevitable that someone will die. You just can't take away freedoms and expect people to sit calmly by and continue as if all is normal.
Just a week ago, in Chula Vista (I think), Roger Hedgecock was thrown out of a meeting. I don't know what the exact problem was, but it is not atypical for conservatives to be drummed out of meetings (Ann Coulter, Canada). Chris Matthews can make references to shooting Rush Limbaugh on his television program (which has less viewers now than afternoon Sponge Bob cartoons), and Glenn Beck is touted in Newsweek magazine to "Hate Jesus" for opposing programs that support "social justice" which he claims, rightly, are programs that are meant to undermine free society. Alec Baldwin suggested that if we lived in a different country, we could stone Henry Hyde to death; it goes on and on.
Ours has always been a nuanced argument, and nuanced arguments are easy to pick on if you take only one point and rip it to shreds in the press. But the free markets have a way of prevailing, I would just prefer it not be through a hundred year cycle, because I've only got about 40 years left (if I'm lucky). In the grand scheme of things, then, does it really matter that we're violent or throw strong epithets at freedom-stealing politicians? Not really. In fact, we may save our children from lives of certain dispair.
As the faculty members at San Diego State University, most of whom we had identified as members of the Philosophy, Humanities, and English Depts. filed by, they spat on us, threw garbage at us, and called us "Baby Killers." It was outrageous, and there was no mention of it in the San Diego Union or the school paper. For years, the left has had marching orders that have included epithets and outrage all focused on obtaining favorable press coverage. My boyfriend in collge once obtained a list of protest suggestions from one of the Nicaragua protest groups (left-wing). I forget exactly what was on it, but I know the gist of it was that they were to obtain the most press coverage possible and there was mention of how to draw the opposition out and make them look bad in the press. There is such a double standard here, and I am tired of being demonized for my beliefs, which, for the most part, I have expressed peacefully, and with as many reference to facts as possible.
I don't give two hoots if the Tea Party started chucking half-eaten hot dogs at those idiots (eegads, I called a liberal an idiot) who just instituted a law that creates 159 new government offices and programs, and killed the free market for health insurance (I'll pause while liberals google the word "free market" [thanks Ann], and have essentially given over 20% of our economy to an economic entity that allocates resources with little thought to the most efficient methods and practices. We have become Europe with its lagging economy and lack of innovation, and if there is outrage over that fact, I support it wholeheartedly.
Frankly, I would not be surprised if this exercise of government power a la Max Baucus (God, it just kills me that the state of Montana actually provided the IDIOT who wrote this bill) ended in violence. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and our president who is supposed to be a constitutional scholar should pay close attention here, because the English king had imposed taxation without representation, and had required citizens to house the red coates. Well, when you think about it, our Congress just passed a bill that the majority of the country (by any poll, anywhere) does not agree with. They turned the House of Representatives into the English Parliament in one fell swoop where the majority rules with an iron hand. That is a prescription for violence if I ever saw one.
I know that from a personal perspective, my husband, a small businessman who has worked hard for years hauling pool tables and keeping his store open, is ANGRY; in big red letters. He is joined by many small business people who clearly see this as an intrusion of the most egregious sort. Ammunition sales in the United States have increased 300% in the last five years, and with increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, inevitable increases in inflation and interest, and our debt ratings being downgraded, it is simply inevitable that someone will die. You just can't take away freedoms and expect people to sit calmly by and continue as if all is normal.
Just a week ago, in Chula Vista (I think), Roger Hedgecock was thrown out of a meeting. I don't know what the exact problem was, but it is not atypical for conservatives to be drummed out of meetings (Ann Coulter, Canada). Chris Matthews can make references to shooting Rush Limbaugh on his television program (which has less viewers now than afternoon Sponge Bob cartoons), and Glenn Beck is touted in Newsweek magazine to "Hate Jesus" for opposing programs that support "social justice" which he claims, rightly, are programs that are meant to undermine free society. Alec Baldwin suggested that if we lived in a different country, we could stone Henry Hyde to death; it goes on and on.
Ours has always been a nuanced argument, and nuanced arguments are easy to pick on if you take only one point and rip it to shreds in the press. But the free markets have a way of prevailing, I would just prefer it not be through a hundred year cycle, because I've only got about 40 years left (if I'm lucky). In the grand scheme of things, then, does it really matter that we're violent or throw strong epithets at freedom-stealing politicians? Not really. In fact, we may save our children from lives of certain dispair.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Conservative's Must Always Climb Uphill in the Battle of Ideas
Hard to argue that we must take care of the "least of us," as the always engaging Alcee Hastings says, but that's exactly what we must as conservatives argue. The schools haven't closed yet, the services are still working, the electricity is still on, the water is still flowing, because the money is still being printed. But, make no mistake, our country is spiraling into insolvency and despair. The death spiral is taking place without insuring the 27 million we are hoping to insure, and with it, we will not only now print more money, but we will lose 5,000,000 jobs in the private sector and reduce our global ability to compete to unpredented levels.
What we need is 1920's-like cuts to our budget, an austerity program, and, yes, some serious attention to how we manage health care in our country. All of the wealth of this nation is not enough to pay our debt by miles. The hope is, as the Rep. from NJ, Frank Pallone expresses, that if 40 million uninsured now become insured (and can we please use the realistic figure of 27 million?), our country will profit. Jobs will be created to serve these new folks. I don't know, maybe they're right, maybe we will somehow create 5 million new jobs and the 5 million jobs lost will be absorbed into our economy. Maybe all these healthy people will now start creating jobs, or small businesses (only under 50, because anyone over 50 employees will not be growing, I can guarantee it), and our defecit problems will go away. My God, we've actually started to believe this stuff. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, says the Vice President, and we're going to be eating it now for sure.
Monetary policy is very simple. There are only three ways out: grow, inflate, or "re-boot" (as Glenn Beck is fond of saying). I prefer growth, and this bill will kill it, dead. Get ready for it, we're about to hit our economy hard. We've taken our gold from the safety deposit box, hidden our guns in our root cellar, and we're selling everything. You might think we're crazy, but when your country is $3Trillion in debt and your representatives are passing laws that will necessarily deplete, destroy (put your own word in here) your tax base, you start thinking about basic survival. Rugged individualism will be the order of the day, because our government will not provide the answers. In fact, it was not created to provide the answers, only the opportunity; which we have squandered. Good luck, everyone.
What we need is 1920's-like cuts to our budget, an austerity program, and, yes, some serious attention to how we manage health care in our country. All of the wealth of this nation is not enough to pay our debt by miles. The hope is, as the Rep. from NJ, Frank Pallone expresses, that if 40 million uninsured now become insured (and can we please use the realistic figure of 27 million?), our country will profit. Jobs will be created to serve these new folks. I don't know, maybe they're right, maybe we will somehow create 5 million new jobs and the 5 million jobs lost will be absorbed into our economy. Maybe all these healthy people will now start creating jobs, or small businesses (only under 50, because anyone over 50 employees will not be growing, I can guarantee it), and our defecit problems will go away. My God, we've actually started to believe this stuff. Well, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, says the Vice President, and we're going to be eating it now for sure.
Monetary policy is very simple. There are only three ways out: grow, inflate, or "re-boot" (as Glenn Beck is fond of saying). I prefer growth, and this bill will kill it, dead. Get ready for it, we're about to hit our economy hard. We've taken our gold from the safety deposit box, hidden our guns in our root cellar, and we're selling everything. You might think we're crazy, but when your country is $3Trillion in debt and your representatives are passing laws that will necessarily deplete, destroy (put your own word in here) your tax base, you start thinking about basic survival. Rugged individualism will be the order of the day, because our government will not provide the answers. In fact, it was not created to provide the answers, only the opportunity; which we have squandered. Good luck, everyone.
Friday, March 19, 2010
A Healthy America is A Strong America
The argument that if Americans are healthier, have good insurance coverage, and are not in fear for their financial lives if they contract an illness therefore our economy will benefit and life will be better is an honorable and important argument. With Americans visiting their doctors when they need to, receiving predictive tests earlier, and, in general, increasing their economic activity because they are not worried about how to finance debilitating illness is the goal, and has been the goal of conservatives for years. The argument that conservatives have not tried to address the health coverage crisis during the past 20 years, is a lie, in the words of what's her name on MSNBC, it is an L, I, E, Lie.
It is clear that personal responsibility is a concept that no longer applies in what used to be the United States of America. If the government, for instance, asked the insurance companies to offer a catastrophic illness policy, how many of the people now clamoring for the "rich" to pay their healthcare benefits would give up purchasing their Wii games, or flatscreen T.V.s to make sure their families were covered, even if it were on a sliding scale? Not too damn many. So, we have to force them? Is that they deal? And do they pay ANYTHING for it under this legislation? Conservatives have, for years advocated, not only personal responsibility, but health savings accounts (which are very effective) and various other cost-lowering ideas which have been poo-pooed by the left as unworthy. Tort reform has been all but untouchable.
First of all, catastrophic plans are available from insurance companies; they cost approximately $350/month for a family of 4. Yes, there is a pre-existing condition clause, however, the reason insurance companies are forced to put in the pre-existing condition clauses is because they have to take their actuarial information from small pools. They are not allowed, like car insurance companies, to compete nationwide because Blue Cross/Blue Shield, in the olden, golden days of large company purchase of health insurance (Remember? When Mom or Dad's policies took care of everything?), BCBS was regulated by the government and told, "no, no, no; no more monopoly in the insurance market." So, you now have companies that are trying to offer health insurance in small markets like Montana who can only count small pools of relatively unhealthy people (unless they force the pool to be healthy, i.e., pre-existing condition clauses) and their margins are 3.4% which is somewhere around 360th on the "Industry Profitability" chart. Yes, their executives probably get paid some exorbitant amount, but, believe me, if someone asks you to run one of these companies, you'd want the money too.
The POINT of this is that we have regulated the insurance industry into irrelevancy and pre-existing condition clauses. If health insurance companies could operate across state lines (and, yes, get big like BCBS did--hell, do you want the government, i.e., Dept of Motor Vehicles instead?), we could purchase health insurance much like we do car insurance because they would be using much larger actuarial pool data. But do we look to what we have done to private markets first when the problems arise? No, because the Progressives are in charge, and government is the answer to all the questions.
Not in my world. And certainly not to the extent that we will destroy private industry in America that is struggling to provide employment to our population. Think of the rule that if you have less than 50 employees, you won't have to participate in this new program. Think about how you might get around that. I'm going to start a company that advises small companies employing less than 500 people how to break up their companies into smaller companies and get around this bill. People will find a way to survive, and it will add bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy and our country will suffer.
Irresponsible, you say? About the same level of irresponsibility of those who think that someone else (anyone else) should be responsible to pay for their healthcare expenses. How many of the people whining and moaning that insurance wasn't available to them actually took out a catastrophic health policy from a young and healthy age in order to protect their homes? How would you feel if the private mortgage companies required you to carry a catastrophic policy in order to get a home loan (because, frankly, they should have; but Barney Frank and Bill Clinton didn't want that kind of language in the Community Reinvestment Act).
And does any of this address cost? Tell me how making people buy insurance policies addresses the cost of medical care. The overhead facing doctor's and hospitals is largely due to their own insurance liability costs, and don't believe the 2% baloney being floated by those who are trying to defend against Tort Reform. Liability costs are far-reaching and rarely measured correctly; but that is an entirely different discussion.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are about to ruin our economy. Pension funds already stretched to the limits, especially in California will plummet as stock prices of companies once profitable start to fail, Moody's, though I'm sure there will be great pressure not to do it, will have to downgrade the U.S.s credit score (which they should have done long ago), and the CBO scoring of this bill will be an absolute joke, because the interest payments we will now have to make on our debt will sink this country into European-like chaos. Watch Spain in the coming weeks and you will see our future.
The argument that we should have a healthy America and that it will help our economy is like so many other arguments about "fairness." If we were to be fair to everyone, anarchy would be the order of the day because one person's fairness is another person's tyranny. Beware of those who argue that socialized medicine (which is what this is at its heart; the insurance companies won't make it) is only "fair." We're going down the path of destruction of our economy; it's only a matter of time now. Sure, people will have health care, but we won't have any doctors, development of new drugs will be a thing of the past, and only the very rich will receive the health care they need because insurance companies will come up with a new product: the "go to the head of the line" insurance policy, just like they have in Britain. The rich will buy policies that send them to the head of the very long line and they will see the doctors before the poor. So, whereas before, you might have been in danger of losing your house (which is a lie, filing bankruptcy will save it, not to mention the many charitable programs at hospitals nationwide and with doctors everywhere), you will now be in danger of not receiving health care unless you are wealthy. What a (new) deal!
It is clear that personal responsibility is a concept that no longer applies in what used to be the United States of America. If the government, for instance, asked the insurance companies to offer a catastrophic illness policy, how many of the people now clamoring for the "rich" to pay their healthcare benefits would give up purchasing their Wii games, or flatscreen T.V.s to make sure their families were covered, even if it were on a sliding scale? Not too damn many. So, we have to force them? Is that they deal? And do they pay ANYTHING for it under this legislation? Conservatives have, for years advocated, not only personal responsibility, but health savings accounts (which are very effective) and various other cost-lowering ideas which have been poo-pooed by the left as unworthy. Tort reform has been all but untouchable.
First of all, catastrophic plans are available from insurance companies; they cost approximately $350/month for a family of 4. Yes, there is a pre-existing condition clause, however, the reason insurance companies are forced to put in the pre-existing condition clauses is because they have to take their actuarial information from small pools. They are not allowed, like car insurance companies, to compete nationwide because Blue Cross/Blue Shield, in the olden, golden days of large company purchase of health insurance (Remember? When Mom or Dad's policies took care of everything?), BCBS was regulated by the government and told, "no, no, no; no more monopoly in the insurance market." So, you now have companies that are trying to offer health insurance in small markets like Montana who can only count small pools of relatively unhealthy people (unless they force the pool to be healthy, i.e., pre-existing condition clauses) and their margins are 3.4% which is somewhere around 360th on the "Industry Profitability" chart. Yes, their executives probably get paid some exorbitant amount, but, believe me, if someone asks you to run one of these companies, you'd want the money too.
The POINT of this is that we have regulated the insurance industry into irrelevancy and pre-existing condition clauses. If health insurance companies could operate across state lines (and, yes, get big like BCBS did--hell, do you want the government, i.e., Dept of Motor Vehicles instead?), we could purchase health insurance much like we do car insurance because they would be using much larger actuarial pool data. But do we look to what we have done to private markets first when the problems arise? No, because the Progressives are in charge, and government is the answer to all the questions.
Not in my world. And certainly not to the extent that we will destroy private industry in America that is struggling to provide employment to our population. Think of the rule that if you have less than 50 employees, you won't have to participate in this new program. Think about how you might get around that. I'm going to start a company that advises small companies employing less than 500 people how to break up their companies into smaller companies and get around this bill. People will find a way to survive, and it will add bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy and our country will suffer.
Irresponsible, you say? About the same level of irresponsibility of those who think that someone else (anyone else) should be responsible to pay for their healthcare expenses. How many of the people whining and moaning that insurance wasn't available to them actually took out a catastrophic health policy from a young and healthy age in order to protect their homes? How would you feel if the private mortgage companies required you to carry a catastrophic policy in order to get a home loan (because, frankly, they should have; but Barney Frank and Bill Clinton didn't want that kind of language in the Community Reinvestment Act).
And does any of this address cost? Tell me how making people buy insurance policies addresses the cost of medical care. The overhead facing doctor's and hospitals is largely due to their own insurance liability costs, and don't believe the 2% baloney being floated by those who are trying to defend against Tort Reform. Liability costs are far-reaching and rarely measured correctly; but that is an entirely different discussion.
The simple fact of the matter is that we are about to ruin our economy. Pension funds already stretched to the limits, especially in California will plummet as stock prices of companies once profitable start to fail, Moody's, though I'm sure there will be great pressure not to do it, will have to downgrade the U.S.s credit score (which they should have done long ago), and the CBO scoring of this bill will be an absolute joke, because the interest payments we will now have to make on our debt will sink this country into European-like chaos. Watch Spain in the coming weeks and you will see our future.
The argument that we should have a healthy America and that it will help our economy is like so many other arguments about "fairness." If we were to be fair to everyone, anarchy would be the order of the day because one person's fairness is another person's tyranny. Beware of those who argue that socialized medicine (which is what this is at its heart; the insurance companies won't make it) is only "fair." We're going down the path of destruction of our economy; it's only a matter of time now. Sure, people will have health care, but we won't have any doctors, development of new drugs will be a thing of the past, and only the very rich will receive the health care they need because insurance companies will come up with a new product: the "go to the head of the line" insurance policy, just like they have in Britain. The rich will buy policies that send them to the head of the very long line and they will see the doctors before the poor. So, whereas before, you might have been in danger of losing your house (which is a lie, filing bankruptcy will save it, not to mention the many charitable programs at hospitals nationwide and with doctors everywhere), you will now be in danger of not receiving health care unless you are wealthy. What a (new) deal!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The U S S of A
I look out my window and see the same beautiful mountains that are there each morning and will be there when our society is long gone and think that there are certain things you get used to in your life, that you expect to live with, and even come to believe in. All my life, I've believed that I live in a free country; one that offers opportunity to those who are willing to work at it. It offered religious freedom to my great-grandparents who came here from Germany because they saw the opportunity to be a part of a community of people with similarly held beliefs, with the understanding that the government would leave them alone.
My grandparents lived through the Great Depression and believed that if they were careful, canned their own food, saved every dime, and used the equipment they still had to dig ditches for corn growers that they would come through it and offer their child the opportunity to attend college and become a teacher. My parents went to college, my mother earning her Master's degree in English, my father his Ph D in Sociology. Both believed in the opportunity to advance in our educational system; my father later started a successful private service business that provided the opportunity for his child to attend college. I myself believed that if I got my bachelor's degree, then my master's in business that I could develop a product or service in our economy that would provide not only a life-sustaining income, but the opportunity for my children to attend college or some similar preparation for a successful life. Reagan said, "We are the last place; if we fail [in keeping our society free] there is nowhere to turn."
For the first time in many generations, I believe that my daughters will not have the same opportunty to succeed that was available to me. We are so far in debt as a country that even my children's children will have no hope of extricating themselves from the yoke of their country's debt. We've watched as the intellectuals tell us that we must have this and we must have that in order to have "social justice." That, DURING A RECESSION, we must pass a far-reaching, society-changing entitlement program that is four years short of being "defecit neutral" over a ten year period. The double accounting, the assumptions given to the CBO in order to make it appear as though our debt doesn't grow are ridiculous on their face and those of us who analyze business financial statements for a living shake our heads in disbelief at the arrogance employed to sell this to the American people.
Considering the clearly preventable, yet now inevitable economic failure, makes us shake with anger for the lost years of income from our business that we see extending into the future: Our daughter's education funds gone, the declining value of our unsellable assets, the desperation and fear we see surrounding us in the our community all swirl around us like a strange cloud of impending doom. And through this cloud we watch the political arrogance of a President attempting to salvage his "political capital/Presidency," a Congress who can be bought with a ride on Air Force one, and a Senate who has become little more than an arrogant house of representatives, now only requiring a simple majority and making us more a parliamentary system than a republic. Rigid ideology with little to check or to balance will serve only to force us further in to social chaos and those who are truly desperate will then turn to anyone offering salvation.
This would all sound hauntingly familiar to those who saw the "transformation" of their country under Lenin, Stalin, and "put favorite Despot's name here." They extend a helping hand to the desperate, promising that the state will save them; they then use the power they gain to solidify the political construct. We have crept away from our Constitution and our founders would shake their heads in disbelief. Or maybe not. Maybe they would say, "This is no surprise. Governments time immemorial have had arrogant and misguided leaders that believed in edicts and taxation to benefit themselves in the name of the common good."
Jefferson said it best, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.--We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [and he did mean this in the "generic" sense], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.--that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness." He goes on to say that governments should not be changed for "light and transient" causes, and I contend that changing our economic system to resemble that of a socialist state is not a "light or transient" cause. Some would argue that we still have freedom, that the government is not forcing us to house the military and taxing us into economic ruin, but I would argue that this is indeed the case. We're just seeing it happen in a more modern setting.
I don't know where we'll find the place for our new state; as Reagan said, there isn't anywhere left to go. Perhaps Alaska, with its long history of rugged individualism, where the people might welcome a plan for secession. Unfortunately, our new country can no longer be in Montana, which is sad; we've lately attracted to our state those who are willing to turn away from free market solutions and sent them to Congress to serve with a long-time, entrenched, well-funded Senator who's audacity in crafting the legislation currently under consideration, that will change our society forever and plunge us into economic infidelity, is evident in his speaches and townhalls where only those who agree with him are invited. So, we can no longer think of our state as "The Last Best Place." When we find our new place, all who believe in freedom can relocate to our new, proud and free country. You might have to be repsonsible for yourself and help your neighbor, but we will encourage free markets, take the founder's idea about the checks and balances seriously and make a place where we can dare to hope and to dream again.
My grandparents lived through the Great Depression and believed that if they were careful, canned their own food, saved every dime, and used the equipment they still had to dig ditches for corn growers that they would come through it and offer their child the opportunity to attend college and become a teacher. My parents went to college, my mother earning her Master's degree in English, my father his Ph D in Sociology. Both believed in the opportunity to advance in our educational system; my father later started a successful private service business that provided the opportunity for his child to attend college. I myself believed that if I got my bachelor's degree, then my master's in business that I could develop a product or service in our economy that would provide not only a life-sustaining income, but the opportunity for my children to attend college or some similar preparation for a successful life. Reagan said, "We are the last place; if we fail [in keeping our society free] there is nowhere to turn."
For the first time in many generations, I believe that my daughters will not have the same opportunty to succeed that was available to me. We are so far in debt as a country that even my children's children will have no hope of extricating themselves from the yoke of their country's debt. We've watched as the intellectuals tell us that we must have this and we must have that in order to have "social justice." That, DURING A RECESSION, we must pass a far-reaching, society-changing entitlement program that is four years short of being "defecit neutral" over a ten year period. The double accounting, the assumptions given to the CBO in order to make it appear as though our debt doesn't grow are ridiculous on their face and those of us who analyze business financial statements for a living shake our heads in disbelief at the arrogance employed to sell this to the American people.
Considering the clearly preventable, yet now inevitable economic failure, makes us shake with anger for the lost years of income from our business that we see extending into the future: Our daughter's education funds gone, the declining value of our unsellable assets, the desperation and fear we see surrounding us in the our community all swirl around us like a strange cloud of impending doom. And through this cloud we watch the political arrogance of a President attempting to salvage his "political capital/Presidency," a Congress who can be bought with a ride on Air Force one, and a Senate who has become little more than an arrogant house of representatives, now only requiring a simple majority and making us more a parliamentary system than a republic. Rigid ideology with little to check or to balance will serve only to force us further in to social chaos and those who are truly desperate will then turn to anyone offering salvation.
This would all sound hauntingly familiar to those who saw the "transformation" of their country under Lenin, Stalin, and "put favorite Despot's name here." They extend a helping hand to the desperate, promising that the state will save them; they then use the power they gain to solidify the political construct. We have crept away from our Constitution and our founders would shake their heads in disbelief. Or maybe not. Maybe they would say, "This is no surprise. Governments time immemorial have had arrogant and misguided leaders that believed in edicts and taxation to benefit themselves in the name of the common good."
Jefferson said it best, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.--We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal [and he did mean this in the "generic" sense], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed.--that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness." He goes on to say that governments should not be changed for "light and transient" causes, and I contend that changing our economic system to resemble that of a socialist state is not a "light or transient" cause. Some would argue that we still have freedom, that the government is not forcing us to house the military and taxing us into economic ruin, but I would argue that this is indeed the case. We're just seeing it happen in a more modern setting.
I don't know where we'll find the place for our new state; as Reagan said, there isn't anywhere left to go. Perhaps Alaska, with its long history of rugged individualism, where the people might welcome a plan for secession. Unfortunately, our new country can no longer be in Montana, which is sad; we've lately attracted to our state those who are willing to turn away from free market solutions and sent them to Congress to serve with a long-time, entrenched, well-funded Senator who's audacity in crafting the legislation currently under consideration, that will change our society forever and plunge us into economic infidelity, is evident in his speaches and townhalls where only those who agree with him are invited. So, we can no longer think of our state as "The Last Best Place." When we find our new place, all who believe in freedom can relocate to our new, proud and free country. You might have to be repsonsible for yourself and help your neighbor, but we will encourage free markets, take the founder's idea about the checks and balances seriously and make a place where we can dare to hope and to dream again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)