Bookworm Room

« Getting to the good stuff — and an opening on the CouncilPiglet’s revenge »

Open thread

Bookworm on Jul 10 2009 at 11:00 am | Filed under: Uncategorized

Aside from the fact that nothing in today’s headlines has inspired me to write, work and family have conspired to keep me away from the computer. I’ll get back to you all later today, I promise. Until then, enjoy yourselves, here or elsewhere.

Be Sociable, Share!

Email This Post To A Friend

32 Responses to “Open thread”

on 10 Jul 2009 at 2:35 pm 1suek

Very interesting article on healthcare and the Dem agenda:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=6985

Here’s another very interesting site – for those who wish to indulge in a bit of wishful thinking or planning, whichever is applicable:

http://www.statepolicyindex.com/

Now…to figure some way to overlay that with precipitation averages and monthly maximum/minimum temperature averages. Growing zones would probably do for the latter, but rainfall? not so easy so far.

Sooner or later, maybe I’ll find the perfect place!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:26 pm 2Mike Devx

I was considering sending this to Book to post as an “open question” posed by me as her guest contributer… but I’ll just drop it here in the open thread.

I ran across a blurb on Instapundit:
JOE SCARBOROUGH’S NEW BOOK gets a rather unethusiastic review from Nick Gillespie. “He unwittingly tells us that conservatives can at best stand athwart history yelling ‘Slow down,’ but they can’t fundamentally change its direction.”

So Ol’ Joe Scar’bro is basically saying that in America, conservatism is dead, and all we can do as conservatives is adopt the go-slow approach to Statism.

I do know I get the impression here in Book’s domain that we skew rather older. Most of the time I’m surprised when various commenters let information slip that surprises me into saying “Wow! Another Book commenter that’s even older than me… and I’m heading towards 50 rather quickly.”

In other words, those who *care* about conservatism seem to skew older, at least on the Web. If we are older, well, we’re vibrantly older, because there’s a freshness and spark and vitality to the breadth of comments that is very refreshing.

But where are the youngsters? They *are* the future, and maybe right now, there’s no thirst for conservatism out there. Or perhaps that person was on to something who said, “If you’re young and conservative, you’ve got no heart. If you’re old and liberal, you’ve got no brain.”

So, does anyone have any thoughts? Are we committed conservatives a dying breed, dinosaurs in the new Statist mammalian era? (Where all people are warm-blooded and heart-gushingly concerned, because we *care*, dammit, and I can’t be bothered with logic or thought, because the only thing that matters is that we *care*? Regardless of the devastating consequences of disastrous policies?)
on 10 Jul 2009 at 4:39 pm 3BrianE

Health care inflation is not some optional side issue that can be left out of reform. It is the core problem that undermines the viability of the health care system, the federal budget and the economy as a whole. Maybe the administration will provide some last-minute solution in conference or somewhere else. But right now the prospects don’t look good.

So says David Brooks.

While Brooks may not be conservative’s favorite conservative, I do think this needs to be a central issue in the debate. Liberals have one thing correct. Single payer is the easiest way (in the short term) to control costs. Any other ‘reform’ will continue the current cost-shifting plague the health care system operates under.
If, in fact, Medicare pays less than the true cost of service, and the medical community can pass that cost onto other customers, it becomes less clear whether the inflation in health services is driven by this cost-shifting; excess demand (which usually results in rising prices); excess regulation requiring more resources to provide the same level of service; or something less obvious.

I think most people on both sides of the debate agree that rising health costs are a problem or are going to be a problem in a relatively short time. Single payer solves the problem, to the extent that price controls can solve a problem, by forcing providers to accept an arbitrary level of payment.
Of course, the provider can respond in a couple of ways. 1. Find more efficient ways to deliver the service, 2. reduce the sophistication of the service (fewer tests, more wait and see attitude) or 3. quit providing the service with the resulting shortages and necessary rationing.
But in the short run, single payer will reduce costs, or at least the increases in costs exceeding inflation.

Brooks indicates there are some efforts to provide a solution to inflation short of destroying our current system:

There are several ideas floating around that could reduce inflation, but they are neutered in the current bills. For example, many people believe that comparative effectiveness research would bend the cost curve. The current bills would pay for that research but negate the effects by allowing everybody to ignore the findings.
Many people believe that ending the tax exemption on employer health benefits would reduce costs and make consumers more conscious of cost considerations. But the House has rejected that, and the Senate is walking away from even capping that tax exemption.

So whatever happens, controlling inflation in an effective matter is probably too much to ask.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

I mention single payer only, since the ‘public option’ is only being proposed as a palatable alternative in the short run to the ultimate goal- single payer.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 5:37 pm 4suek

Brian…

We cannot control the cost of health benefits until we manage to control the accompanying cost of medical malpractice suits. Any solution that does not address tort reform is doomed to failure.

>>Single payer is the easiest way (in the short term) to control costs.>>

Easy. Yup, easy. Dennis Praeger had a very good caller yesterday – a doctor who had been in the military for some 25 years and one who also has served in several charitable functions. He says look at military medicine – you’ll see a single payer system with a clientele which was originally selected for good health, which guaranteed life long medical care, and which went broke and transferred all responsibility to the Medicare system. Dennis asked him to send him an email that encompassed his points. I hope he does – he was very effective. The upshot was that single payer simply is _not_ going to be cheaper in the long run. Add to that corruption and human tendency to make work expand to the time allotted.

Mike…

>>But where are the youngsters?>>

I went to a Tea Party July 4th… accompanied by grandson with girfriend. Grandson made the same comment – “Where are all the young people…everybody here is old”.

Everybody in church is old too.

My mother used to use the expression “From those to whom much is given, much is expected”. The problem seems to me to be that much has been given to our youth today, but nothing has been expected in return. Our mistake. They’ll pay later, I fear.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 6:41 pm 5Charles Martel

Suek, you’re right, they will pay. They have no idea what’s coming. How could they? My generation, the Boomers, fixed it so that very few of them would ever find out what a Potemkin village their educations and expectations are.

Their obtuseness and cluelessness doesn’t let my generation off the hook. When I talk to my liberal wife about how the country is going to pay off all the debt that Obama is piling up, she has no answer. Especially when I say, “Why do you want to rob our son of his future? He can never possibly pay back the debt you are willing to lay on him.”

No reply.

And also no justice. We Boomers have rigged the system to victimize our children so that we can have a few more months or years of expensive medical treatments and a semblance of affluence. We should be the ones who pay for our greed, but, alas, our children will be the ones to reap the whirlwind.

Whatever happens to the United States, I gurantee that in another generation the Boomers will be reviled as one of the great calamities of its history.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:03 pm 6Danny Lemieux

Charles M – I too have much reason to revile the Boomers. However, I point out to my kids that Obama and the people around him ARE NOT BOOMERS. They are Generation X. So I tell them pointedly, “don’t blame MY generation”, it’s YOUR generation and Generation X that were the biggest Obama supporters.

If you believe the thesis of Strauss and Howe’s book “Generations” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_(book) ] that history is a series of four repeating sets of generations, we (Boomers) are the idealistic generation, Generation X is a weak generation historically marked by high levels of weak morals and criminality (natch!), and our Boomer kids are part of the “Institution Builders” generation (same as the WWII generation). As history repeats itself (I believe), these kids will be severely tested by events that this administration is nurturing (as the FDR and other fascist administrations of that time llaid the seeds for the WWII generation to be tested).

I don’t know how these (Institution builder) kids will work out, although the book Generations suggests . However, I see my kids as being skeptical of traditional conservatism (they’ll grow into it) but I also see strong streaks of libertarianism among my kids and their friends. So, not all hope is lost. We may be very old before we see the backlash, however, and that does depress me no end.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 9:06 pm 7Danny Lemieux

BrianE…

“Single payer solves the problem, to the extent that price controls can solve a problem, by forcing providers to accept an arbitrary level of payment.”

Yes – simplifying everything under centralized control does make things more efficient at first take. Mussolini did force the trains to run on time. The question is, at what cost?

“Of course, the provider can respond in a couple of ways. 1. Find more efficient ways to deliver the service, 2. reduce the sophistication of the service (fewer tests, more wait and see attitude) or 3. quit providing the service with the resulting shortages and necessary rationing.”

With regard to point 1…why should they? What’s the incentive, once competition is removed?
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:54 pm 8Ymarsakar

What’s the incentive, once competition is removed?

Laws that say you will be put in jail if you go below a certain quota.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:55 pm 9Ymarsakar

Remember what Michelle said. Obama will make you work.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 12:09 am 10Ymarsakar

He can never possibly pay back the debt you are willing to lay on him.”

But that’s the entire point of the regressive fake liberal experience here.

They want to go back to serfdom. The Road to Serfdom, not just an allegorical or metaphorical description.

A debt that one generation can’t pay off, but must keep offloading on the next, with the interest on the debt ever increasing, is serfdom. And eventually it will come to the point where it will regress back to outright slavery. Where there is not even a pretense that the serfs can pay back their stuff or be liberated, where slavery dominates all mechanisms and liberty is only spoken of as a dream.

Aristocracy is not enough. How can the Left claim pride on their aggregation of power and wealth, as the new aristocracy, when they have No Serfs? They need servants, limited by an inability to speak with an aristocratic American accdent, in order for the aristocrats to divide themselves into one class and their servants into another. Check how the British did it with the “working class accent” vs the “blue blooded ton accent”.

Sarah Palin, because she cannot be divided down by skin color, must be divided and segregated in other fashions. How can the aristocrats feel superior, when they have nobody to step on?
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:23 am 11BrianE

We cannot control the cost of health benefits until we manage to control the accompanying cost of medical malpractice suits. Any solution that does not address tort reform is doomed to failure.- Suek

Yes, while tort reform is critical, I don’t think it’s a magic bullet.
In a 2006 CBO report on tort reform:

In a recent cost estimate, CBO concluded that a legislative proposal containing a package of malpractice tort limits—the “Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-
Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2003”—would reduce federal direct
spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits program by about $15 billion over 10 years. That reduction in federal spending reflected the estimated reduction in malpractice premiums, which CBO concluded would reduce both private health insurance premiums and payment rates in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. CBO did not, however, assign savings to effects on utilization.
By contrast, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the
Department of Health and Human Services, for example, has estimated that a cap on noneconomic damages alone would reduce costs to the federal government by
between $25 billion and $44 billion per year, an effect approximately 20 times as large as CBO’s estimate of the impact of the HEALTH Act of 2003 (which included a cap on noneconomic damages as well as other tort limits). The vast bulk of ASPE’s estimated savings was attributable to its estimate of the effects of the proposed rule on utilization.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/71xx/doc7174/04-28-MedicalMalpractice.pdf
The unknown in this is how much utilization would decrease if doctors weren’t under pressure to perform ‘defensive’ medicine? Critics of tort reform claim that the savings won’t be that large, since some of the ‘excessive’ tests will be performed anyway as medical facilities struggle to remain profitable with reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments.

With regard to point 1…why should they? What’s the incentive, once competition is removed?- Danny Lemieux
Because that’s one of the cardinal rules of business, controlling costs (increasing efficiency). You might look at increasing market share first, but eventually every business will look to increase efficiencies.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:36 am 12Ymarsakar

Yes, while tort reform is critical, I don’t think it’s a magic bullet.

The snowball effect.

With lowered costs and higher efficiency, with more direct incentive to increase quality and timeliness of care, the less people are dissatisfied. The less people are dissatisfied, the less they will believe the Obama lies. The less they believe the Obama lies, the less ineffective the efforts to nationalize healthcare will be.

Healthcare cannot be nationalized until it is first made to fail. Just as nations can’t be taken over until you first convince the people that their lives are such drek that it justifies a coup or revolution.

The insurgents manufacture crisis in order to create justification for atrocities, while the counter-insurgency must counter-act this advance with stability and improvements to living conditions/security/economy.

There is no magic bullet in war, and thus there is no magic bullet here. But all steps in the right direction should be taken. There is no point to waiting. It only gives the enemy more time to catch his breath, to launch another attack, and to eliminate more allied resources and military power.

You might look at increasing market share first, but eventually every business will look to increase efficiencies.

Monopolies and semi-monopolies have no reason to increase efficiency. OPEC, Chavez, and nationalized oil production are just a few examples. And given that monopolies are still businesses, your logic does not parse. Not every business will increase their efficiency, because not every business needs to.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:37 am 13Ymarsakar

the less ineffective the efforts to nationalize healthcare will be.

Should be less effective, instead.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:13 am 14BrianE

Monopolies and semi-monopolies have no reason to increase efficiency. OPEC, Chavez, and nationalized oil production are just a few examples. And given that monopolies are still businesses, your logic does not parse. Not every business will increase their efficiency, because not every business needs to.-Y

Point taken.
I was never fortunate enough to run a monopoly.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:20 am 15BrianE

I’ve come to the conclusion that conservatives can’t just be against the current attempt to nationalize health care insurance, since the situation we face with rising health care costs is serious.
Why is the left so adamant about mandatory universal coverage and single payer insurance? Because mandatory coverage will force new dollars into the system and single payer will allow the government ultimate leverage to control health care costs. We know, of course, that the new dollars brought into the system will be swamped by the universal coverage, and adding 46 million new people into an already over utilized system coupled with price controls will necessarily force shortages and rationing. We’re convinced that the heavy hand of government isn’t the answer.
But what is the alternative?
The alternative, unfortunately, may be found in individual responsibility and empowerment. When we are willing to ask the question- is that procedure or that test really necessary? And we will ask those questions when we have a financial stake prompting us to ask those questions.
I say unfortunately because our society is increasingly content with letting others run our lives. In that respect, my answer to Danny is that yes, conservatism is dead (well, on life support).
But we thought the same thing by the end of the ’70s. The left had the megaphone and were driving the agenda, until the optimism of Reagan, coupled with a grass roots effort of the Moral Majority, revived the country. In the ’60′s, Buckley have given us a reason to secretly hold onto conservative principles, but along came Rush in the ’90s and it was with a swagger and confidence we proudly wore the conservative badge.
The country may have to face some time in the ‘wilderness’ again, until a dose of reality awakens us from the liberal stupor of idealism.

The most important domestic policy problem this country faces is health care. The most important component of that problem is Medicare. Forecasts by every federal agency that produces such simulations — the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Social Security/Medicare Trustees, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) — show that we are on a dangerous and unsustainable path. Indeed, the question is not: Will reform take place? The question is: How painful will reform have to be?
According to the Medicare Trustees, by 2012 the deficits in Social Security and Medicare will require one out of every 10 income tax dollars. They will claim one in every four general revenue dollars by 2020 and almost one in two by 2030.
Of the two programs, Medicare is by far the most burdensome — with an unfunded liability five times that of Social Security.
Nor is this forecast the worst that can happen: The Congressional Budget Office notes that health care costs overall have been rising for many years at twice the rate of growth of our incomes. On the current path, health care spending (mainly Medicare and Medicaid) will crowd out every other activity of the federal government by midcentury.
There are three underlying reasons for this dilemma:
• Since Medicare beneficiaries are participating in a use-it-or-lose-it system, patients can realize benefits only by consuming more care; they receive no personal benefit from consuming care prudently and they bear no personal cost if they are wasteful.
• Since Medicare providers are trapped in a system in which they are paid predetermined fees for prescribed tasks, they have no financial incentives to improve outcomes, and physicians often receive less take-home pay if they provide low-cost, high-quality care.
• Since Medicare is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, many of today’s taxpayers are not saving and investing to fund their own post-retirement care; thus, today’s young workers will receive benefits only if future workers are willing to pay exorbitantly high tax rates.
A Framework for Medicare Reform
To address these three defects in the current system, we propose three fundamental Medicare reforms:
• Using a special type of Health Savings Account, beneficiaries would be able to manage at least one-fifth of their health care dollars (and up to 40% under other models) — thus keeping each dollar of wasteful spending they avoid and bearing the full cost of each dollar of waste they generate.
• Physicians would be free to repackage and reprice their services — thus profiting from innovations that lower costs and raise the quality of care.
• Workers (along with their employers) would save and invest 4% of payroll — eventually reaching the point where each generation of retirees pays for the bulk of its own post-retirement medical care.
These reforms would dramatically change incentives. Whether in their role as patient, provider or worker/saver, people would reap the benefits of socially beneficial behavior and incur the costs of socially undesirable behavior. Specifically, Medicare patients would have a direct financial interest in seeking out low-cost, high-quality care. Providers would have a direct financial interest in producing efficient, high-quality care. And workers/savers would have a financial interest in a long-term financing system that promotes efficient, high-quality care for generations to come.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/summary/archive/2008/medicare_reform.ncpa.html
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:48 am 16BrianE

One of the mistakes is assuming that the health care industry resembles a free market. It is already highly regulated, and these regulations are already producing the perverse effects regulatons always produce.

Imagine your city or town without enough physicians. The sick go unaided. Care goes to the highest bidders, or at least only to those who can afford it. Disparities affect huge blocks of the population, making today’s access barriers look like mere inconveniences.

Some experts—not to mention patients in underserved areas—think we’re already there. But if the charts and PowerPoints and health economists are to be believed, a true physician shortage in 15 years will wreak havoc on our nation’s health-care system, and by then it will be too late to do anything about it.

https://www.amsa.org/tnp/articles/article.cfx?id=24

My town already has a shortage of primary care physicians as regulations are driving physicians into specialty medicine.

Here is an attempt to create a new market to meet the needs of primary care physician shortage:

ONE of the many sources of high medical costs in the United States is the de facto monopoly of the American Medical Association in the distribution of licences to practice medicine. Not accustomed to competition, the AMA has been in a bit of snit lately by the emergence of medical clinics in drug stores staffed by nurse practitioners — nurses with advanced degrees — vested with limited powers of prescription. The fact that there is a shortage of family physicians in many areas did not stop the AMA from trying to stem the growth of these clinics by passing a resolution in June that asked government authorities to investigate the possibility of a conflict of interest in clinic-housing drug store chains that, in effect, both write and fill prescriptions.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/09/a_spoonful_of_monopoly_helps_t.cfm
My daughter is studying to become a nurse practitioner, and this will probably become the standard replacing the “family physician”. More skilled than physicians assistants, nurse practicioners can practice independent of a doctor. They can’t perform surgery.
Is the AMA part of the problem?
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:58 am 17BrianE

Is the method we license doctor’s a root cause and a distortion to the market?
Here is an interesting opinion on the subject. I obviously have no way to know how accurate this all is:

Besides paying some of the highest prices for health care, we have the dubious distinction of having the most heavily regulated healthcare system in the World. In no other country on Earth are doctors and hospitals subjected to as many oversight and enforcement agencies, bureaus, and commissions. Rules, regulations, and laws are duplicated, redundant, multiplied, magnified, and contradictory. Laws and regulations covering doctors and hospitals plus all the other parts of our healthcare system now account for over half of all the words, sentences, and paragraphs in our entire body of law.

If regulations could make a healthcare system work better, ours would surely be perfect. In fact, the opposite has occurred. Even those who believe that only government regulation can assure quality health care should face this fact. More laws and regulations are not going to fix our system. If we are truly concerned about the high cost of health care, if we really desire greater safety and higher quality, then we must undertake a dispassionate analysis of the current mess. If we wish to begin effective treatment of our healthcare system, we must first make an accurate diagnosis.

Such combining of state and corporate entities is not unique to this AMA/State medical board combo. It was a popular approach at the start of the Twentieth Century. The common name for this arrangement is fascism. As Benito Mussolini pointed out, “fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Therefore, what we have here in the United States is medical corporatism or medical fascism — or, even more precisely, a medical fascist monopoly. This medical monopoly has throughout the Twentieth Century continued to consolidate and strengthen its power. It has attacked any would-be competitor to its hegemony.

The true purpose of this medical monopoly, like all monopolies, is to control the market. And it does so, as many would-be healthcare reformers have learned. Thus the State medical boards’ greatest wrath is reserved for those doctors who dare to try innovations that may affect the medical marketplace. This fascist monopoly considers the healthcare marketplace its private domain. The physician dare not tamper with healthcare delivery. Innovations that may lower fees or streamline delivery of services cannot be tolerated by a system whose fundamental purpose is to uphold and increase its members’ incomes and its political power.

Medical Boards and the Destruction of Competition

Soon after the medical monopoly was formed, it began to push its agenda of destroying all competition. A well-organized and -funded nationwide purge of all non-M.D.s was undertaken. Over the course of the first half of the Twentieth Century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up. After WW II the medical monopoly started rigidly controlling how many of each medical specialty it would allow to be trained. So, ophthalmologists, orthopedists, dermatologists, obstetricians, and others began to be in short supply. And of course when supplies are low, fees are high. The medical monopoly also managed to outlaw or marginalize over seventy healthcare professions. Protection of the healthcare consumer was, as always, the rationale for this power grab.

http://www.thenhf.com/articles/articles_728/articles_728.htm
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:29 am 18suek

>>Why is the left so adamant about mandatory universal coverage and single payer insurance? Because mandatory coverage will force new dollars into the system and single payer will allow the government ultimate leverage to control health care costs.>>

>>The true purpose of this medical monopoly, like all monopolies, is to control the market.>>

>>Over the course of the first half of the Twentieth Century this medical monopoly managed to shut down over forty medical schools. Their idea was to keep the number of doctors low in order to keep fees up.>>

Brian, you posed the question, and supplied the answers. The left wants control. Control of medical services gives tremendous leverage over who gets what services, and permits some to be eliminated simply by withholding those services.
Specialization becomes the norm because of the high cost of education and the need for young doctors to pay off loans. They are the best and the brightest, and they go for the gold. GPdom is not the “gold” standard. Specialization is. Why have we not doubled the number of places in medical schools? There is no lack of students…only a lack of openings. Why is that? Controlling competition is the name of the game. Leftist government and greed make for common cause. In the end, the Leftist government will sting the AMA frog before they reach their goal, but the AMA seems to think they hold the upper hand. They don’t. They will cooperate with the government in order save their hides even though in the process they lose their souls.

However…about tort reform…these were worthwhile reads:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809479886668021.html
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:36 am 19BrianE

I’ve finally seen the limits of Judicial Power!

Q: In the 1980s, you wrote about how while the sphere for women has widened to include more work, men haven’t taken on as much domestic responsibility. Do you think that things are beginning to change?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: That’s going to take time, changing that kind of culture. But looking at my own family, my daughter Jane teaches at Columbia, she travels all over the world, and she has the most outstanding supportive husband who certainly carries his fair share of the load. Although their division of labor is different than mine and my husband’s, because my daughter is a super cook.

Q: Can courts play a role in changing that culture?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: The Legislature can make the change, can facilitate the change, as laws like the Family Medical Leave Act do. But it’s not something a court can decree. A court can’t tell the man, You’ve got to do more than carry out the garbage.

Of course, she did leave it open to the legislature to take up the slack.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:36 am 20Ymarsakar

The country may have to face some time in the ‘wilderness’ again, until a dose of reality awakens us from the liberal stupor of idealism.

Unfortunately, every time conservatives get to wake up, they only temporarily halt the Leftist poison. Next time, it is always worse.

That’s cause this is a war, not a life of forever fighting viruses and vulnerabilities to sickness. Viruses aren’t intelligent. They don’t lie in wait, or craft long term strategies. They don’t learn from their previous defeats, except on a basic evolutionary template.

The Left, however, gets more and more poisonous. They’re more like AIDS than the cold or flu.

Eventually the Left is going to strip all our immunities away, then it won’t be a fight, it’ll just an execution.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:39 am 21Ymarsakar

Another good example is Palestine vs the Jews. They keep fighting, and maybe the Jews keep pushing the Palis back, but the Jews don’t win the war. And so more people die, because they haven’t won yet.

When it comes to people’s lives, when it is over, it is over. There is no resurrection. No amount of propaganda will re-attach somebody’s head to their body and get people to believe that this once dead guy is alive once more.

That’s what the Left is doing. They’re killing us. One by one. Some before they are born, some on the battlefield, others due to crime, others still due to their support of America’s foreign enemies.

And in this conflict, no amount of regenerative ‘wilderness’ wanderlust will resolve things. No victory means no stopping the carnage. The cycle, if not ended, simply means more dead bodies, one way or another.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 5:28 pm 22suek

We should all be aware of this one:

http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=5036
on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:36 am 23suek

Insanity.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/726xtosv.asp
on 12 Jul 2009 at 8:46 am 24BrianE

“I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it’s hard to stop the dangerous effects later,” said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/

Americans should heed these words. When Medicare legislation was passed, premium paid for 50% of costs. Today, general tax revenue pay 75% of Medicare costs and the trust fund is nearing depletion.

As a good faith effort, Congress should fix Medicare first.

The administration and congressional Democrats tell us they’re working to reform health care in America. We’d be more inclined to believe them if they started by reforming a program that badly needs it. Instead, Medicare is the elephant in the room: Everybody knows it has huge problems, but few Democrats want to mention them. We can see why.

Medicare’s performance puts the lie to Obama’s claim that a public plan would “force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.” On the contrary, the public plan is more likely to force private players from the field and then break the bank.
…….
So it’s no surprise to experts in health-care economics that Medicare spending has grown at a double-digit annual rate for the past four decades, and was up 10% from 2008 to 2009.

That’s why we suggest Congress and the president take a stab at reforming Medicare before pushing the current failed model of public insurance to the whole population. If they were to take that advice, they’d have enough to keep them occupied at least until the next election. They might fail, but it would at least be instructive, perhaps leading them to scuttle their single-payer dream.
…..
Medicare can be reformed. The key is to put money in the hands of beneficiaries and give them a competitive field of private insurers from which to choose the plan that best suits them.

Those who want all the newest and fanciest medical technology without paying out-of-pocket can pay a suitable premium for that arrangement. Those with more faith in self-help and watchful waiting can have the opportunity to pay less. Health care still would be rationed, but by market and consumer choices, not bureaucrats.

This may be too great a leap for the current president and Congress. But new people with fresh ideas may be on the scene in four to eight years, and we wouldn’t be surprised then if Medicare is still in need of reform.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332031100195115

Republicans have made several attempts to right the Medicare ship, but the left seems determined to sink Medicare than give up the dream of a mandatory universal health insurance plan.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 9:47 am 25Ymarsakar

but the left seems determined to sink Medicare than give up the dream of a mandatory universal health insurance plan.

Only by sinking Medicare can they advance the mandatory health insurance plan.

People cannot be motivated into supporting extreme leaders and solutions until the system is broken completely.

Working to fix things with other people is against the Alinsky Rulebook. You can’t achieve extreme success by moderating via compromise. American has seen this before. Except we called it unconditional surrender.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 10:06 am 26Ymarsakar

All large organizations then to become semi-monopolized in their operations and strategic thinking.

As seen in the military, efficiency goes down when the decision makers go farther and farther away from the ‘ground’. The bigger the organization, the higher the pyramidal hierarchy. The higher the ladder, aka chain of command, the slower the decisions get made. The slower the decisions, the slower the OODA loop cycle, and thus the poorer the decisions are. Since those decisions are observed and decided upon way too late to conform to changing conditions on the ground.

This is bureaucracy as well. They work the same way.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 10:10 am 27Ymarsakar

People talk about holding government accountable. Excuse me, but Americans can’t even hold the IRS, the INS, or the DMV accountable on an individual basis.

This business of producing ethics suits against Sarah Palin, war crimes tribunals against George Bush and his cabinet, and investigations by Congress of Congressional crimes, is baloney. It’s a mirage, an illusion, a slight of hand.

Accountability only goes from the ground up, only at the end, (buck) stopping at the top. Currently there is no accountability at the bottom sectors of government. So all the witch hunts against politicians are 1. ineffective (William Jefferson, Ted Splash Kennedy, Robert KKK Byrd, Harry Iwonacasino Reid, etc.) and 2. a mirage.

Somebody like the megalomaniac and tyrant Obama can get away with firing Inspector Generals seeking real corruption because the entire system is corrupt. The bottom is corrupt. The middle is corrupt. The top is corrupt.

There is no accountability. There is only the illusion of it.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 10:38 am 28suek

>>There is no accountability. There is only the illusion of it.>>

Following that line of thought:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/07/czar-palooza.html
on 12 Jul 2009 at 2:01 pm 29Ymarsakar

czar
/zɑr, tsɑr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [zahr, tsahr] Show IPA
Use czar in a Sentence
–noun
1. an emperor or king.
2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
3. an autocratic ruler or leader.
4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
Also, tsar, tzar.

Origin:
1545–55; < Russ tsar’, ORuss tsĭsarĭ emperor, king (akin to OCS tsěsarĭ) < Goth kaisar emperor (< Gk or L); Gk kaîsar < L Caesar caesar

It’s not enough for Obama.

He can’t just be President. He can’t just be the Emperor or Russian dictator.

He has to be the EMPEROR of Emperors. The King of Kings. The Shah an Shah.

The megalomaniac of megalomaniacs.

Ain’t it great? Obama is creating a whole new class of aristocrats for us to bow our heads to. We’ll all be bowing like the Obama to the Saudi King soon enough.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 2:02 pm 30Ymarsakar

Which could be a good thing. Cause the first thing I’ll do when I see an Obamacan bow to their God Emperor is put my foot on their head and smash their teeth into the concrete of truth.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 8:45 pm 31Mike Devx

Medical malpractice lawsuits are certainly a part of the costs, but not one of the larger parts. Even if you completely eliminated malpractice lawsuits, the problem with our explosive health care costs would remain.

To me the problem is actually rather basic: We have a very effective health care system for taking care of people. However, it is outrageously expensive.

The reasons why it is expensive? There are many. Overwhelming regulation, yes. But also: The market will accept a cost that the market will bear. And we allow, for a variety of reasons, extraordinarily expensive medical costs so that we receive excellent health care. Ever seen the TOTAL charge for getting an MRI at a hospital? Or an overnight stay in a hospital bed? The total cost for those medications, not just your co-pay?

We have a very complex medical and health care system with many intricate parts. I’ve heard every part get blamed for the excessive costs by someone. I haven’t yet seen a solution that I think will work.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:18 am 32suek

>>Medical malpractice lawsuits are certainly a part of the costs, but not one of the larger parts. Even if you completely eliminated malpractice lawsuits, the problem with our explosive health care costs would remain.>>

That’s certainly a brush off statement. Have you any info sources that would help me find you right?

For example, I think that part of the explosive costs are the barrage of tests – required by the need for defensive medicine. This cannot be directly attributed to malpractice lawsuits, but at the same time, it _is_ caused by malpractice lawsuits. Is there any proof that the shotgun approach to lab tests is more effective in obtaining better results in the patient than a more time spent with the patient and more specific testing? If the patient is paying for the testing, s/he is likely to say “do I really need that?”, whereas when insurance pays for it, it’s “free” and who cares what the tests cost!

I had a horse once with a movement problem. My vet said “I think it’s caused by this”. He didn’t really know. If it was one thing, it would be temporary. If it was another thing, it would be a permanent limitation on his physical ability. He could guess, but I could also take him to the local vet hospital to have his entire spine x-rayed. Have you any idea what _that_ would cost??? Plenty, I can tell you. Treatment recommended for the temporary condition was to rest him for 6 months. Treatment recommended for the permanent condition was to either rest him for 6 months and then accept his limited range of movement, or put him down. The expensive x-rays wouldn’t make any difference in the 6 months lay up. The only difference was that _maybe_ we’d know exactly what we were dealing with. So…how much of medicine today is a desire for knowing _exactly_ what we’re dealing with, even if it doesn’t really make any difference? Can we afford the luxury of detailed knowledge? (not to say that this isn’t a good thing in a research hospital, but if _we’re_ paying for it, would we really demand the same level of information as if we’re _not_ paying for it?)