Small Favors

H/T to Legal Insurrection via KT. Leftist rage over the exclusion of funding of abortions from the House health care bill is a sight to behold. Recommend you follow the links. I can't help my schadenfreude, because they kill the likes of those pictured at left. Also, for you RINO's who think being pro-life is a loser, ask yourself why 64 Democrats would vote for the Stupak Amendment that would limit abortion funding but not a single Republican voted against. The trend line in public opinion is definitely moving against abortion as more and more people realize what a crime against humanity this procedure really is.

Free Market Health Care Reform

In the spirit of reaching out to the left, I thought I would explain how free markets and minimal government intervention can achieve the same results as the overly complex and costly health care legislation passed by the House.

From his own web site, the President's stated goals for health care reform can be summarized as follows.

• Reduce the cost of health care.
• Increase the number of insured.
• Ensure those with pre-existing conditions are covered.
• Protect Medicare.
• Create a more competition through and insurance exchange and "public option."
• Do not increase the deficit.

With respect to reducing the costs of health care, I hope we can all agree that such reduction is only desirable if the value of the health care delivered is not increasing. There are actually two costs that get conflated in this argument. One is the cost of care, the other the cost of insurance. To reduce the cost of insurance, we need more competition, less regulation. The Congress, acting under the interstate commerce clause, could pass legislation that allows any insurance company licensed by any state to be allowed to sell insurance in all the fifty states.

Reducing costs of care is more problematic, but again, information and competition are key. In Pennsylvania, the government publishes statistics about hospital outcomes and has found that the most effective hospitals are the least expensive, because the cost of re-admission skew total costs of care. Is this government intervention? Yes, but the least obtrusive kind, providing needed information. I foresee a time when such fact finding could be done privately for insurance companies under a consortium.

Increasing the number of insured is also amenable to free market reform. The health insurance industry is subject to heavy regulation as to what should be covered, what co-pays are allowable and what caps are in place. As with any regulation, this has stymied the innovation that is the cornerstone of increasing efficiency and reducing cost. Further, the current system doesn't give consumers enough incentive to shop around for best value in health care providers. Lifting regulations on what must be covered would be a boon to many. A single male shouldn't have to pay for pregnancy coverage for example. A young married woman shouldn't have to pay for viagra coverage, we hope. Further, high co-pays, with catastrophic caps to prevent disaster for the insured, would go a long way to reducing the cost of insurance. I'm not saying that no regulation is required. Certainly, a legal framework that requires insurers to honor their commitments is needed, even libertarians agree in the basic issue of contract enforcement. But the current amount of regulation hurts the ability of insurers to provide lower cost products.

Pre-existing conditions that prevent some people from getting insurance certainly tug at our heart strings. Our heart goes out to someone who loses their insurance and because of an existing and potentially debilitating illness, would go bankrupt getting treatment. However, this can be solved in a two pronged approach. First, we need to make insurance even more portable than it already is. Individuals should have the right to purchase a level term guarantee, just like they can with life insurance, so that they can take their coverage with them if they lose employment. Secondly, we should change the tax code so that we start to encourage employers to get out of the health insurance business, and have individuals purchase their own plans. If the plan is my own, it doesn't matter who my employer is, I can keep my plan for life.

As far as protecting medicare, I am not sure it can be saved, but certainly cutting payments to Doctors accepting medicare will only hasten it's demise. Doing nothing will do more for medicare than anything produced by this administration.

Increasing competition? See previous paragraphs on reducing regulation and allowing health insurance to be sold nationally.

This is easy under free market reform, no new programs = no new spending.

There, we have the start of a free market plan, time for the Republicans to put it forward.

Health Care Update and Summary of Suckiness

How did the Democrats in Congress manage to come up with so many ideas that suck in the bill they just passed? Because the Republicans thought they could distribute pork forever and hold on to their majority without addressing real problems. A little summary of what we get with the Dems in charge of health care legislation, much of this courtesy of Betsy McCaughey in the WSJ.

• Over $1 trillion in new spending, during exploding deficits.
• Requirement to enroll in a "Qualified Plan" even though that plan is not defined.
• One size fits all plan, once it does get defined. Whatever happened to pro-choice Democrats. This will raise the cost of private insurance.
  
• Use of the IRS to enforce health care choice. (I like the Orwellian ring to that.)
  
• Cuts payments to popular Medicare Advantage plans.
• Subsidizes abortion.
• Massive new bureaucracy.
  

A quick summary of Freedom Coalition ideas to reform health care.

• Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition.
• Treat privately purchased insurance and employer provided insurance the same in the tax code. That way people will have a better chance to keep their insurance when they change jobs and not be denied for existing conditions.
• Allow and encourage high deductible policies with catastrophic caps so that consumers have more skin in the game.
• Tort reform (notice this isn't first, it would help, but is not a panacea.)
• Require individuals who use emergency rooms to pay for their care, to encourage those who can afford insurance to get some. (See Reason.tv)
• Remove government mandates about what must be covered, so that consumers can choose their best options.
• Expand Pennsylvania's program that rates hospital quality.

Lying bastards on the left say that the Tea Partyers have no plan, but we do, it just doesn't increase the size of government and still goes a long to solving health care problems.

Time to see what can be done to stop this abomination in the Senate. The relative closeness of the vote in the House (220-215) was the only encouragement I could take from the day's events (other than Navy's defeat of Notre Dame.)

And could someone please mount a primary challenge to Louisiana RINO Anh Cao, the only Republican to vote for the bill?

Weekend Music Chill

I haven't commented on this week's election results, because I didn't think I had anything particularly insightful to add. I'll let this weekend's music summarize my take on the deeper meaning of it all.

Sonny and Cher - The Beat Goes On
by scootaway

Health Care Reform and Medicare

Dean was visited by someone to the left of us, Joe Markowitz, after Dean posted an article opining that "everyone in and nobody out" was the one of the worst political slogans of all time. Mr. Markowitz also commented on some TLT articles; hooray for readers and commenters. He called us out on an issue to which Republican politicians can't respond well, but to which I can. Here's what he said:

Either you should support the abolition of Medicare AND Medicaid AND the VA, which I do not hear any politicians suggesting, or you should be working constructively with supporters of reform to help fix those programs and put them on a better financial footing. But you can't be against government health care and then at the same time try to scare seniors by saying that reformers want to try to find some cost savings in the program.

As a principled libertarian/conservative I agree. I support the abolition of medicare, medicaid and the VA in their present form. The reason the Republicans can't say this is that Medicare, at least, is a popular program. It is popular with seniors, because they get more from the program than they ever put in to it. And seniors vote in greater percentages than youngsters. But Medicare is not sustainable, and this is well known. Better not to have embarked on an unsustainable program than make promises that will eventually be broken. Further, why do we encourage generational wealth transfer from the relatively poor and young to the relatively richer and older?

With respect to the VA, that system does not work well for the veterans. I am a veteran, and abhor the lengthy waits and red tape to obtain service. I do not use the VA as a result. It would be better if the government gave veterans an opportunity to get treatment in the private sector for their service related injuries through a private insurance plan, and cheaper too.

I work for the Federal government and I know from first hand experience the difficulties of performing one's duties within the spirit and the letter of the law. Not a day goes by that I have to bend rules or not be in full compliance to be able to actually execute the mission I am given. A health care bureaucracy would be run by people like me, dedicated to their mission, but given an impossible task of obeying byzantine rules. But the consequences will be that the costs for such a system will spiral out of control, because all of the rule making is intended to control costs. Because of my first hand knowledge, I dread any increased growth in the scope of government because I know that the competing political pressures of law, mission and leadership always results in less than optimum solutions. Do I think the private sector is perfect? No, but the pressures to bring efficiency and effectiveness are much greater, because politics does not intrude.

The Real Californication

The real Schwarzenegger porn awaits his election as governor.

The guvenator, not content to take some hapless saps clothing, is reaching deep into your wallet as well. From the LA Times:

Starting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes just as the biggest shopping season of the year kicks into gear.

Technically, it's not a tax increase, even though it may feel like one when your next paycheck arrives. As part of a bundle of budget patches adopted in the summer, the state is taking more money now in withholding, even though workers' annual tax bills won't change.

Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan: You'll be repaid any extra withholding in April. Those who would receive a refund anyway will receive a larger one, and those who owe taxes will owe less.

Except, of course, if the state is technically bankrupt again next year when all us poor saps go to file our taxes. Also, when Jimmy the Nose collects a forced interest free loan from us, we usually call that extortion. Look at what happened last February when the state was broke.

However, you can fight back. In another case of BDaddy taking his own financial advice, I went on my employer's pay website and increased my number of claimed deductions to offset the increased deductions the state is taking. If you want to protect yourself against another bankruptcy in California next year, then you want to owe taxes, not waiting to be stiffed, in all senses of the term. If you're worried about owing too much, pay extra to the feds, so you can file early with them and use the refund check to pay the state.

Fight back California, force these fornicators to reduce spending.

New York 23 Update - Scozzafava endorses Dem

In what amounts to an I told you so moment, Dede Scozzafava, after dropping out of the race has endorsed her Democrat opponent rather than the Conservative who forced her out of the race.

Wall Street Journal commentary on the events hits the mark:

GOP state chairman Joe Mondello, now thankfully retired, and Beltway bigs misjudged public dismay against the Democratic agenda in Washington. Nominating a candidate who "can win" in the Northeast does not have to mean someone whose voting record is more liberal on taxes and unions than that of most Blue Dog Democrats.

Biden Spills Beans

From the Fox News article:

Vice President Joe Biden, during a visit Tuesday to a Delaware automotive assembly plant, unwittingly revealed startup manufacturer Fisker Automotive's undisclosed plans to produce a full line of plug-in hybrid vehicles at the facility.

I think the operative word here is unwittingly; and couldn't we just characterize all of Biden's comments with that adverb?

$89,000 Hybrid sports car funded by your tax dollars.

Update on New York 23 - Scozzafava Quits

H/T Hotair. The liberal Republican nominee in the New York 23rd congressional district has quit the race after sinking to a distant third in the polls. This is good news, because it makes it easier for the Conservative Party nominee, Doug Hoffman, to capture the seat. However, Hotair reports that Hoffman has high negatives among Scozzafava supporters, so it is not obvious that he will win. Regardless, this is a clear warning that Republican nominees need to be supporters of small government and can't be radically leftist on abortion.

Siena College poll here.

Weekend Music Chill

Happy Halloween folks. Here's a little ditty from one of our favorite movies in the B-Daddy household.



But is this version scarier?

New York - 23 Update

DailyKos polling shows the 23rd Congressional district race to be a statistical dead heat, with Democrat Bill Owens clinging to a one point lead over Conservative Party insurgent Doug Hoffman. The Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, is fading fast, down to 23% and falling.

Recent results from Research 2000 for Kos:

Scozzafava (R) 21 (30)
Owens (D) 33 (35)
Hoffman (C) 32 (23)

I find this polling to be credible, and it confirms recent trends. As I opined earlier, this is a great opportunity to let the Republican leadership know they need to listen to the Tea Party calls for smaller government and less debt and I have donated to the Hoffman campaign. As Kos points out, if Republicans keep breaking for Hoffman, no way does Owens win this race.

Doug Hoffman, not much to look at, but better than the alternative.

Boo Who?

And I don't even like Broadway shows.

So the President was annoyed that his date night with Michelle was criticized and turned political. Boo hoo. What did he expect? I'd be annoyed, too, but I'd shut up about it. Now your critics know they can get under your skin. Grow up and take it like the Commander-in-Chief, for cryin' out loud. Second, Mr. President, you deserve this kind of crap sandwich after all the uncalled for swipes at your predecessor, who has been nothing but gracious towards you. Again I say, grow up, you just look like a small man who can't handle the gravity of your office. You can stop picking on people, like white police officers and Fox News, while your at it.

As for me, I never mention this stuff in my blog until I see this kind of petty response. Of course the President should go out on a date once in a while, just let the criticism roll off your back.

Finally, why do the Obama's never seem to look happy when they aren't politicking? What do they have to look so dour about?

Tea Partying the Republican Party

As many of you may know, I am not a big fan of the Republican Party, I just loathe the Democrat party with much greater intensity. In fact until 2008, I was a registered Libertarian. So it gives me great pleasure to stick it in the eye of the GOP when they abandon any pretense of being the party of small government, even though that platform brought them huge victories in 1994. Such an opportunity exists in New York's 23rd Congressional District special election.

The Republicans have nominated Dede Scozzafava, a recipient of the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood for her work supporting abortion rights. HotAir has been all over this. Fortunately for Conservatives, New York has a strong third party movement. In this case, the Conservative Party of New York (of James Bucklry fame) is running a far superior candidate. First a little more on Scozzafava from Michelle Malkin as re-posted in Hot Air.

Scozzafava is an abortion rights advocate who favors gay marriage.
It would be one thing if Scozzafava balanced that social liberalism with fiscal conservatism. But as a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against.

More troubling, Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party — a socialist outfit whose political DNA is intertwined with scandal-ridden ACORN. ACORN and the WFP have shared office space in New York City, Arkansas and Illinois. ACORN head Bertha Lewis, a close Scozzafava friend and political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”…

This is a chance for those of us in the Tea Party movement to show the Republicans not to pull this kind of crap. Scozzafava was nominated by party officials, so they can't claim any voter mandate for her.

Here is a little of what Hoffman says in a NY Post Op-Ed piece:

It’s just as bad in Washington. The Obama administration suffers from the illusion that the way you solve problems, both social and economic, is to throw money at them.In the meantime, Congress fiddles while our economy burns. They lack common sense.

They don’t seem to get it that increased spending leads to higher taxes and fuels a projected $9 trillion deficit. That earmarks and pork-barrel spending might be beneficial to their political careers, but are devastating to the taxpayers who foot the bill. They are oblivious to the fact that tort reform, cutting of waste, and the introduction of free-market solutions are the ways to lower the cost of health care. That Obama-care will only lead us down the slippery slope to socialized medicine.

I have visited Hoffman's web site and donated to his cause, because it's time this country had at least one party that supports the concept of limited government. I encourage you to do the same.

Creating a Crisis - Swine Flu

The President declared the swine flu a national emergency on Sunday. Forgive me if I'm cynical enough to believe that he thought it would buy some support for more government run health care. I really loathe to second guess the President on an issue this important, so let me offer some evidence.

1. Only 1,000 people have died to date from the H1N1 virus. According to the only information I could find, in 2004, the CDC predicted the regular old flu would kill 36,000 Americans.

2. The administration themselves did not really say this was an emergency.

Administration officials said the declaration was a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions easier when they need to be made.

3. The President's children have not received the vaccine. By the way, I would not criticize the President if he and his family were near the front of the line for the vaccine. He is our elected leader and he deserves full protection, including the best medical treatment the country can provide.

4. It is the administration's proven tactic to use crises for political ends. Rahm Emmanuel has famously said that we should never let a crisis go to waste. See video link. When you think about the health care situation, there is no crisis to drive the passage of whatever bill comes out of the Senate, because most people are happy with their insurance plan. Even if there is grousing about cost, that doesn't really constitute a crisis.

5. And this:

The national emergency declaration was the second of two steps needed to give Sebelius [HHS Secretary] extraordinary powers during a crisis.

I invite comment from readers who disagree.

UPDATED Looming Inflation: A Public Service Announcement

The nation is struggling with recovering from the current recession, which recovery does not seem assured. However, thinking longer term, I see looming inflation on the horizon. Both The Economist and the Wall Street Journal devoted significant column inches to the tricky subject of how the deficits and rising debt of the United States federal government will result in crisis. Allan Meltzer in the WSJ pins the problem on the Federal Reserve monetizing the debt, printing money to buy Treasury bonds. Both he and the Economist agree that inflation may take a while to take off, but on current trends it is unavoidable. If that happens, prior to the 2012 elections, then Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter. Although both articles end optimistically, I don't think our politicians have the will nor the insight to do much about the problems. Look at the dilemma they face and ask yourself if you believe they have the stomach for the tough options.

Japan’s experience illustrates the excruciating dilemma facing American policymakers. The White House acknowledges the deficits it projects are too high. But slashing spending or raising taxes too soon could snuff out recovery and leave America with even bigger deficits. Asked on October 15th when the administration would tackle the deficit, Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, said: “First, growth.”

And from the Journal:

The Obama administration chooses to blame outsize deficits on its predecessor. That's a mistake, because it hides a structural flaw: We no longer have any way of imposing fiscal restraint and financial prudence. Federal, state and local governments understate future spending and run budget deficits in good times and bad. Budgets do not report these future obligations.

I think we are in for some pain that will only be solved through high interest rates and deficit reduction. I also don't think that will happen under a Democrat controlled government.

More pressing for my readers might be what to do about this situation. Fortunately, we have lived through this movie before. First, mortgage holders should take advantage of the current low interest rates to get into a fixed mortgage. I know this will cause most home owners to increase their monthly payments, but Mrs. Daddy and I have gone this route to reduce future uncertainty.

Second, if you have an investment portfolio, you should own precious metals (gold, silver) as part of that either outright through coins, my preference, or through mining stocks. These hedge inflation well. I don't overloading on precious metals is a good idea, we strongly believe in a balanced portfolio.

Finally, there are Treasury Inflation Protected Securities, or TIPS, are Treasury bonds that provide another inflation hedge.

TIPS pay a fixed coupon plus a rate that rises with inflation and falls during deflation. The portion that adjusts for inflation gives investors protection against erosion in the purchasing power of the greenback. TIPS are indexed to the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, which is released monthly and tracks prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services.

Ultimately, inflation is a tax that ravages everyone, but not equally, and it is hard to avoid all of its ill effects. The last thing we can do is continue the fight against all of the ridiculous budget busters this administration has proposed, and start voting in real conservatives in 2010.

Graph of public debt forecast The Economist.

UPDATE

KT has an excellent comment that I liberated as an update:

I'm with you up to a point. I don't like gold or other precious metals. When you buy them, you buy rocks. Instead, I'd buy mutual funds from well-run countries, such as Australia. In fact, if you want to invest in commodities, Aussie mutual funds would be a good way to do it - the Aussie economy is, to a great extent, a commodities economy. Plus, they're the supplier of choice for China for lots of minerals. Lastly, the Australians have nothing like the kind of debt problems we have.

I agree that this strategy will also hedge inflation, but I admit I still like owning a small amount of actual metal. Finally, I am partial to Aussies, as Mrs. Daddy's mum hails from down under.

Weekend Music Chill

Mrs. Daddy pointed out another Lincoln commercial featuring fabulous music:



The music is by a singer who goes by Sia, here is a full version:



But I like the original by The Church better:

Pay Go? Pay Gone!

Today's Drudge Headline:

WHITE HOUSE MASTER TO SLASH EXEC PAY

For the second time this week, I find myself agreeing with the Obama administration, but I will impugn their motives anyway. First, why do I agree? This headline reminds me of what the very prescient George Will said in an April 2008 commentary about what was going on at the Fed, which was bailing out Bear Sterns at the time:

Congress could pass a law saying: No company benefiting from a substantial federal subvention (which would now include Morgan) may pay any executive more than the highest pay of a federal civil servant ($124,010). That would dampen Wall Street's enthusiasm for measures that socialize losses while keeping profits private.

Amen, brother. (Small error, the top pay is more like $196,700 but that's still chump change to these bankers.) These guys loaded up on risk like there was no tomorrow and expected the Fed and the Congress to bail them out, which institutions promptly obliged. Where are the consequences that will change future behavior? Further, I hope this accelerates the pay back of the TARP/porkulus money, and stops further bleeding from the Treasury on this front. This is predatory government, when big special interests capture the government institutions that supposedly regulate them. This is the kind of thing that animates the left, and you can understand why. (I am thinking about a post to help you lib/cons understand the left.)

On to impugning motives. The administration's action comes not out of any sense of preventing future calamity, but out of the leftist emotion of rage at those making more money than themselves. It's all just populism to compete with Glenn Beck, who has been kicking their tails of late. Fortunately, for the American tax paying public, Team Barry has not thought this through and will probably be outraged when these firms find ways to return the filthy lucre that got their execs pay cut in the first place.

Kenneth Feinberg, Treasury Official in charge of Executive Compensation:
"We're cutting your pay, even if it increases the deficit."

Creeping Totalitarianism

No, I'm not going overboard. Dean and KT have posted on the folly of the White House attack on Fox News in declaring them not a news organization. This is more serious than just not talking to a particular network, the White House blatantly attempted to orchestrate a freeze out of Fox by other media outlets. Hugo would approve.

Jake Tapper of ABC sees the big flick and called out all around buffoon and Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs on the issue.

It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Gibbs weak reply is that it's their opinion. What? Give me a break and think about the high office you represent and act like it. In the comments at Tapper's blog, the usual morons snipe about the unfairness and stupidity, etc. of Fox. I commented as follows:

The folks criticizing Fox News are missing Tapper's point. In a democracy governed by a Bill of Rights, how is it appropriate for the Executive Branch to brand an organization as illegitimate and to organize ostracism? What if the next Republican Administration takes similar action against MSNBC, which appears equally partisan? For most of the history of this Republic, news organizations have been political, that doesn't make them less legitimate or less worthy of the protections of the Constitution. The White House should respect the spirit of the First Amendment, not just the letter of the law.

Medical Obamawana and Obamacare

Don't get me wrong, I support the recent announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice that they will no longer seek criminal charges against users and suppliers of medical marijuana. If you are a federalist like me, you can appreciate that the federal government has no right to interfere with state law in this regard, as it has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Further, it seems absurd to waste federal resources on what is a local law enforcement issue.

But the hypocrisy of the move astounds me. First, Obama recently signed into law a ban on flavored cigarettes. The FDA now has regulatory powers over tobacco but no marijuana? How does this make sense in a rational world. Of course, the more amazing hypocrisy is the how this squares with the whole federal take over of all health care. The federal government is poised to take regulate every health decision that are now the purview of doctors, patients and insurance companies, but medical marijuana has been set free.

Weekend Music Chill

Somehow this goof ball video matches my mood, I occasionally go for this euro-techno-trash style of music.




Light blogging this week due to demands of church and helping the youngsters work the whole college application deal.