Friday, August 07, 2009

On the current national quarrel

Whoops. She's right — lewlew, that is, when she remarked on the last paragraph in yesterday's musing about the current health-care quarrel.

If the insurance companies, over the past several decades, only had shown some inclination toward helping people meet their health-care expenses as opposed to building shrines for themselves and their employees, perhaps the power-grabbers would not have sensed an opportunity.

Aren't you supposed to grab your audience with the lead in the first paragraph? =)

In a nutshell, this is the largest shell game shilling the consumer in need of medical care. You hit the issue spot on in that one lovely sentence. I wish solving our need for medical care without nannyship and red tape were as eloquent. Harrumph!

I have long been of the opinion that the goal of an insurance company is first to keep your premium in its possession for the longest possible time. I have watched mighty edifices constructed along highways, gleaming architectural tributes to the insurance industry. I have taken tours and seen the expansive fitness centers and tasted the delicious food in the cafeterias where the insurance company minions went when they were not in their cubicles — or, in the case of the executives, when they were not in the well-furnished offices that were larger than the modest offices where I and a dozen other people toiled.

And I knew these luxuries were provided with money that should have been used to more fully reimburse the expenses of customers who were told the policies they purchased only covered a certain percentage of the cost, leaving them with bills for thousands of dollars.

The current quarrel regards whether this status quo is acceptable, or whether the process should be placed in the hands of a non-productive class of greedy souls who seize the income of the producers by guile and force, then redistribute it for a variety of bribes and acts of violence, saving a significant chunk for themselves.

The insurance industry has generally failed its customers while executives bask in personal and collective luxuries, opening the door for the fear-mongers to grab a piece of the action.

At the root of the problem is that we have become to believe in a system where I make a token investment in my own personal health but someone else — either a private company or Big Brother — should pay the bulk of the cost, leaving me free to purchase video-game systems and iPhones and other pretty toys.

It seems ensuring my healthy survival should be a higher personal priority — especially when the third party I hire insists on making judgment calls (as it has the right under the golden rule — "he who has the gold makes the rules") regarding how my doctor and I wish to spend the money it is providing for my medical bills. In a perfect world, the doctor tells me a reasonable price to cover his/her costs and an appropriate profit, and I hand over the cash or arrange installments.

Instead the medical payment system is as convoluted as any Internal Revenue Service process, and the simplest medical procedure comes with multiple bills and fiscal surprises. However, to reinvent the system to give more power to the creators of the IRS seems foolhardy to the maximum.

I don't have the answer. Well, no, I think I do: Give me the responsibility for the cost of all of my routine care, and I'll buy some of that insurance for catastrophic medical needs. Eliminate the middlemen and -women and the lawyers and the politicians from the process, and perhaps the doctors won't have to charge me as much as they do now.

Some people, economically wiser than I was in my youth and early middle age, already fund their health care like that. It works so well for them that the politicians are crafting a bill that would take that choice away, penalizing those who choose not to purchase a basic insurance policy and prohibiting the purchase of individual policies.

The lack of squealing from the insurance lords tells me that they'll still receive an adequate piece of the pie to keep the comfortable edifices they built with our premiums. And the politicians will keep their limousines and private planes and expensive suits; perhaps they'll even exempt themselves from the monstrous system they're creating for the masses.

People are raising their voices and objecting because it's clear they're watching a shell game. Almost everyone agrees medical decisions should be made by patients and their doctors. Neither the status quo nor the proposed solutions addresses this basic agreement.

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Regarding the grand argument over health care

Let me see if this tin-foil hat fits ...

The news is abuzz with reports of how Republican hooligans are hijacking Democratic politicians "listening sessions" on the "health-care reform," which amounts to seizure of what remains of the "free market" insurance industry similar to the previous seizures of the banks and auto industry.

Democrats allege a GOP conspiracy to disrupt the proceedings. The GOP denies this. The people who come to these events with doubts about the congressional plan are insisting to anyone who asks that they were not contacted by any community organizers in advance and they weren't taking orders from any national organization.

Attach tin-foil hat to B.W.'s head. Thank you.

So who benefits when critics of the "health-care reform plan" look like thugs? Correct: Supporters of the plan. Are supporters seeding the crowds with agitators disguised as angry taxpayers?

Remove tin-foil hat.

I don't know what's going on. However, I am encouraged that citizens have serious questions about giving any more power over their health decisions over to Big Brother.

If the insurance companies, over the past several decades, only had shown some inclination toward helping people meet their health-care expenses as opposed to building shrines for themselves and their employees, perhaps the power-grabbers would not have sensed an opportunity.

Labels:

Monday, June 29, 2009

The coming universal health care

"How will we pay for it?"

We will pay for public sector health care coverage same way we do for private sector health care coverage: Those who can afford to pay will be billed for the expenses incurred by those who can't afford to pay. And the more expensive care will be rationed.

The only difference will be that the government will collect the money and ration the care by force, as opposed to insurance companies performing those tasks on a more-or-less voluntary basis. Many people think this will be an improvement; they will be sorely disappointed.

Peter Townshend summed so much of life and government up in the triumphant conclusion of "Won't Get Fooled Again":
Meet the new boss;
Same as the old boss.
The only caveat I might add is that the new boss is almost inevitably worse than the old boss, especially in matters of government.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

Would you buy a car from this guy?

Associated Press said it best:
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a defining moment for American capitalism, President Barack Obama ushered General Motors Corp. into bankruptcy protection Monday and put the government behind the wheel of the company that once symbolized the nation's economic muscle. The fallen giant, the largest U.S. industrial company ever to enter bankruptcy, is shedding some 21,000 jobs and 2,600 dealers. Sparing few communities, the retrenchment amounts to one-third of its U.S. work force and 40 percent of its dealerships.
"A defining moment for American capitalism"? Under what definition of capitalism does the government own 60 percent of one of the largest corporations in the country? Don't worry, I know the answer; it's a rhetorical question.

As Mr. Obama assumed the reins of General Motors and touted the smaller, more environmentally sound cars that the new GM will bring to the people, I couldn't help but recall the grainy film images of another powerful leader who coaxed automakers into producing the People's Car, or as they said in his language, the volkswagen.

Maybe it's because I'm currently plowing through Milton Mayer's brilliant book, They Thought They Were Free. No, I'm not saying Mr. Obama is a 21st century version of Mr. Hitler. Yet.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Random thoughts on a Thursday morning

Lacking a specific reason to write but wanting to experience the sensation of fingers tapping over a keyboard, I searched through my hard drive's nethers for inspiration. My software jumped at the sight of Fay Wray.

The images are 76 years old this year, but I'm still drawn to King Kong, one of the magnificent movies, and the performance of Wray, a beautiful woman and talented actress. Yet whenever I sit down and doodle my "favorite 10" or "favorite 25" movies of all time, the big ape and the ravishing woman never seem to make the cut. Maybe I should rethink the list. Again.

— The New Prez made a pitch for refinancing mortgage debt Wednesday. He'll confiscate the future cash from our children's and grandchildren's paychecks and give people a chance to stay in the homes they haven't been able to afford so far.

Why does it seem that everyone in America except the politicians have finally come to realize that debt is not a good thing?

— The current storyline of Heroes focuses on an attempt to round up super-powered folks for The Greater Good. The storyline highlights how much we've morphed into a surveillance society: The Heroes can run, but they can't hide from all the cameras. This is a positive development, although movies like Enemy of the State failed to rouse people from their comfort that Big Brother is watching us so he can, um, take care of us.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Arnoldbucks

This is a great video; the sad thing is the folks responsible don't seem to realize they're advocating, tongue-in-check, to replace the current system of IOUs federal reserve notes with "fake" IOUs. They seem to have an inordinate faith in the power of government to right wrongs and serve truth, justice and the American Way.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

If it was us

It took about three minutes to find what I was looking for — all I needed was to Google "sentenced income tax evasion."

Here's what I found ... all but one of the names have been removed to protect the guilty. And I barely went halfway down the first page of links. The first page had "Results 1-10 of about 94,300 for 'sentenced income tax evasion."
XXX was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 36 months, supervised release term of 3 years and ordered to pay restitution of $717,899 to the IRS. In August 2000, a federal grand jury charged XXX with three counts of income tax evasion for the years 1993 through 1995. According to the indictment, XXX attempted to evade paying a total of about $180,000 in taxes.

YYY was sentenced to a year in prison to be followed by one year of supervised release. YYY was also ordered to pay costs of $1,227 and an assessment of $200 ... YYY admitted evading over $183,000 in federal income taxes for tax years 1997, 1998, and 1999.

ZZZ has been found guilty in federal court on four counts of income tax evasion ... He will be sentenced Jan. 21. He faces a maximum five-year sentence and $250,000 fine for each count, according to the U.S. Attorney's office.

On October 18, 1931, Capone was convicted after trial, and on November 24, was sentenced to eleven years in Federal prison, fined $50,000 and charged $7,692 for court costs, in addition to $215,000 plus interest due on back taxes.
If it was us, and not Tom Daschle or Timothy Geithner, we'd be going to prison. For the rulers of the U.S. of A., all it takes is an "I'm sorry" and a check. You may not get to be health & human services secretary, but you get to go home tonight — and you may even get to be treasury secretary and give the IRS its marching orders.

"Hope and change," my muscular buttocks. The U.S. government is still run by thugs and criminals. People are angry. Angry enough to change things? We'll have to see.

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

The truth, by Papa Joe












The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Joseph Stalin 1879-1953

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Ending traffic congestion with GPS tracking and confiscation of wealth

"New global positioning system technology and congestion pricing can reduce traffic jams. In mid-January, 10,000 transportation professionals, including people from the incoming Obama administration, will convene in Washington D.C. at meetings of the Transportation Research Board, part of the National Science Foundation, to discuss solutions ...

"London’s system of road pricing, with cars charged $16 to enter the center, is held up as a model for other cities. But its main flaw is that drivers pay flat fees, and are not charged by miles driven or by routes taken.

"A better scheme would be to have drivers pay per mile, with higher charges on more heavily-used streets and in periods of heaviest congestion ...

"Here’s how this could work. GPS devices could be given to drivers who choose to participate—one per car—and drivers pay as easily as they are now paying for cell phones or E-ZPass tolls. Participating motorists could be exempt from license-renewal fees, but would pay road charges instead, charges that could vary by type of road used and time of day. Driving in rush hour along a busy road would cost more than driving on a little-used road late at night."
I could not make this up. Once again the increased surveillance and higher taxes are sugar-coated as solutions to a common problem: Few people enjoy sitting in traffic jams. And oh, yes, it's a "voluntary" system for "drivers who choose to participate," but there will be a costly penalty for "choosing" not to participate.

Will most folks trade in their freedom and their cash for the promise of less-congested roads and highways? Maybe. Freedom is so inconvenient.

Read Big Brother's argument.

Labels:

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Santa strikes a blow for freedom



Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!

Labels: ,

Monday, December 01, 2008

The State as speed bump

Now here is an interesting conversation over at Sunni's blog, as anarcho-libertarians discuss the questions that "given that we live in a world dominated by states, at what point does interacting with them 'cross the line' and become immoral? How is the line determined?"

My light-bulb-flash moment came as "galacticmonk" mused:
my evolution started with attraction to free markets & liberty. from there i became active, getting angry (reacting emotionally) at the constant barrage of noise that conflicted with my ideal (at the time) libertarian paradise.

soon i started to realize that the perpetual stream of things that go against my current understanding would eat away at my core. i had to re-evaluate what was important. and frankly the state ranked so far down the list that it became a non-factor.

as soon as living a meaningful life and finding joy in the day-to-day aspect of it became my reason for being here, the state was like a speed bump--annoying but something i really had no control over (unless i chose a different road of course).
So here's a guy, me, whose entire career has been in media/news, with news defined as observing and explaining the latest stuff that The State is doing. I'm all wrapped up in watching The State, and I hear that "living a meaningful life and finding joy in the day-to-day aspect of it" is probably best accomplished by not getting all wrapped up in watching The State. I know this instinctively, but haven't seen it verbalized quite this neatly for a while.

Should I seek a journalistic beat that doesn't involve itself so much in State News, or seek a completely different path that takes me out of my media/news comfort zone but into something a little more joyful because it does not expose me to The State every day? This is the question that's been driving me nuts for some time, in part because I haven't phrased the question so well before.

As for the answer ... Stay tuned. And remind me that I was talking to myself when I said "Stay tuned."

Labels: , , ,

Monday, November 24, 2008

Throw the governor under the bus

Many urban buses are equipped with a governor, a device for keeping the speed of rotation of the drive shaft constant as the load on it varies. This increases the moment of inertia and also operates a mechanical link that reduces the fuel supply, keeping the bus from going faster than a predetermined speed.

I've never heard a better analogy than the bus governor about how government works: The governor holds back the power of the engine and restricts its ability to move as fast and as freely as its potential. A government acts in the same manner towards its citizens.

Remove the governor, and the bus is free to operate to its full capability. Remove the government and you free the people.

Labels:

Monday, November 17, 2008

100 reasons to watch 'Jericho'

Both Hulu and Netflix (probably others) have all of the second-best TV show ever, Jericho, available for streaming these days - and I found this delightful Season 2 teaser in the Hulu pile.

I'm only a half-dozen episodes into Season 1, having taken in Season 2 first, but the seven-episode second season is so great that I can't imagine my assessment of the show will drop once I've seen the entire run. In the meantime, enjoy the teaser.


Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 07, 2008

Observation

Now that the presidential reality show has ended, I note with passing interest that four candidates seemed to generate passion among their respective bases: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin.

Democrats lifted Obama and Clinton as their top two vote-getters. Republicans joined in as alarmed Democrats trashed and ridiculed Paul and Palin.

Now Republicans are trying to figure out why they lost, and the campaign leadership is making the governor of Alaska its fall gal. I think it's safe to say the GOP is in for a long journey in the wilderness.

Obama, for his part, appears to wear the emperor's robes well. If only we could tap the power of Tom Paine, Patrick Henry, Tom Jefferson and friends spinning in their graves, we could have solved the USA's energy problems decades ago.

Labels:

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Clarification of "The endorsement game"

I think most regular readers understand, but I didn't post my draft endorsement of Barack Obama the other day because I'm endorsing Obama. I ended up being the main writer on three endorsements last week — the one I kept to myself, and one more for each of the two main candidates. Not only do I plan not to vote Tuesday, but I consider both men opponents of the principles on which the United States of America supposedly were founded.

And I do want to assure regular readers, because I come to the little Blogger dashboard to share with you my honest and sincere thoughts and feelings about the state of my world and those parts of it we share. The exercise in choosing an endorsement was an intellectual puzzle: "If I did want one of these two would-be dictators to stick his fingers in my life, how would I justify that desire?" Most days here, you won't read a pack of lies like the one where I wrote that I believe Obama would "govern us as a centrist." I don't perceive a left, center or right; I perceive those who wield the power of the state like a bludgeon and those who believe in the power of the individual. But for the purposes of this intellectual puzzle, I had to assume the mask of a statist.

It actually was a little scary, much as C.S. Lewis is said to be freaked out as he wrote The Screwtape Letters, a series of essays in which senior demon Screwtape instructed his nephew, Wormwood, in the ways of drawing humans off The Path. To write the endorsement of a tyrant-wannabe with any degree of authenticity, you need to guide your brain onto a train of thought that desires slavery. You have to settle into the belief that it's right and proper for a huge controlling bureaucracy of drones to reach into virtually every aspect of your life, and then you have to choose which smiling menace you prefer in charge of the bureaucracy.

Some small sense of satisfaction emerges from the realization that I possess the talent to pull it off. I was praised both by those who favored the Butter-Side-Up candidate and the Butter-Side-Down candidate. But there's also the gnawing knowledge that that means I can be a good little propagandist if I choose. In the end, I missed speaking for myself. My proudest possessions are the pieces of wood on my wall declaring me the best newspaper columnist in this state.

Worst, I wrote the endorsements convincingly enough that no doubt a few minds were turned, and folks will trudge to the polling places Tuesday in the illusion that they will make a difference, and I never had the opportunity to stand up at the podium and tell thousands of readers I believe they are participating in a sham. That's why I needed to wash after participating in the exercise.

At least I can tell the handful of good folks who check out this blog what I was really thinking as I wrote my advice for Wormwood. What the hell anyway, right? I mean, who is John Galt?

Labels:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Slouching towards Oceania

You have to admit, it's fairly amazing how much has changed these past eight years. James Leroy Wilson puts it in perspective in a piece called "The Fake Culture War" ...
But imagine that the year is 2000. Think of what you believed and felt back then. Someone comes up to you and asks what you think of this party platform:
1. Forbid non-partisan groups from running ads criticizing candidates during election season.
2. Allow the government to bug your telephone, read your email, and track your Internet surfing without a search warrant.
3. Repeal the Posse Camitatus Act, so as to employ the Army in domestic police activities.
4. Impose a National ID card, which individuals must use to fly and, potentially, to even check out a library book.
5. Employ torture as a routine interrogation measure.
6. Revoke habeas corpus for anyone merely suspected of being a terrorist ...
All this, eight more planks in the party platform and much more here.

Labels:

Thursday, October 16, 2008

What good is freedom of the press
when the presses go silent?

Good comments, and to the point, to my observation the other day that I can't find nationalization of banks in the U.S. Constitution. JN helped me out when he said, "You're reading the wrong document. You'll find what you are looking for in the 5th Plank of the Communist Manifesto, comrade."

Whoop! There it is:
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
So, although the government buying ownership stakes in banks is not found in that "goddamned piece of paper," the idea is not unique in history. That helped explain my uneasiness with the concept.

While I was reading, my eye was caught by the 6th Plank, which got me to thinkin' — always a dangerous thing:
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Here is the think: The print media is in a hellacious condition right now. You can buy stock in newspapers for a song compared to a couple-three years ago, but not many people are buying anyway. Papers are cutting support staff, cutting circulation staff, and cutting reporters and editors to keep the profit margins respectable. Some papers are doing things like canceling the Monday edition, or cutting back to once or twice and week and putting all their content online instead. They're still profitable businesses — for now — but the actual product is a shadow of what it once was, and there's no end in sight.

The migration of newspapers to the Web is seen as inevitable, and supposedly that's because fewer and fewer people want to read words on paper anymore. First, that's not my experience. Everywhere I turn, I find people who are unhappy with how their favorite newspapers have devolved and wish they would come back.

My think is about what happens if this trend continues to its logical conclusion. Here's the think: Long ago the federal government declared that a radio transmitter is not a printing press, and so freedom of the press was not extended to the electronic media. The Federal Communications Commission (see Plank 6) was created to regulate speech on the airwaves. Generations have now grown up to believe that you can print the word "f#@!" on paper but the government has the right to fine you if you broadcast it on the radio or television.

More serious, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine declared that you can slant your newspaper left, right, up, down or outer space and that's your right, but you can't slant the political debate on your radio or TV. Talk radio, once a vast vanilla wasteland where no one dared to take a stand lest they be forced to give equal time to the other side, has thrived since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. And as you know, the idea of the Fairness Doctrine still has more than a little support.

The Internet is also an electronic medium. The feds have set a precedent that electronic media are different from presses and can be regulated. Another disadvantage of electronic media is that you can pull the plug.

If we abandon our presses, in other words, we probably abandon our freedom of the press. Our rulers have declared that freedom of the press applies only to presses, not to the dissemination of information in general. And for most of the history of electronic media, few have challenged that declaration.

I plan to spend the rest of my time in this earthly plain on two missions with regard to this subject. One, to preserve news and political speech in print, so that as our rulers increase their stranglehold on electronic expression, we still have an alternative. Two, to get people to start thinking of radio and TV transmitters, and the World Wide Web, as the modern equivalent of the printing press. If the First Amendment has any meaning at all, there's no reason why the electronic press can be regulated any more than the printing press.

If we fail in mission #1 before a tipping point of people grok #2, and if news in print disappears, then the government has set the precedent that it controls the content of the remaining means of communication. It can't easily reverse centuries of tradition that we can print without government interference or regulation. But the momentum is on the side of the belief that government interference and regulation in the realm of electronic expression is appropriate, and so the decline of newspapers and print news in general is a good thing for Big Government.

I don't know that our rulers are consciously communist. Calling someone a commie is so fifties. But those 10 planks work just as well if the goal is a totalitarian government that gives nothing more than lip service to liberty. And we're well on our way to that place.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, October 04, 2008

Free market vs. The Empire

It's kind of interesting to have been reading about this for years, in places like Empire of Debt and its authors' Daily Reckoning site, but it's still a little startling to see it reported on the BBC:

"The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over... The American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated."

"In a change as far-reaching in its implications as the fall of the Soviet Union, an entire model of government and the economy has collapsed ...
It's a silly stretch for anyone to describe the American economy in recent years as "free market," but the gist of the observation is still compelling. Is this the end of the era of the American empire? Time will tell. The U.S. government's attempted solution is anything but free-market-friendly. Central planning and top-down micromanagement continue to be the hallmarks of the Washington, D.C., mentality. If anything, the new law is an attempt to consolidate imperial power even further.

The current situation doesn't feel like a defeat for free markets. It reminds me more of the climax of Atlas Shrugged. Did Congress just pass the Steel Unification Plan? How do I find that gulch?

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, September 06, 2008

'Last thing we need now is a great leader'

Thank you Michael for pointing the way to a positively brilliant Penn Jillette column about the value of a stupid president.

We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grownup and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.
The thing about being treated as not-a-grownup is that a parent — which is exactly what the "president who promises to take care of me" pretends to be — sets the rules of the household for the child's own good. This explains many of the laws that treat the citizenry as children.

Jillette positively nails what the US of A needs and what it doesn't need. Check it out.

Labels:

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Cheney II

Sen. Joe Biden's reaction to the USAPATRIOT Act was that President Bush and Congress stole his idea.

Biden was pushing intrusive bills with comfortable-sounding names like the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act as early as 1993, and his recollection of the 2001 introduction of USAPATRIOT was that "the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill."

CNET does a nice job of chronicling Joe Biden's lifelong quest to crush privacy and other civil liberties in this article. Thanks, Kirsten, for the link.

I guess it's fashionable for 21st century politicians to represent themselves as agents of change and then select as their vice president an elderly career politician who routinely defiles freedom in the name of security. We all know what Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said about freedom and security.

Again, in the immortal words of Peter Townshend, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Labels: , , ,