Becauseitstrue Blog

The real problem with the healthcare debate

The debate over our health insurance/care system has missed one crucial element.  There is no reason health insurance should be treated any differently than any other type of insurance that people purchase. Insurance is, at base, a bet on the future. Depending on your personal risk-tolerance, you purchase a certain level of insurance--or not.  Risk pools are determined by the populations of insured and prices set accordingly.   It is only when artificial barriers are raised (primarily through Government intrusion) that the balance of risk and payment are disrupted.

An example would be the flood insurance market. It is only because the goverment is involved that people continue to rebuild in hurricane and known-flood zones when they know there's a good chance of total-loss catastrophe. When the "governement" has your back, your risk tolerance is skewed.  You engage in riskier behavior.  Kinda like when Mommy is always there to pick you up when you trip.  More homes are built in danger zones, requiring higher costs each time for rebuilding, leading to higher premiums.  Private insurance companies cannot compete when the odds are so high for heavy duty claims. The government, however, with its apparently endless source of funds, just keeps taking it on the chin and paying out on these lost causes. Individuals accept the largess as if it were a Constitutional right. Unfortunately, it's a lie that there is an endless source of funds, so this paradigm is doomed to fail.

If there were no government flood insurance for these super-high-risk zones, then people would build there clearly understanding that they are responsible for any loss that occurs and any rebuilding they choose to do. If a private insurance company is willing to cover them at a premium the homeowner can accept, then fine. Otherwise, they are on their own.  They have knowingly put themselves at risk and must suffer the consequences. That's freedom.

Although certain people do engage in high-risk personal behavior, health insurance as a concept is slightly different in that illnesses can strike, and accidents can happen anywhere and any time.  Cancer can come suddenly, for no apparent reason, no matter how much you take care of your body.  If a person has inadequate or no insurance, nor has personal funds to cover the necessary care, compassion would say that this would be a place where government should get involved. Up to that point, however, individuals should remain in charge of their own health care decisions and payments.  That is the only way to normalize the market--bring prices to realistic levels that healthcare providers and users can afford.

The first thing that needs to happen is that employers should be taken out of the equation.  Every other type of insurance can be purchased easily by individuals. Why not health insurance? Except for the historical precedent of FDR, there's no reason that employers should be involved at all. There should be no mandates that employers provide any levels of insurace. They can offer to raise employee pay by the amount of the premium to allow employees to buy insurance. These funds could be either taxable or pre-tax. Employees would then be able to seek out coverage that fits them, not some one-size for all plan that the company selects for them.

Further, all US citizens should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines and government should not be allowed to mandate what types of coverage insurance companies offer. If an insurance plan does not cover X procedure, and a person thinks X procedure is a must, then that person should seek another plan that includes it. In no case  should the government force the insurance company to include X on their plan. Doing so can only result in higher costs.

When it comes to health insurance, many people seem to have very high risk-tolerance. Young people come to mind.  They often do not see the need to purchase health insurance. After all, it can take a big bite out of a young person's budget.  I once was of this frame of mind, but my parents set me straight and I always thereafter carried a high-deductible, catastrophic type of policy at minimum. Sadly, youngsters of today don't always have such wise parents. So when they suddenly need care, and don't have coverage, the society at large ends up paying for it. Though I am loathe to admit it, it is probable that some form of requirement for minimum coverage is needed. The DMV requires it for cars and drivers, after all, and we acquiesce. The key here is the word minimum. The 21-year-old man doesn't need a policy that includes yearly mammograms, okay?

Any how, that's my thoughts on this so far. Besides, gotta get back to work!

Torture, American Style!

Torture, American Style!

(Theme music - half sleazy Loveboat, half scary thriller)

Voiceover (while showing various scenes of Gitmo prison - exernal and internal):

As you can see, conditions at Gitmo look strangely calm. But underneath that sunny courtyard exterior lies a dark, festering enclave of evil and torture. Our own government by its inaction has tacitly approved what you will see here today. Our cameras have captured the truth. And it must be stopped--the horrid food, the dogs, the degrading abuse. What is to stop our enemies from pointing to these horrors and using them as the excuse to torture our citizens or soldiers? 
 
Scene 1: Sitting room, bare except for chair, comfy couch and coffee table. Detainee is sitting in center of couch. The interrogator is in a straightbacked wooden chair, facing the detainee. Between them is a table containing a teapot and two cups. The light is bright, but normal for a living room.

Detainee (haughty):  This tea is cold.
Interrogator: Our microwave is temporarily broken. Sorry. (Looks up as a soldier enters with a covered plate of food, sets it down on the table, lifts the cover. Camera goes to the face of Detainee). Ah, Thank you, Sergeant.

Detainee (recoils): The President promised me tea with Scones. I was promised Scones!! This is peas. I do not eat peas. And UGH they are touching the mashed potatoes. Oh, God. Some are mixed in!

Interrogator: I like peas.

Detainee (Breathing heavily and perspiring): I --I --cannot take any more. I will tell you everything.

Voiceover: Meanwhile, down the hall...

Scene 2:  Small cell, no furniture. Three detainees on all fours in the corner in their underwear. They make a pyramid. A woman walks in.

(Begin stripping music)

Woman begins taking off her clothing. There are lots of layers and not much skin showing. Finally, one of her arms is bare.

Detainee 1:  Reggie. Do not look. Oh, my god. Sinner! You will be stoned!
Detainee 2:  I cannot help myself. (Begins praying fast to himself and shutting his eyes and peeking out of them rapidly at the woman).

The woman bares her shin.

The pyramid collapses.

Woman: Okay. Bring in the dog.

Detainee 3: No! No! Not the dog.

A tiny dog (maybe 8 pounds), very fluffy, trots into the room. It sits about 3 feet from the horrified pile of detainees, gets a treat from the woman, looks at the men and bears its teeth.

Detainees (all three):  We will tell you everything! Help, help!

Voiceover (once again video shows sunny Gitmo and palm trees, the voice is shakey): As you can see, the horror is endless for these hapless, probably innocent, victims.  We must put a stop to it. Close this place down. Please contact your Senator or Congressman today!

Would they be so blantant? Apparently.

Power line Blog today reports on a memo, supposedly sent out from one of the Major news networks detailed how they plan to be "fair and balanced" in their reporting of the GOP Convention coming up.  The full text is below:

Scott and John do most of the original reporting on Power Line, but once in while I get my hands on something big. Rarely have I come up with anything bigger than this confidential memorandum from the chief of an unnamed news network regarding how his organization will cover the Republican National Convention. Here's the memo in its entirety:

From: XXXXXXX XXXXX, III

To: YYY's Republican Convention Coverage Team

Re: Fair and balanced coverage

We all know that network news coverage of national conventions has come in for severe criticism in recent years. While no one expects gavel-to-gavel coverage anymore, we've been accused of superficial and insufficient coverage, and of refusing to allow the parties to tell their story in their words before we pounce.

This year's Republican convention provides us with a golden opportunity to restore our convention coverage to its former glory. If we handle things properly, and follow the guidance set forth below for each day of the convention, we can give the Republicans all the air time they want while still providing our viewers with the real story of the convention.

Monday

Bush will be speaking on Monday and it is imperative that he dominate our coverage. After all, we do not wish to be accused of paying insufficient attention to the sitting president. What I'm saying is that Monday should be all Bush, all the time.

Several themes need to be teased out. One is that this is still Bush's party. Thus, we need to capture the raw enthusiasm that some delegates no doubt will exhibit for Bush. Look for such delegates. Top priority should go to "large" delegates and delegates who are wearing McCain buttons and/or hats. Viewers should confront the very real prospect that McCain will give them a third Bush term.

Bush's speech will no doubt be a defense of his administration. Though few viewers will be duped, this is our opportunity to do some real reporting. I've thus authorized two exclusive video presentations that will air prior to Bush's speech; (1) the history of the Iraq War: 2004-2006 and (2) the Bush economy: 2001 and 2008.

Tuesday

With Bush out of the way, Republicans will turn to what they do best -- bashing the opposition. The heavy guns will be trained on Obama and it will become imperative that we capture the raw hatred, and dare I say envy, that the delegates will manifest. Close-up shots and interviews with the meanest looking (and "largest") delegates are strongly encourage. If a delegate seems too restrained, pose well-phrased questions such as: "Are you bothered by the fact that Obama doesn't look like the presidents on our paper money?" and "Do you think an Obama presidency will restore our image overseas?"

It is not our place, of course, to attribute the rabid hatred these delegates feel towards Obama to race. But viewers may be able to connect the dots if we intersperse our coverage with film clips of Bull Conner, old-time Alabama state troopers (preferably "large"), and the hosing and beating of black protesters in the early 1960s.

Wednesday

On Wednesday, the focus will finally be on McCain. May I suggest that emerging theme here shouldl be the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the overwhelmingly right-wing delegates for this once-moderate, formerly independent-thinking candidate? Look for evangelical delegates (especially "large" ones) and for delegates wearing buttons or hats with other candidates' names like Huckabee, Romney and above all, Ron Paul. If a moderate like Tom Ridge speaks, this will be our opportunity to return to the gavel-to-gavel, speaker-oriented model, with frequent shots of bored or pissed-off delegates.

I've also contacted ZZZ ZZZZZZZZ, who covered every convention for us from 1952 through 2000. Though a rather long-in-the-tooth, he's still a trooper and can be counted on to report that he's never seen a convention less enthusiastic about its nominee.

Thursday

This is when McCain gives his "acceptance" speech. This is the kind of boring, set-piece that gives convention coverage a bad name. Still, we're obliged to cover it. We owe our viewers "context," however. To provide it, we will replay Obama's acceptance speech twice, once before McCain's and once after. This will enable viewers to decide for themselves which candidate is fresher and more eloquent.

We may also have to cut away from McCain's speech once or twice. Real Salt Lake is playing Chivas USA that night in a huge Major League Soccer match.

Conclusion

The past two Republican conventions have produced a not inconsiderable bounce for the GOP. This has given rise to plausible charges that our coverage has been slanted in favor of the Republicans. By following the principles set forth above, we can do our best to make sure that there is no bounce, and hence no bias, in our coverage.

-----------end snippet---------

Can this memo be for real? Or is it scrappleface?

---By following the principles set forth above, we can do our best to make sure that there is no bounce, and hence no bias, in our coverage

--In addition to interrupting McCain's speech several times for a soccer game: "To provide it, we will replay Obama's acceptance speech twice, once before McCain's and once after. This will enable viewers to decide for themselves which candidate is fresher and more eloquent. "

--May I suggest that emerging theme here shouldl be the lack of enthusiasm ...this will be our opportunity to return to the gavel-to-gavel, speaker-oriented model, with frequent shots of bored or pissed-off delegates

--It is not our place, of course, to attribute the rabid hatred these delegates feel towards Obama to race. But viewers may be able to connect the dots if we intersperse our coverage with film clips of Bull Conner, old-time Alabama state troopers (preferably "large"), and the hosing and beating of black protesters in the early 1960s

--What I'm saying is that Monday should be all Bush, all the time. ...Viewers should confront the very real prospect that McCain will give them a third Bush term.

--

Bush's speech will no doubt be a defense of his administration. Though few viewers will be duped, this is our opportunity to do some real reporting. I've thus authorized two exclusive video presentations that will air prior to Bush's speech; (1) the history of the Iraq War: 2004-2006 and (2) the Bush economy: 2001 and 2008.

For real?????

I'm sorry to say I would believe it. 

Response to Baltimore Court Article

Weird is right.  This is the direct result of poor current teaching of American History.  These people have no idea of what went on in the early history of the United States, the importance of our constitution and our government -- none of it!  I will dare to even go further to state that the "liberals" and dangerous left have brought us to this point through their twisted interpretations of US history.  The history books published these days ( mostly written by the hard left), and used as textbooks in our grade schools and high schools resemble nothing that used to be taught.  And, you wonder why people are confused?  There used to be a common thread of civic honor and progress in all of our textbooks.  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were great men for what they accomplished.  Our constitution and bill of rights were something to behold and have pride in.  You can't teach these foreign gangs and their cultures how to live in our culture without proper indoctrination.  This is a great fallacy in the claimed "good" influence of illegal immigrants.  Legal immigrants have to study the constitution and swear allegiance to the US flag.  Illegals do not.  Hence, they never experience the proper US culture and tend to keep all that is bad with their culture... including the influences of the gangs.  Individual independence and freedom is the cure for gangs, but it is a hard lesson to learn, apparently.  It doesn't come naturally... social thuggery does.  It is a terrible problem, and apparently getting worse.

--JJ2

American History X

Worth reading. Very odd

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0805.carey.html

Also, if you get FX channel, you might want to watch the movie "American History X".

I saw it last night and it is very good. Slanted to the left, of course, but what does one expect these days!?

What I got out of it is that it is obvious why the white supremicists have such traction. Many of the grievances are real. The movie explored those.  At one point the local grocery, which used to employ local  citizens, was bought by a foreigner (Asian, I think) who fired everyone and then hired a phalanx of illegal aliens for cheap.  It might be cliche, but you know it happens and how people could get angry over it.

Meanwhile, the same is also true for the blacks--the opposite side in this movie.  The movie didn't hide how vile the gang mentality is, but at the same time showed that injustices had been done to them as well leading to their own furious responses.

It also showed how these ideologies are passed down through families and groups.

The tragedy is that I don't think the cycle can be stopped. Anyway, it was a pretty powerful movie, painful to watch at times.

Ed Norton, Elliot Gould, Stacy Keach, very well done. 

Strange that I should come upon this article today after seeing that.

--BYL

School choice

Okay, so I'm reading this article about Hispanics favoring candidates who favor School choice/vouchers and it occured to me that people who don't have children will never have that "choice".

What if I (who pay school taxes on three properties) believe that the teachers unions MUST GO DOWN and don't want to support them with my tax money? I always went to public schools, and they were fine, but now I think they have gone off the deep end and I don't want to pay for that travesty.

Could I ever have a choice to support charter schools with my School Taxes, for instance? Maybe use that money for a specific child to go to a non-UNION school?  What about that? Where's the fairness?

--BYL

PaAtriotism Defined

There's an interesting discussion on patriotism here:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/07/straw-alert-or.html

It's referencing an article by Jonah Goldberg.   Basically it comes down to this:

Conservatives have an "abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the American nation. We might need to change this or that policy or law, fix this or that problem, but at the end of the day the patriotic American believes that America is fundamentally good as it is."

Liberals: 1) In order to be proud of our country, first we need to change so many things!

              2) "My government" = "My Country" as in "My government is very flawed and must be fixed".

              3) Dissent, in the form of constant denigration of My Government (Country) is the highest form of Patriotism.

------------------------

One respondent entry that made me laugh was the so-true last line of this:

It has always struck me that the attitude of many liberals towards this Country--its government institutions, in particular--is that of a spoiled teen-ager towards his or her parents. The parents are supposed to take care of your needs, finance your pleasures, make sure that none of your siblings gets too far ahead of you, make your bed (this could go on). They love their parents, but the parents are pretty out of it and have some hokey old-fashioned ideas. They are scandalized by what the parents have done in the past, and the parents are constantly letting them down. The parents of their friend down the street (or across the Atlantic) are so much cooler, smarter and classier.

The liberals should not be confused with the leftists, who have thought things through and want to kill the parents and take over."

Propaganda war -- NOT!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121253706422142819.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

From the above article:

"With the luxury of hindsight, the critics of the war now depict the arguments made for it as a case of manipulation and deceit. This is odd and misplaced: The claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were to prove incorrect, but they were made in good faith.

It is also obtuse and willful to depict in dark colors the effort made to "sell" the war. Wars can't be waged in stealth, and making the moral case for them is an obligation incumbent on the leaders who launch them. If anything, there were stretches of time, and critical turning points, when the administration abdicated the fight for public opinion.

Nor is there anything unprecedented, or particularly dishonest, about the way the rationale for the war shifted when the hunt for weapons of mass destruction had run aground. True, the goal of a democratic Iraq – and the broader agenda of the war as a spearhead of "reform" in Arab and Muslim lands – emerged a year or so after the onset of the war. But the aims of practically every war always shift with the course of combat, and with historical circumstances. Need we recall that the abolition of slavery had not been an "original" war aim, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was, by Lincoln's own admission, a product of circumstances? A war for the Union had become a victory for abolitionism."

and

"It is not easy to tell people of threats and dangers they have been spared. The war put on notice regimes and conspirators who had harbored dark thoughts about America and who, in the course of the 1990s, were led to believe that terrible deeds against America would go unpunished. A different lesson was taught in Iraq. Nowadays, the burden of the war, in blood and treasure, is easy to see, while the gains, subtle and real, are harder to demonstrate."

TRUTH!!!

Why isn't Leiberman running!!?

Wall Stree Journal, my oasis, has an article today that everyone should read: "Democrats and our Enemies".  By Joe Lieberman. (5/21/08)

Some key excerpts:

"This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

This was the Democratic Party of Harry Truman, who pledged that "it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."

And this was the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy, who promised in his inaugural address that the United States would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of freedom."

This worldview began to come apart in the late 1960s, around the war in Vietnam. In its place, a very different view of the world took root in the Democratic Party. Rather than seeing the Cold War as an ideological contest between the free nations of the West and the repressive regimes of the communist world, this rival political philosophy saw America as the aggressor – a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace."

and then there is this:

"When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years."

--------------

What drives this self hatred of the left? Why are their primary enemies the United States and George Bush? Is it fear of facing our real enemies? Don't call Iran a sponsor of terror--they might get mad!

When has sticking up for truth and freedom become something to be ashamed of?

Lieberman is very socialist in many of his views, but on this one, he is right.  Thank you, Senator!

We can only hope!

Oil and the economy
High oil prices may yet damage the global economy

The above is from the Economist, 16th May 2008.  Don't you just love the anticipation! 

We may yet have a recession...YAY!!   Such cheerleaders!

DEport them!

Jason Riley and I don't often agree on immigration, but in todays WSJ he has a point.  This is the last line. You need to read the whole thing:

"Keep the immigrants. Deport the Columbia faculty."

Yes!

Article: 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121080967841993539.html?mod=djemEditorialPage