Not much it would seem, if you relied on the mainstream media. When this type of stuff happened under GW Bush it was headline news and evidence of how catastrophic his Iraq policy was. The death toll was conveniently provided on a daily basis back then.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_blast
But now, with Obama, the ramp up in casualties since Obama has shifted focus to that region doesn't seem to spark the outrage it once did. To be kind, it is at least reported. There's just no outrage. It's Obama's now. We all know he can't be criticized.
I've said this repeatedly and I'll say it again. That is a part of the world we are best served to leave alone. There are real terrorists there. They do want to kill Americans. But there we are best served by a defensive strategy. Going there on the offense is a no-win situation. Defensive strategies that contain the potential damage are sometimes appropriate. There are simply too many potential suicide bombers who have nothing to lose and do not place much value on human life in that region for us to win by going head-to-head. Yes, Iraq is different than that place. There are a number of criminals in Iraq to be sure. However, Iraq had and still has a good chance of entering into the modern world. Relatively speaking, I do not believe that to be true of Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. We need to get out of there as soon as possible.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ted Kennedy and Liberalism
Senator Ted Kennedy died last night. In the article it was stated that during the course of his 4 decade career in the Senate he "helped enact measures to protect civil and labor rights, expand healthcare, upgrade schools, increase student aid and contain the spread of nuclear weapons. "There's a lot to do," Kennedy told Reuters in 2006. "I think most of all it's the injustice that I continue to see and the opportunity to have some impact on it." Later, the article quotes him "I've benefited from the best of medicine, but I've also witnessed the frustration and outrage of patients and doctors alike as they face the challenges of a system that shortchanges millions of Americans."
As I read the article I thought about how wonderful sounding and pretty noble are these ambitions. On the face of it, who doesn't care about upgrading schools? My kids go to school. I want that. The spread of nukes? It's no good. Stop it. Healthcare for all? It would be great if all Americans could get the same care as Ted Kennedy. Who could be against that?
And yet, after over 4 decades, what thwarts these grand goals? Perhaps reality? Maybe? The problem for liberals, and why I can't be a liberal, is because society is far too complex for simple prescriptions to the challenges Ted Kennedy fought to remedy. And government solutions are not the best mechanism for addressing such inequalities. They actually can serve to hinder remedies. If the answer to every social problem were to have the government spend money or set up a program or provide a direct remedy for it, our myriad of problems would have been solved already.
Unfortunately, anyone who lives life recognizes over time that there are limits to what you can do in terms of time, money, energy, and people. As you mature you realize there are things you can and cannot do. Neither you can nor "we" can achieve all we set out to do. Americans of a college age are fed the idea that they can and should do something to change the world in one way or another. Often, as President Obama said at a college commencement speech, it is recommended they find meaning in their lives by doing government service rather than the menial, apparently empty pursuit of a business career.
I would suggest that the best place to start seriously addressing these problems is to start from the bottom up. You can start by being a faithful friend, spouse, employee, father, student, neighbor. Start local. If our energies were more directed to helping people develop strong character we might find that over time we actually have less social problems to address. Unfortunately the same liberal people who care about people in general don't stress individual character. They focus on the need for community and tolerance and the need to live well together. But how can that be successful if uniquely individual traits such as integrity, honesty, knowing right from wrong, and generally being responsible for your own actions is not stressed? You can't have a strong communal character if a collection of strong individuals with character don't exist within it. To develop character traits you do have to make judgments about what constitutes right and wrong behavior. Liberals are harsh judgers in the few areas they allow for it. But they don't focus on essentials. Government and a stress on community morality plays a role. But it is not nearly a complete answer.
This is not an excuse to be passive and sit back and watch injustice. Conservatives should be and actually are in my experience very passionate in supporting the local activities that make up a better community. That's good. That's more lasting. That's a reason I am a conservative who never got swept up by the grand sounding rhetoric that we should use government to solve every problem as Ted Kennedy espoused.
Hopefully Ted Kennedy will rest in peace. Hopefully we who follow him will be a bit more realistic, mature, modest, and local in how we approach solving problems. While it is foolish to think we can have heaven on earth, we may find we achieve greater success than he did if we go that route.
As I read the article I thought about how wonderful sounding and pretty noble are these ambitions. On the face of it, who doesn't care about upgrading schools? My kids go to school. I want that. The spread of nukes? It's no good. Stop it. Healthcare for all? It would be great if all Americans could get the same care as Ted Kennedy. Who could be against that?
And yet, after over 4 decades, what thwarts these grand goals? Perhaps reality? Maybe? The problem for liberals, and why I can't be a liberal, is because society is far too complex for simple prescriptions to the challenges Ted Kennedy fought to remedy. And government solutions are not the best mechanism for addressing such inequalities. They actually can serve to hinder remedies. If the answer to every social problem were to have the government spend money or set up a program or provide a direct remedy for it, our myriad of problems would have been solved already.
Unfortunately, anyone who lives life recognizes over time that there are limits to what you can do in terms of time, money, energy, and people. As you mature you realize there are things you can and cannot do. Neither you can nor "we" can achieve all we set out to do. Americans of a college age are fed the idea that they can and should do something to change the world in one way or another. Often, as President Obama said at a college commencement speech, it is recommended they find meaning in their lives by doing government service rather than the menial, apparently empty pursuit of a business career.
I would suggest that the best place to start seriously addressing these problems is to start from the bottom up. You can start by being a faithful friend, spouse, employee, father, student, neighbor. Start local. If our energies were more directed to helping people develop strong character we might find that over time we actually have less social problems to address. Unfortunately the same liberal people who care about people in general don't stress individual character. They focus on the need for community and tolerance and the need to live well together. But how can that be successful if uniquely individual traits such as integrity, honesty, knowing right from wrong, and generally being responsible for your own actions is not stressed? You can't have a strong communal character if a collection of strong individuals with character don't exist within it. To develop character traits you do have to make judgments about what constitutes right and wrong behavior. Liberals are harsh judgers in the few areas they allow for it. But they don't focus on essentials. Government and a stress on community morality plays a role. But it is not nearly a complete answer.
This is not an excuse to be passive and sit back and watch injustice. Conservatives should be and actually are in my experience very passionate in supporting the local activities that make up a better community. That's good. That's more lasting. That's a reason I am a conservative who never got swept up by the grand sounding rhetoric that we should use government to solve every problem as Ted Kennedy espoused.
Hopefully Ted Kennedy will rest in peace. Hopefully we who follow him will be a bit more realistic, mature, modest, and local in how we approach solving problems. While it is foolish to think we can have heaven on earth, we may find we achieve greater success than he did if we go that route.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Outrageous Myths About Healthcare
President Obama has slammed his internet, cable TV, and other un-American critics, like those who have gone to recent townhalls, for putting forth "outrageous myths" about his healthcare reform plans. Here are just a few myths to consider:
1. Death Panels. I blogged about this in a previous entry on August 16. To sum it up, yes there are no direct calls for a panel to decide who lives and who doesn't. If my brain shut off at that point and I were inclined to go watch daytime's Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil now I might be content to say "of course there'll be no death panels." However, by "cutting costs" at the same time you're adding to healthcare rolls and eventually rationing healthcare due to budget constraints, as happens in countries where socialized medicine has occured, you will eventually need to convene folks to decide how to best allocate scarce resources. In this case, the scarce resource is time, money, and doctor availability, and the person to whom this resource may not be allocated to is granny. A public option is a highway to socialized medicine. If you read this blog and you still don't understand this by now, go back to bed. I can't help you at this point.
2. End-of-Life Decisions. This is very similar to number one. No. There is nothing explicit on page x, y, or z on any of the healthcare bills that I haven't read that directly says anything along the lines of "granny: you've lived a long life. Don't you think it's time to go now? Living another 6 months will cost us too much. Do it for the team. Pull the plug." However, it is not unreasonable to infer that if this is passed, these decisions will take on more importance. We have an ageing population and scarce reasons. An insightful person could surely piece together how end-of-life decisions will be crucial in the not so distant future in light of massive budget constraints, government debt, scarce medical resources, and a growing number of people on government run healthcare rolls. So it's not in the bill necessarily but should we not really be forward thinking people? Bury our heads in the sand, perhaps?
3. Wait times for surgery will increase. It is getting ridiculous that anybody would consider this argument a myth. Again, budget constraint. Time. Cost. Scarce resources. Are more doctors going to appear? Can nurse practitioners do surgery? Money. Money. Did I say MONEY! Counter intuitively, this actually could be a myth if more doctors pursue specializations in relatively higher paying surgeries rather than lower margin family practices. So, if more doctors go in surgery specializations where the money is, it's possible this could be a myth. Although, the lawyers will need their piece and this could actually discourage it. Overall, this is not a myth because of the experience of other countries with socialized medicine. Prez: Logic is not on your side on this one.
4. Illegal immigrants would get coverage. Well, here the President is clever because they caveat this by saying they wouldn't "automatically" get coverage. But of course they will get coverage because, as the president said a few days ago, we're a compassionate society. I don't necessarily disagree with extending all human beings coverage in dire circumstances. It's just that a myth is not a myth when it's true and you said it yourself Mr. Prez.
5. This would pay for abortion. Again, would it "have to" pay for abortions or would it simply pay for abortions? Just like I don't "have to" have an abortion but if somebody does decide to do so, my understanding is that this will pay for that abortion. It is morally reprehensible to take money from citizens, a majority of whom no longer agree with it, to finance those who do make this ugly choice. The question is if it funds any abortion. If so, than it does pay for abortion and is justly repugnant and not a myth. I don't honestly know if this is in the bill. If not, great. I'm happy to be wrong here if this is indeed a myth.
6. Private insurance will be eliminated. It won't be eliminated but it will sure become an unattractive option for all those now receiving "free" healthcare or to those employees who pay more than 8% of their payroll on providing healthcare. Technically, it won't immediately eliminate private insurance across the board. Down the road it may. In the short term, it will eliminate private insurance options for many individually because their employer will drop it and/or they can't afford it on their own as compared to the "free" or cheap public option subsidized by a government that doesn't have to earn a profit because they can always print new money. Private insurance can't do that. It depends on who's perspective you are talking about. But from the perspective of many, this bill will essentially eliminate private insurance as a viable option in the near term.
All in all, it's a sad state of affairs when even somebody as dim as me can blow a whole through President Obama's rhetoric. I welcome his attempt to explain this and make clear what he intends. Go sell it. The problem is not the salesmanship so much as the product. You may be able to sell ice to eskimos but don't try to sell me poop in a bag and tell me it's lunch!
1. Death Panels. I blogged about this in a previous entry on August 16. To sum it up, yes there are no direct calls for a panel to decide who lives and who doesn't. If my brain shut off at that point and I were inclined to go watch daytime's Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil now I might be content to say "of course there'll be no death panels." However, by "cutting costs" at the same time you're adding to healthcare rolls and eventually rationing healthcare due to budget constraints, as happens in countries where socialized medicine has occured, you will eventually need to convene folks to decide how to best allocate scarce resources. In this case, the scarce resource is time, money, and doctor availability, and the person to whom this resource may not be allocated to is granny. A public option is a highway to socialized medicine. If you read this blog and you still don't understand this by now, go back to bed. I can't help you at this point.
2. End-of-Life Decisions. This is very similar to number one. No. There is nothing explicit on page x, y, or z on any of the healthcare bills that I haven't read that directly says anything along the lines of "granny: you've lived a long life. Don't you think it's time to go now? Living another 6 months will cost us too much. Do it for the team. Pull the plug." However, it is not unreasonable to infer that if this is passed, these decisions will take on more importance. We have an ageing population and scarce reasons. An insightful person could surely piece together how end-of-life decisions will be crucial in the not so distant future in light of massive budget constraints, government debt, scarce medical resources, and a growing number of people on government run healthcare rolls. So it's not in the bill necessarily but should we not really be forward thinking people? Bury our heads in the sand, perhaps?
3. Wait times for surgery will increase. It is getting ridiculous that anybody would consider this argument a myth. Again, budget constraint. Time. Cost. Scarce resources. Are more doctors going to appear? Can nurse practitioners do surgery? Money. Money. Did I say MONEY! Counter intuitively, this actually could be a myth if more doctors pursue specializations in relatively higher paying surgeries rather than lower margin family practices. So, if more doctors go in surgery specializations where the money is, it's possible this could be a myth. Although, the lawyers will need their piece and this could actually discourage it. Overall, this is not a myth because of the experience of other countries with socialized medicine. Prez: Logic is not on your side on this one.
4. Illegal immigrants would get coverage. Well, here the President is clever because they caveat this by saying they wouldn't "automatically" get coverage. But of course they will get coverage because, as the president said a few days ago, we're a compassionate society. I don't necessarily disagree with extending all human beings coverage in dire circumstances. It's just that a myth is not a myth when it's true and you said it yourself Mr. Prez.
5. This would pay for abortion. Again, would it "have to" pay for abortions or would it simply pay for abortions? Just like I don't "have to" have an abortion but if somebody does decide to do so, my understanding is that this will pay for that abortion. It is morally reprehensible to take money from citizens, a majority of whom no longer agree with it, to finance those who do make this ugly choice. The question is if it funds any abortion. If so, than it does pay for abortion and is justly repugnant and not a myth. I don't honestly know if this is in the bill. If not, great. I'm happy to be wrong here if this is indeed a myth.
6. Private insurance will be eliminated. It won't be eliminated but it will sure become an unattractive option for all those now receiving "free" healthcare or to those employees who pay more than 8% of their payroll on providing healthcare. Technically, it won't immediately eliminate private insurance across the board. Down the road it may. In the short term, it will eliminate private insurance options for many individually because their employer will drop it and/or they can't afford it on their own as compared to the "free" or cheap public option subsidized by a government that doesn't have to earn a profit because they can always print new money. Private insurance can't do that. It depends on who's perspective you are talking about. But from the perspective of many, this bill will essentially eliminate private insurance as a viable option in the near term.
All in all, it's a sad state of affairs when even somebody as dim as me can blow a whole through President Obama's rhetoric. I welcome his attempt to explain this and make clear what he intends. Go sell it. The problem is not the salesmanship so much as the product. You may be able to sell ice to eskimos but don't try to sell me poop in a bag and tell me it's lunch!
Monday, August 24, 2009
Clunkers Ends. Auto Sales Collapse to Follow.
I trust that by now everybody who needs a new car and happens to have a clunker to trade in has done so. The program ends tonight. Dealers are assured they will get their money even if the government bureaucrats haven't been as efficient as they no doubt will be with healthcare when it comes to paying them the $3,500 to $4,500 they're owed. It's been a solid couple of weeks of sales for auto dealers with all these new cars movin' on out the door. It will undoubetedly have an impact on GDP and jobs in the next series of reports that come out. Happy days are here again!
And now comes the fun part. As surely as the gimmick spurred new car sales it will crush them in the weeks and months ahead. It's a sad state of affairs. Auto dealers should probably not spend the wad just yet. The likely forecast is rain, rain, and more rain. The busy season was fun while it lasted wasn't it?
Oh and don't forget, soon we will enjoy "Cash for Refrigerators". http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090824/bs_bw/aug2009db20090821304909
This sequel is sure to be action packed. So, consumers don't put the credit cards back in the wallet quite yet. You too can be part of $300M taxpayer giveway. The budget wasn't as high as the $3B for the original. But it's sure to have laughs, love, action. Shop early and often. I hear they're already planning for a trilogy to be announced soon at a theatre near you.
And now comes the fun part. As surely as the gimmick spurred new car sales it will crush them in the weeks and months ahead. It's a sad state of affairs. Auto dealers should probably not spend the wad just yet. The likely forecast is rain, rain, and more rain. The busy season was fun while it lasted wasn't it?
Oh and don't forget, soon we will enjoy "Cash for Refrigerators". http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20090824/bs_bw/aug2009db20090821304909
This sequel is sure to be action packed. So, consumers don't put the credit cards back in the wallet quite yet. You too can be part of $300M taxpayer giveway. The budget wasn't as high as the $3B for the original. But it's sure to have laughs, love, action. Shop early and often. I hear they're already planning for a trilogy to be announced soon at a theatre near you.
Why We Didn't Crash
Today I left a comment to E.J. Dionne's Washington Post article "Why We Didn't Crash". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/23/AR2009082302034.html
It actually angers me that space in a national newspaper is taken up by people who have basically nothing substantive to add to the conversation. Dionne is a good example of a guy who has been around for a long time and is now just someone who is famous for simply being famous. You know him so you read him but the guy is not much more substantive than a fat uncle who cherishes the simplistic lessons he learned at Woodstock.
----
Mr. Dionne,
The premise of this article is so completely ridiculous, it's hard to imagine how you keep your job. You could certainly argue that Ben Bernanke, who you don't mention by the way, was ultra-aggressive in his handling of monetary policy by essentially printing money via open market operations and holding fed discount rates at 0%. It's hard for banks not to recover to some degree when they have such low borrowing costs and the ability to lend at higher rates.
On the other hand, what fiscal policy measures has Obama conducted that would lead you to believe he spearheaded a "recovery"? The "Stimulus" money hasn't flowed through anything yet. His regulatory actions have, if anything, further confused the markets, and his proposals wreak havoc on business people who need to mkae long term plans. Oh, plus the massive debt that his policies, his, have created. Putting money on a credit card to usher in growth, is not serious policy to lead to sustainable growth.
You proceed to imply that we're out of the mess. You're right in a sense. We didn't crash in the short term due to Bernanke's manipulation of monetary policy. You confidently argue that "things could have been a whole lot worse" but you don't know that. They could have gotten better if prices had been allowed to adjust in various markets and the Obama administration allowed things to fail. There is obvious short term agony in this. But markets work like this and it's best for the general welfare in the longer term and the only way to a sustainable recovery. There are no short cuts. The quicker things fail, the quicker they can adjust provided there is transparency in how policymakers conduct themselves.
You also don't seem to appreciate that investors make long term business cases and this president's intervention is a net negative on that. I can vouch for this with my own company. We are planning cuts in the years ahead and not expecting growth. People form long term expectations. With Obama and bigger government, you don't take risks or plan optimistically if you are even somewhat reasonable.
It actually angers me that space in a national newspaper is taken up by people who have basically nothing substantive to add to the conversation. Dionne is a good example of a guy who has been around for a long time and is now just someone who is famous for simply being famous. You know him so you read him but the guy is not much more substantive than a fat uncle who cherishes the simplistic lessons he learned at Woodstock.
----
Mr. Dionne,
The premise of this article is so completely ridiculous, it's hard to imagine how you keep your job. You could certainly argue that Ben Bernanke, who you don't mention by the way, was ultra-aggressive in his handling of monetary policy by essentially printing money via open market operations and holding fed discount rates at 0%. It's hard for banks not to recover to some degree when they have such low borrowing costs and the ability to lend at higher rates.
On the other hand, what fiscal policy measures has Obama conducted that would lead you to believe he spearheaded a "recovery"? The "Stimulus" money hasn't flowed through anything yet. His regulatory actions have, if anything, further confused the markets, and his proposals wreak havoc on business people who need to mkae long term plans. Oh, plus the massive debt that his policies, his, have created. Putting money on a credit card to usher in growth, is not serious policy to lead to sustainable growth.
You proceed to imply that we're out of the mess. You're right in a sense. We didn't crash in the short term due to Bernanke's manipulation of monetary policy. You confidently argue that "things could have been a whole lot worse" but you don't know that. They could have gotten better if prices had been allowed to adjust in various markets and the Obama administration allowed things to fail. There is obvious short term agony in this. But markets work like this and it's best for the general welfare in the longer term and the only way to a sustainable recovery. There are no short cuts. The quicker things fail, the quicker they can adjust provided there is transparency in how policymakers conduct themselves.
You also don't seem to appreciate that investors make long term business cases and this president's intervention is a net negative on that. I can vouch for this with my own company. We are planning cuts in the years ahead and not expecting growth. People form long term expectations. With Obama and bigger government, you don't take risks or plan optimistically if you are even somewhat reasonable.
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Debt of $9 Trillion Over 10 Years
And that does not include the $1 Trillion plus in national healthcare. That's up from the Obama team's forecast. Over the last several decades we accumulated a deficit of over $11 Trillion, to put it into perspective.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821
I don't need to comment today. This speaks for itself.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57K4XE20090821
I don't need to comment today. This speaks for itself.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Healthcare: It's a Jesus Issue Now
Our president has declared that "we are God's partners in matters of life and death". As a Christian, I have always believed that God works His will through the people He has created. We are to live by faith knowing we don't understand everything. He certainly loves His creation and gives us gifts, knowledge, creativity, and all that makes up a human person. But partners? I don't know if I am a "partner".
This also assumes the "we" he is referring to is individuals. In that sense no, I am not a partner with God. If he is saying the "we" is liberal democrat politicians and the government in general is a "partner" we have real problems. The government is allowed by God and is ideally intended to serve the welfare of the people in practical ways. Taking it to mean that the government has the authority or in some sense is a unique partner with God or even close to that level is fraught with danger.
I know that I shouldn't give Obama too much credit for thinking this through. He sort of says stuff and you think you get the idea of what he's saying. I obviously don't think he wants to institute a theocracy administered by the Federales. If Obama was a song he'd be good melody, harmony not so great, and the substance of the words would be pointless and circular. He's a good 3-minute tune but you have to make sure you don't think too hard about what he's saying.
This also assumes the "we" he is referring to is individuals. In that sense no, I am not a partner with God. If he is saying the "we" is liberal democrat politicians and the government in general is a "partner" we have real problems. The government is allowed by God and is ideally intended to serve the welfare of the people in practical ways. Taking it to mean that the government has the authority or in some sense is a unique partner with God or even close to that level is fraught with danger.
I know that I shouldn't give Obama too much credit for thinking this through. He sort of says stuff and you think you get the idea of what he's saying. I obviously don't think he wants to institute a theocracy administered by the Federales. If Obama was a song he'd be good melody, harmony not so great, and the substance of the words would be pointless and circular. He's a good 3-minute tune but you have to make sure you don't think too hard about what he's saying.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Is China Really All That and a Bag O'Chips?
I have long suspected that American reliance on China to fuel its growth for exports and as the lender who finances our debt has always been suspect to me. China seemingly has pockets that don't end. How is everybody else struggling but they seem flush with cash? How do they do it?
I confess to not having an army of data to support these assertions. Maybe China has been incredibly responsible and foresighted and is well positioned for this time. Maybe, as I've read, China has an unsustainable, easy money policy that may be setting up their economy for a major crash. Plus, it is always easier to grow from low levels but there comes a point when growth rates are harder to come by as you get bigger and bigger. This may not be good long term news for America if our sugar daddy's funds start to go south. I know China has been buying up commodities in everything from diamonds to aluminum to whatever else in places around the world. What happens if these investments don't pan out exactly as envisioned?
I am a little skeptical about China. It's just my intuitive sense that all can't be that great. I think it's something to watch.
I confess to not having an army of data to support these assertions. Maybe China has been incredibly responsible and foresighted and is well positioned for this time. Maybe, as I've read, China has an unsustainable, easy money policy that may be setting up their economy for a major crash. Plus, it is always easier to grow from low levels but there comes a point when growth rates are harder to come by as you get bigger and bigger. This may not be good long term news for America if our sugar daddy's funds start to go south. I know China has been buying up commodities in everything from diamonds to aluminum to whatever else in places around the world. What happens if these investments don't pan out exactly as envisioned?
I am a little skeptical about China. It's just my intuitive sense that all can't be that great. I think it's something to watch.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Public Option. Ah, it Ain't That Important
Our president is apparently changing his tact on a public option run by the government. Where will we get hundreds of billions in new efficiencies to be squeezed out of America's 7,500 hospitals now? A cooperative. I am a little concerned because with only more than 1300 private health insurance companies in the private market, what will the lack of one more option do? The reluctance to tackle this monopoly is a bit confusing. I guess we'll see the details of our president's new plan when Congress writes it for him. He can't be expected to write his own plan and lead here. C'mon people. You didn't elect him to seriously lead, just to give good speeches, spend trillions of dollars of borrowed money for the short term, and just be a generally cool guy right? He's a great campaigner. Not so great a president.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Government Death Panels and Dear Ole Grannny
Where is there talk about goverment death panels in the recent healthcare bill? As far as I can tell it is nowhere to be found.
Does this mean that because it is not in the current bill in sect. x.y.z there won't be death panels in which government bureaucrats decide whether or not to "pull the plug" on Grandma? No. The problem is that in the long run the cost of providing healthcare will increase dramatically as more and more migrate to a "free" or lower priced piblic healthcare option, and business will as I've outlined in detail in previous posts. As costs increase and run up against a predetermined budget constraint which limits how much more can be spent, bureaucrats will need to decide how they deem it best to allocate scarce resources. Don't worry because the new 150,000 government bureaucrats the Federal government needs to hire to oversee it will do their best.
As these bureaucrats or a national health board or something like that meet they will need to provide guidelines as to what constitutes cost effective treatment. If they have a system with a limited number of doctors and nurse practitioners and a caseload that is more than they can handle, invariably a choice needs to be made given the immediate situation. If this means we have at any given point in time, come say 2022, and there are 8,000 kids under the age of 18 and 11,000 Grandmas in need of immediate care, the kids will get likely get the treatment. Grandma may die. These actions and the subsequent result is probably why some critics are calling it a death panel.
It may be very reasonable in light of the situation from society's standpoint to treat the kids and not Granny. However, the better way is to expand the constraint and not put authorities in the position of having to make such a decision. We should encourage more doctors, improve incentives via having people pay more for what they use, make patients more accountable for their choices, and incentivize industry and especially doctors to integrate technology to better run their practices. Oh, and we need desparately to do away with lawsuits so that doctors don't prescribe treatment and make referrals solely for lawsuit avoidance reasons, as they do in droves right now. To argue that a government public option will achieve these objections and at lower cost is truly laughable and actually a bit embarrasing.
So, yes it is likely that getting the government into healthcare will at some point require death panels. I know it is not explicitly in the bill. The purpose of analysis and an analytical mind though is to draw connections. Any sheep can read something as though its a technical manual on how to setup a stereo. As the President likes to say "I am willing to have a serious discussion" as he trivializes his opposition. So, yes, let's be serious and start thinking about the future consequences of our actions today.
Does this mean that because it is not in the current bill in sect. x.y.z there won't be death panels in which government bureaucrats decide whether or not to "pull the plug" on Grandma? No. The problem is that in the long run the cost of providing healthcare will increase dramatically as more and more migrate to a "free" or lower priced piblic healthcare option, and business will as I've outlined in detail in previous posts. As costs increase and run up against a predetermined budget constraint which limits how much more can be spent, bureaucrats will need to decide how they deem it best to allocate scarce resources. Don't worry because the new 150,000 government bureaucrats the Federal government needs to hire to oversee it will do their best.
As these bureaucrats or a national health board or something like that meet they will need to provide guidelines as to what constitutes cost effective treatment. If they have a system with a limited number of doctors and nurse practitioners and a caseload that is more than they can handle, invariably a choice needs to be made given the immediate situation. If this means we have at any given point in time, come say 2022, and there are 8,000 kids under the age of 18 and 11,000 Grandmas in need of immediate care, the kids will get likely get the treatment. Grandma may die. These actions and the subsequent result is probably why some critics are calling it a death panel.
It may be very reasonable in light of the situation from society's standpoint to treat the kids and not Granny. However, the better way is to expand the constraint and not put authorities in the position of having to make such a decision. We should encourage more doctors, improve incentives via having people pay more for what they use, make patients more accountable for their choices, and incentivize industry and especially doctors to integrate technology to better run their practices. Oh, and we need desparately to do away with lawsuits so that doctors don't prescribe treatment and make referrals solely for lawsuit avoidance reasons, as they do in droves right now. To argue that a government public option will achieve these objections and at lower cost is truly laughable and actually a bit embarrasing.
So, yes it is likely that getting the government into healthcare will at some point require death panels. I know it is not explicitly in the bill. The purpose of analysis and an analytical mind though is to draw connections. Any sheep can read something as though its a technical manual on how to setup a stereo. As the President likes to say "I am willing to have a serious discussion" as he trivializes his opposition. So, yes, let's be serious and start thinking about the future consequences of our actions today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
