Living Alone

I recently had a casual, personal, business dealing with a seemingly wonderful middle-aged woman. She lives alone. She didn't blurt out her living status, but the nature of our business transaction, and the conversation surrounding it, made it obvious. In lieu of a roommate or significant other, she had several pets.

The truth be told, I'd never really thought about this subject before (in this context). The idea that a middle-aged woman, who wasn't crazy and who was reasonably attractive and stable, should be living alone seemed tragic to me. Because I have children and a husband at home, the idea that I could be alone, totally alone (as this woman was), was something that began to fester in my mind.

So much of my socializing is focused on my family. There are constant, small interchanges: what's for dinner, is there coffee, the announcements of comings and goings, do we need milk or bread, and the usual assortment of good night/good morning greetings. Every night I share my bed with my husband and all the happiness and security that provides enables a kind of reset on the day's trials and tribulations.

The woman I met had none of that, although I'm certain she mimicks those family niceties and interchanges with her pets.

Man is a social animal and it has always been my belief that a madness of solitude can develop when people do not have an intimate social group (i.e., family). It keeps us humble, sane, and provides a minimum standard of happiness that everyone should enjoy. Research on couples has been interesting in this regard. Many of the studies I've read conclude that couples have the ability to keep each other on the straight and narrow.

Our culture has changed so radically in the last 50 years that I fear we're tinkering with disaster. When we look at programs (such as Social Security), the idea that people live alone and bear the entire burden of their housing and living costs, is something that is unsustainable. Living alone is not a state that will be able to continue once Social Security is modified, reduced, or means-tested. From that perspective, we need to be prepared for our social reeingineering to correct itself when these economic realities are forced on our culture.

Looking at it purely from an economic perspective, it is very wrong-headed, but looking at it in dollars and cents seems a bit callous. That said, living alone is an indulgence—a living arrangement that for economic reasons never existed before (in any great numbers).

There is no reason for that woman to be living alone, except that our culture has changed so dramatically that having a stable mate, or living with extended family, are no longer the norm. This is primarily a result of us having smaller families. At one time, this woman would have moved in with her sister, brother, or her parents if she found herself without a mate. She would have helped raise the children of her siblings or cousins. She might also have moved in with a long time friend (the stereotype of the two spinsters comes to mind), but the decision to live alone would not have been acceptable (because people from previous generations, although not as cool and progressively-minded as we are today, somehow knew that people were better off living among a stable family). That is not to suggest that women have never lived alone, only that it wasn't the norm.

Now it is difficult to explain why the various studies on couples show the data that they do (that couples are more mentally and emotionally stable than their single peers, as well as more financially stable and successful). Is the relationship itself casual to the outcome, or are the people casual to a successful relationship? It is possible that the reason couples remain couples is because of their generally good emotional health. It could be that the people who are prone to abuse their children, or prone to abuse themselves, find themselves as single parents (or single without children) because of those tendencies and issues. That said, it seems to be a reasonable conjecture that the everyday burdens of life are less of a burden with the cradle of stability of a relationship, even if the people themselves are more vulnerable to psychological instability, and it is that stability of the relationship itself that prevents those daily-life-burdens from diminishing our psychological health, when they are shared with another person. Couples tend to prop each other up.

I just can't get the woman's predicament out of my mind. What happened to our culture that enabled a sweet and nice lady to be so alone?

Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

Dark Humor/Play on Words

Yesterday my husband read a post about Ted Kennedy's death (I do not know where he saw it) that included the Latin phrase:

"De mortuis nil nisi bonum"

It literally translates to:

"Of the dead say nothing but good"

It is the source of the the English phrase, "Never speak ill of the dead."

But, applying the Latin literally to Ted Kennedy's death, the poster responded:

Ted Kennedy is dead?

-Good.

I was chuckling about it all day.
Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

Ted Kennedy Dead

Ted Kennedy is dead (Senator Edward Kennedy dies at age 77 - Yahoo! News).

I have nothing good to say about the man and this news comes as no surprise. I have sympathy for his family, but I cannot help but think that his passing is good for America. There is a small chance that his replacement in the Senate will be less liberal than he, but at least there is hope that this illiberal legacy could end.

Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

Great Communicator

No, I'm not referring to Ronald Reagan with this title. I'm referring to Bill Whittle (of EjectEjectEject.com and Afterburner on PJTV). Bill's latest Afterburner episode (August 24, 2009) is brilliant!

PJTV: Afterburner, MSNBC and The Great Liberal Narrative: The Truth About The Tyranny of Political Correctness

Bill has a gift. He has the ability to distill history (and make it interesting) to validate his opinions. His optimistic view of America is very similar to Ronald Reagan's... which brings me to another great communicator, Faoud Ajami* who wrote a smashing essay about Obama's Humpty-Dumpty fall from the wall. In the essay (WSJ, Obama's Summer of Discontent, August 25, 2009), Mr. Ajami writes a bit about Ronald Reagan:

At the core of the Reagan mission was the recovery of the nation's esteem and self-regard. Reagan was an optimist. He was Hollywood glamour to be sure, but he was also Peoria, Ill. His faith in the country was boundless, and when he said it was "morning in America" he meant it; he believed in America's miracle and had seen it in his own life, in his rise from a child of the Depression to the summit of political power.

And:

At no time had Ronald Reagan believed that the American covenant had failed, that America should apologize for itself in the world beyond its shores. There was no narcissism in Reagan. It was stirring that the man who headed into the sunset of his life would bid his country farewell by reminding it that its best days were yet to come.

While Mr. Whittle doesn't yet have the wisdom and experience of Ronald Reagan, he certainly shares his optimism and exuberance about America, even if it is occasionally unfounded or rose-colored-glasses idealistic.

(*I had never heard of Faoud Ajami before, but if the WSJ article is an example of his typical writing performance, I can't wait to read more of him. WSJ states that he teaches at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.)

But back to Bill Whittle...

I will admit to being a fan, while still maintaining my objectivity (I believe). Mr. Whittle manages to complain about leftist-intellectualism, while still maintaining a connection to average Joe, but he is clearly an intellectual himself (although not of the leftist persuasion).

This contrast sometimes causes a contradiction for Mr. Whittle, such as in his Afterburner episode about Sarah Palin's ill-treatment by the press (The Media, The Left and GOP Elitists vs. Sarah Palin: A Lesson on How to Destroy a Leader, July 27, 2009). Mr. Whittle makes a jab at intellectualism in that episode (transcript from EjectEjectEject.com):

She needs to be destroyed because the one thing that can never be allowed to happen is this: you cannot have a voice in this political debate. You know who I mean. You rubes, you hicks out there in flyover country. Your job is pay taxes, vote for who they have decided over cocktails makes them feel better about themselves, and occasionally provide your inbred idiot sons and daughters for the army or police force or whatever you people without Ivy League educations do with your tawdry little lives.

Meanwhile, the Harvard-educated elitist geniuses will run the country according to their infinitely brighter intellectual and moral lights.

[Emphasis mine.]

I think it unwise to tango with an anti-intellectualism/education message. It is also possible for conservatives to have Ivy League educations and be Harvard-educated elitist geniuses. It is possible to do all of that and not come out of school as a socialist-sympathizing drone. There are some who manage to get into Harvard or other Ivy League schools who don't have the necessary backbone and intellect to become something other than Useful Idiots. The concept of Garbage-In, Garbage-Out applies to their outcome.

While these degrees no longer confer the integrity and value they once had, the degree itself is not a disqualifer. We still have to do our own due diligence, regardless of the letters after a person's name or the letters on their parchment. Let me restate that in a different way: the degrees are neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier, in the sense of conferring superiority over the average Joe, but intellectual superiority exists (it just shouldn't be assumed if a person has a specific name on their college degree).

That intellectual superiority doesn't mean the average Joe has any less right to vote, any less command of his faculties or liberties, or is any less of a good person. It just means that the average Joe doesn't rise to the intellectual capacity of others, and those others include Mr. Whittle himself. That is why we qualify Joe with average when we speak of the majority of people in the country.

The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted indeed in some degree to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call Common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1787

That's the contradiction of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Whittle. They manage to cloak their intellectualism in a way that makes it possible for them to communicate with Peoria, Ill. They relate to Peoria and Average Joe without a dumbed-down charade. I do not recall, however, that Ronald Reagan ever dismissed the value of education, in the way that Mr. Whittle did in the his Sarah Palin piece.

What Ronald Reagan never did, that Sarah Palin does (and Bill Whittle slightly stepped over the line in his episode on Sarah Palin) is pandering to the common man. Speaking plainly and directly doesn't mean speaking down to any one, nor does it include speaking in a colloquial manner, almost a stereotypical gum-chewing/smacking manner, as Sarah Palin does. Average Joe deserves more respect than that. The Office she held and the office she sought deserves more respect than that.

It is import to remember that President Bush has a Harvard degree. President Bush's accent and slight speech-impediment prevented him from earning the title of great orator. President Bush was a decent president who nobly rose to the occasion to handle the terrorist attacks of 9/11. He was the minimum standard of the intellectual capacity of a president. We don't have to raise the level to the Winston Churchill standard, but we should go no lower in our expectations with the bar set by George Bush.

If Sarah Palin has a superior intellect, she's done a fairly good job of hiding it. If she rises to the level of President Bush's, it remains to be seen. Reagan didn't hide it, he just didn't wear his intellectual superiority on his sleeve or rub anyone's nose in it.

This is better explained by Rudyard Kipling in his If letter to his son:

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

[Emphasis mine.]

Sarah Palin, by Mr. Kipling's standard is not a man. Of course we know that she is a woman, but the poem's message can apply equally to a woman. It is a poem about duty and responsibility, about both honor and integrity, and dealing with success and failure, and winning and losing with grace and dignity. Man is merely a shortcut for all that is admirable and needed in an individual to live up to his/her human potential.

I accept the basic premise that Sarah Palin got a raw deal with the press and continued to be plagued by nuisance lawsuits while Governor of Alaska. In my opinion, however, she whines too much and allowed what happened yesterday to demonstrate that she fails in the "neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you" Kipling requirement.

It is similar to the way that Obama continues to blame President Bush for all the troubles he faces today, rather than taking ownership for his policies. Harry Truman's famous "the buck stops here" remark sums up the quality so necessary in the President of the United States. Sarah Palin's raw deal is no excuse for her showing weakness to her current and future enemies.

Showing weakness was the quality most dangerous in John F. Kennedy, so much so that it created a dangerous situation for the United States (and resulted in the Russians acting upon the placement of missiles in Cuba). The Russians didn't consider putting missiles in Cuba on Eisenhower's watch (nor would they have considered such a thing under Ronald Reagan's watch). Weakness has proven to create an unncessary danger, encouraging bold actions from our enemies.

The Iranians knew to release the hostages captured during Jimmy Carter's term when Ronald Reagan was sworn in.

Superior strength is not a quality unique to men, in the strength of character and convictions sense, not the physical sense. No one would have found either Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir lacking strength. Those women had balls!

Strength matters and so does intellect in leadership. It matters not only in our Executive, but in our citizens, but for the latter, not as much.

Sarah Palin may have left the governorship of Alaska for Alaska's sake and benefit, but it did a disserve to the entire country in the longer term. It is akin to the policy of not negotiating with terrorists. It may benefit the 20 or so current hostages to negotiate for their release, but the success of that negotiation, of getting something out of the act, sends a signal that kidnapping and terrorism is a worthwhile venture. So, too, with Sarah Palin's resignation as governor of Alaska, by sending the message that a form of legal terrorism can be successful. We all lose when swarms of nuisance lawsuits cause officials to leave their elected posts. Expect to see much more of it as a result of Sarah Palin surrendering to it.

Sarah Palin should have recognized that long term risk, and the fact that she didn't demonstrates that she didn't have the backbone, nor the foresight of the bigger, long term picture. It is those bigger, long-term pictures that education provides, once unique to the Ivy League schools, but possible to be gleaned from lesser known institutions, or by those driven to achieve greatness in intellectual development by self study and perseverance.

"That every man shall be made virtuous by any process whatever is, indeed, no more to be expected than that every tree shall be made to bear fruit, and every plant nourishment. The brier and bramble can never become the vine and olive; but their asperities may be softened by culture, and their properties improved to usefulness in the order and economy of the world."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1822

Not everyone is capable of rising to the same level. That is not a handicap for being a good person or a good citizen, but it should be a handicap for higher office.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

Obama fails the test on every count, but that is no excuse for conservatives to lower the bar, or dismiss the value of intellect, strength, and education. Let the Democrats pander to the common man, but require that our own, we conservatives, respect and speak directly (and honestly) to the average Joe, while simultaneously recognizing his intellectual limits.

"Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to, convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1787

As Ronald Reagan commanded that politicians "never speak ill of another Republican," the additional commandment I would add is: "Conservatives should never speak ill of education."

The glorification of ignorance and pandering will be our undoing.

"The mass of our citizens may be divided into two classes -- the laboring and the learned. The laboring will need the first grade of education to qualify them for their pursuits and duties; the learned will need it as a foundation for further acquirements."

- Thomas Jefferson , 1814

Bill Whittle, I believe, made a few mistakes in his Sarah Palin episode, but he demonstrates that he has the ability to deliver to a praiseworthy performance in his piece on MSNBC/Political Correctness—the latter is a five star package. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has yet to demonstrate greatness, stamina, strength of conviction, or an understanding of the value of education and the intellectual grounding it provides to see the big picture, and to avoid history's mistakes. She may do so at some point, as Mr. Whittle has done in his episode of yesterday, but Sarah hasn't done it yet... and I refuse, absolutely refuse, to lower the bar for conservatives, simply because the Democrats have done so.

---

H/t Instapundit.

Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

Keep Yours

I cannot claim to military service and officially taking the oath to protect and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, but I agree with the sentiment. I think the gentleman in this YouTube video is one example of where Americans have found their voice.



If more Americans speak up and speak out as this gentleman has, perhaps documenting the decline and fall of this website's mission will be unnecessary.

The most important thing is to vote—and vote for candidates who understand the strict limits of the Constitution. The Federal government has no authority to regulate health care or to create a universal health care plan, but if we do not elect representatives who comply with those limits, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

Here is the beginning and the end of what the Constitution authorizes Congress to do:

Article I: Section 8:

• To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
• To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
• To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
• To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
• To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
• To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
• To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

There is nothing in there that allows Congress to take over the health care industry or to provide health insurance to anyone. The Congress has the authority to regulate commerce between states, but not to regulate all commerce. It is merely the authority to resolve inter-state issues and conflicts, as they occur, but nothing in-state.

If the people in a given state wish to entertain such an idea, it is within their authority to do so, but not at the Federal level.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

Opting Out

I didn't intend for this site to become all Obamacare, all the time, but with 17% of the economy at stake, and the pending doomsday scenario of Obamacare, it seems like a worthwhile dalliance. On Instapundit today (They Can't Handle This, But They'll Handle Health Care?, August 20, 2009), Prof. Reynolds remarks:

They promised FedEx, but they’re delivering the Post Office. . . .

It is wise that Prof. Reynolds reminds us how inefficient the government can be, but it isn't necessary to predict that the handling of Obamacare would be akin to the Cash for Clunkers program--no crystal-ball gazing is required. It is appropriate to look at how the government currently handles Medicare reimbursements (apples to apples comparison).

Exhibits:

• Low Medicare Reimbursement Rates Hurt Hospitals in Iowa And California (Kaiser Health News, June 3, 2009):

Television Station KHQA 7 reports on how Iowa hospitals are losing millions of dollars a year because of low payments from the state and federal government. "For years Medicare pays 14 percent less than what it actually costs for hospitals to provide the care to patients. Medicaid payments are even lower and many times are late in coming..."

• Medicaid Payment Delays Deter Physician Participation (Health System Change, November 18, 2009):

"Medicaid payment rates matter, but the hassle factor also matters, and this study strongly suggests that higher Medicaid fees won't have the desired effect of increasing access if physicians have to wait months to get paid," said HSC Senior Fellow Peter J. Cunningham, Ph.D., coauthor of the study with HSC Senior Researcher Ann S. O'Malley, M.D., M.P.H.

• Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare (Julie Connelly, New York Times, April 1, 2009):

Early this year, Barbara Plumb, a freelance editor and writer in New York who is on Medicare, received a disturbing letter. Her gynecologist informed her that she was opting out of Medicare. When Ms. Plumb asked her primary-care doctor to recommend another gynecologist who took Medicare, the doctor responded that she didn’t know any — and that if Ms. Plumb found one she liked, could she call and tell her the name?

• Medicare and Its Impact on Patient Care (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, February 4, 2000):

• Almost 25% of doctors refuse to treat new Medicare patients;
• 20% of those who refuse to accept new Medicare patients, do so because of hassles and/or threats from Medicare carriers;
• More than one-third of doctors have trouble finding referral doctors for Medicare patients;
• More than one-third of doctors surveyed are restricting services to Medicare patients;
• Almost one-fifth of doctors give Medicare patients a lower priority for appointments;
• More than 80% of doctors have an increased fear of investigation or prosecution;
• More than one-fourth of doctors are restricting services to Medicare patients because of hassles/threats from Medicare.

The Federal government does a pitiful job with Medicare. There is no reason to think that Obamacare would make things better. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that the lack of competition would make the problems even worse. Beyond their pathetic handling of payments and the low rates of reimbursement, the Federal government has one additional feather in its cap to make things even worse: The threat of imprisonment. While we could all point to a story about some notorious doctor-fraud ring, the reality is that the vast majority of physicians are not committing fraud; yet, the slightest error in Medicare forms can generate the full force of the government. Why would any physician want to engage in activities where they can easily misstep, resulting in imprisonment? If Medicare was fast to pay and paid the equivalent of the insurance company's negotiated rates, then the higher risk of fraud charges would be irrelevant, but with a trifecta of risk (late pay, low pay, fraud charges), doctors are simply saying "no" to Medicare.

With Obamacare, the "no" option would be taken off the table. Most people realize that lack of competition makes a business sector lazy and unresponsive to customer demands, but this is even worse than that. A business sector is always vulnerable to a new player who does respond to customer demand with a better product, but the government doesn't have a competitor, nor a threat of one.

"Government as well as religion has furnished its schisms, its persecutions, and its devices for fattening idleness on the earnings of the people."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1815

Cross posted at From the Maenianum Secundum (comments are open there).

In a Nutshell

From an article by Nat Hentoff (JWR, I am finally scared of a White House administration, August 19, 2009):

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

The above is the beginning and the end of the debate on "Obamacare."

The establishment of a Health Commissioner (and the creation of the department he/she runs), means there is no limit to the regulations and requirements imposed on insurance companies and doctors.

It doesn't matter if "end of life" discussions are in today and out tomorrow, they can be added by the Health Commissioner at a future date.

The various Democratic Bills are not "reform." That's the wrong word. Reform would reexamine Tort law, remake how Medicare works (making it more efficient), and would address issues such as the enormous cost of bringing new medicines to market. Reducing costs would be refusing to pay for the medical expenses of illegal aliens, in concert with border closing measures. Those would be reforms. What these Bills are attempting to do is regulate and nationalize the health insurance and medical industries.

Creating a new government department and a Commissioner is not what America should be doing, regardless of the details in the Bill today. They are, as Mr. Hentof suggests, the health issue slippery slope.

This is not a new thing. The Democrats have always used incrementalism ("baby steps") to get to their ultimate goal. Putting a dozen things in the Bills today, that Americans can point at and fuss about, that are taken out "in the spirit of compromise" are red herrings (see Co-ops: A ‘Public Option’ By Another Name, Michael D. Tanner, CATO @ Liberty August 17, 2009).

What needs to be taken out is the entire concept of a Health Care Bill, and any talk of a Commissioner and government department to oversee and regulate medical insurance. Taking that out would be the same as voting "No" on whatever the Democrats put forward.

The only way to prevent a slippery slope is not to play.

H/t Instapundit.

Not Stupid This Time

"The materials now bearing on the public mind will infallibly restore it to its republican soundness... if the knowledge of facts can only be disseminated among the people."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

The Republicans have been justifiably called the Stupid Party for many reasons, mainly because they've failed to demonstrate they have any balls. But not Jessey Kelly, as this report of a townhall demonstrates:

Rep. Giffords canceled her town hall in Sahuarita/Green Valley and Jesse Kelly scheduled an appearance in the same venue at the same time and place. From the looks of the video below it was very successful. Both sides were allowed to speak for two hours and with no problems. You would think that a 2 term congresswoman could manage to put on a town hall during the one month August recess.

Read/watch the whole thing at Gila Courier and AZ 8th ( Jesse Kelly town hall a great success, August 14, 2009).

My favorite part is when the Democrat steps right into it and says show me where it says that in the Bill and Mr. Kelly proceeds to show her hand-out after hand-out documenting where each of the false accusations are contained in the Democrat's Bill.  I don't often use 21st century jargon, but that's a pOwned if there ever was one. (Or, as Prof. Reynolds would say, "heh"!)

Republicans are often falsely accused of being The Party of "No," but as the video above demonstrates, that is mainly because their counter-proposals don't get media time.

To find out what the Republicans have offered with respect to health care reform, see Health Reform GOP-Style (Jo Ciavaglia, phillyBurbs.com, August 13, 2009).  As mentioned in the link, Kaiser Family Foundation has an interactive tool to allow you to research the various proposals in a side by side format.  A PDF of the various Bills may be viewed here.

The Democrats got away with this sort of thing for decades.  They would get their unchallenged 15-second sound byte on the news (with a complicit media), but the Internet/Blogosphere has changed all that.  The mainstream media still manages to control the major networks and nearly-bankrupt newspapers, but there are now other methods of getting the truth to the American people.

Maybe Republicans are learning. They may have to own-up to and address being the Stupid Party, but that's far better than being the Evil Party.

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1785

H/t Instapundit.

Half Right

Bill Whittle's latest PJTV Afterburner segment (Beyond the Angry Mobs: Only You Can Bring Congress Back From the Abyss of Corruption, August 10, 2009) focuses on the idea that people should participate in government, by considering a run for office.  It is half right.

I agree with the concept of more "regular" citizens responding to a call to serve. Where I disagree is with Mr. Whittle's assertion that it was never the Founding Fathers' intention for public service to be a life long career. In fact, just the reverse is true.

It is necessary to differentiate between the Founders' understanding that an educated populace was necessary for the concept of self government (i.e., a government of and by the people) to work and preparedness for public office. Both require education, but one is not the other and we should never conflate the two.

1. Regarding the first concept, of educating the people so that they could maintain vigilance on their elected leaders:

"I do most anxiously wish to see the highest degrees of education given to the higher degrees of genius and to all degrees of it, so much as may enable them to read and understand what is going on in the world and to keep their part of it going on right; for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1795

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps, both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

- James Madison, 1822

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1816

"[The] provision [in the new constitution of Spain] which, after a certain epoch, disfranchises every citizen who cannot read and write... is the fruitful germ of the improvement of everything good and the correction of everything imperfect in the present constitution. This will give you an enlightened people and an energetic public opinion which will control and enchain the aristocratic spirit of the government."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1814

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787

2.  Regarding the second concept, of creating long-serving public servants through education:

"Nor must we omit to mention among the benefits of education the incalculable advantage of training up able counselors to administer the affairs of our country in all its departments, legislative, executive and judiciary, and to bear their proper share in the councils of our national government: nothing more than education advancing the prosperity, the power, and the happiness of a nation."

- Thomas Jefferson, Report for University of Virginia, 1818

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

- James Madison, Federalist No. 57

"The tendency of a longer period of service would be to render the body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason and justice could regain their ascendancy.

- James Madison, Notes on Suffrage, 1810

"Laws will be wisely formed and honestly administered in proportion as those who form and administer them are wise and honest; whence it becomes expedient for promoting the public happiness that those persons whom nature has endowed with genius and virtue should be rendered by liberal education worthy to receive and able to guard the sacred deposit of the rights and liberties of their fellow citizens; and that they should be called to that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or circumstance. But the indigence of the greater number disabling them from so educating at their own expense those of their children whom nature has fitly formed and disposed to become useful instruments for the public, it is better that such should be sought for and educated at the common expense of all, than that the happiness of all should be confined to the weak or wicked."

- Thomas Jefferson, Diffusion of Knowledge Bill, 1779

"I will not say that public life is the line for making a fortune. But it furnishes a decent and honorable support, and places one's children on good grounds for public favor. The family of a beloved father will stand with the public on the most favorable ground of competition. Had General Washington left children, what would have been denied them?"

- Thomas Jefferson, 1808

As I stated at the beginning, the idea of people responding to a call of public service is a noble one. I quibble only with the idea that the Founders were against the idea of a career of public service and, by extension, that everyone is capable (having the "genius" Jefferson spoke of) to do it wisely, and the character necessary to perform the duties with restraint.

We should never discount the importance of an educated populace entering the voting booth. If we believe that our elected leaders are not properly performing their duties, the problem is with the mass of voters, not the system (or the concept of a perpetual public servant). We have far too many ignorant citizens exercising the vote. The solution is not to limit how long our representatives may serve, but to educate the citizens so they exercise their vote in such a way as to replace their elected representatives with people better qualified to serve.

If we are capable and called, it is our duty to serve, for as long as that service is needed and useful. There is no time limit or fixed amount of time that one may serve, or a magic number that suggests that one has served too long.

"The man who loves his country on its own account, and not merely for its trappings of interest or power, can never be divorced from it, can never refuse to come forward when he finds that she is engaged in dangers which he has the means of warding off."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1797

The Founders were examples of career politicians themselves, and became a permanent class of elected officials.

"Though I... am myself duly impressed with a sense of the arduousness of government and the obligation those are under who are able to conduct it, yet I am also satisfied there is an order of geniuses above that obligation and therefore exempted from it. Nobody can conceive that nature ever intended to throw away a Newton upon the occupations of a crown. It would have been a prodigality for which even the conduct of Providence might have been arraigned, had he been by birth annexed to what was so far below him. Cooperating with nature in her ordinary economy, we should dispose of and employ the geniuses of men according to their several orders and degrees."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1778

The critical part is that the Founders were not at all concerned with a permanent ruling class, as they were the first generation to do so. They required a permanent ruling class of geniuses of good character. That is not every citizen, by any stretch. Those not endowed with genius or the ability to be restrained in their behavior to good character may vote, and that is enough, and more charitable than the Founders' intended by discussing limits to the franchise, such as to those only able to read and write.

Finally, there are many ways to serve one's country. Service is not exclusive to public office.  Mr. Whittle himself provides public service, by educating the populace through his website and Afterburner broadcasts.

The End Is Near

Here's a comment I left at Fabius Maximus (Beginning Of The End Of The Republic’s Solvency. Soon Come The First Steps To A Reformed Regime – Or A New Regime, August 14, 2009) regarding health care and entitlement reform.  I was responding to responding to Maximus's comment:

"Fabius Maximus replies: You are ignoring the specfic example I gave of rationing — spending $36,000 on care in the last year of life. Much of it neither increasing lifespan or quality of life. First, I doubt that people will spend that money themselves — or that most Americans could afford it. Second, experience at other nations disproves your theory."

My response:

Means-testing is coming, but I do not think you’ve thought through rationing or the basis of “few can afford it” with respect to the last year of life expenses.

Many seniors, especially the aging Boomers, have property. It is reasonable to require that people use their own assets before dipping into the public troth. The Boomers have not done a good job of managing their wealth for retirement, in the abstract, but many/most have property to sell. I expect to see some sort of reverse mortgage products appearing for the sole purpose of paying medical expenses (or government liens against property for this purpose, payable when the property is sold).

The idea that one retires and is able to maintain the same lifestyle when working is over. In addition, the idea that people “retire” was a temporary glitch of the last 50 years (not a concept that existed before). Boomers might not stay in the workforce in traditional jobs, but they might have to live with their children (say, providing daycare for their grandchildren). The Greatest Generation will be the last to have golfing/vacation style retirements.

It is immoral to think that you can check out of life and live off your children and grandchildren. It may not be what the Boomers want, but it is what they are going to get. It may require that we bankrupt the nation before the reality of the situation sinks in, but the reality is that Boomers will not have the same retirement as their parents. Bankrupt nation or before, the coffers are empty (and always were, by original design of Social Security) and there is no amount of taxation that will produce the amounts required to pay to the Boomers what they think they’re entitled to receive. The unfunded liability for the Boomer’s retirement years is projected to be 120% of GDP. 100% taxation on working people wouldn’t be enough. The Boomers might whine, but it is their fault. They were the stewards of the government for the last 40 years and they didn’t make sure the government was managing the budgets as they should. The Boomers have already spent their retirements by being the most coddled and spoilt generation in history.

Spilt Milk

From Mort Zuckerman (NY Daily News, Drowning in debt: Obama's spending and borrowing leaves U.S. gasping for air, August 9, 2009):

The Government Accountability Office estimates that by 2040, interest payments will absorb 30% of all revenues and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education or veterans' pensions.

I know that many economic folks are predicting that we'll recover from this recession on X date or Y quarter, but I think they're wrong.

There is no recovery from this amount of debt. The only recovery is to stop spending and no special interest group is going to give up their entitlements.  More from Mr. Zuckerman:

Everybody is dazed and confused by all this talk of additional indebtedness in the trillions of dollars. Our soaring national debt will require cataclysmic adjustments to accomplish the restoration of a balance in our fiscal position.

Otherwise, we face a dramatic erosion of U.S. economic and financial standing, raising the risk of skyrocketing interest rates and a crash in the value of the dollar. Americans can no longer rely on their stocks and the soaring value of their homes to put their kids through college and support early retirement. For the first time since the Depression, U.S. companies are not only cutting jobs; they are cutting wages. We are undersaved and underpensioned, and we will have to adjust to a more frugal life.

The Social Security nightmare has hit home and until we address that issue, the recession will remain.

From Shannon Love (Chicago Boy, The Dangers of Decompartmentalized Health Care Spending, August 12, 2009):

The elderly consume 70% of all health-care spending.[updated here and here] That means that when it comes to cost control they will bear the brunt of the burden. If we don’t cut spending on the elderly we can’t reduce costs without simply denying care for everyone else. When it comes down to a choice between spending on old people and children, the elderly know full well who we are going to pick. The elderly themselves will choose to spend money on their grandchildren rather than themselves.

It doesn't appear that this Congress or this Administration is serious. Sane people knew that giving the debt keys to a Democratic Congress was a stupid mistake, but this isn't a mistake that can be solved simply by voting in Republicans next term.  The money will be spent and the debt will be there to be paid off.  The debt remains, even if the legislators are no longer home.

And speaking of no longer home (Alan Zibel, AP/Yahoo News, Foreclosures rise 7 percent in July from June, August 13, 2009):

WASHINGTON – The number of U.S. households on the verge of losing their homes rose 7 percent from June to July, as the escalating foreclosure crisis continued to outpace government efforts to limit the damage.

Foreclosure filings were up 32 percent from the same month last year, RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday. More than 360,000 households, or one in every 355 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, such as a notice of default or trustee's sale. That's the highest monthly level since the foreclosure-listing firm began publishing the data more than four years ago.

Ugly things are likely to happen before this is truly solved. I'm not advocating it, only forecasting the truth.

H/t Instapundit (here, here, and here.)

Feeding Frenzy

As this article from Freep.com (Detroit Free Press, Tempers flare over health care plan, August 7, 2009), there is a kind of feeding frenzy occurring over the socialized medicine Bill.  Regardless of how this is decided, people are angry.  But the type of bitterness we're seeing over the health care issue is irreconcilable, as there are factions on both sides of the issue who are unwilling to compromise.

One camp believes that health care is a right, and a prosperous nation (like ourselves) has some sort of duty to provide health insurance to every citizen.

The other camp believes that extending health insurance to everyone is a bad idea, while at the same time, crying foul when there are solutions presented to address the insolvency of social security or medicare.

The reality is somewhere in the middle, but "middle" is seldom how these issues are decided, which means that the divide and conquer approach (i.e., the building of waring factions) is how the political class will decide the matter.  Social security and medicare ARE insolvent and some sort of rationing or means testing will have to be decided at some point.  If we'd never created Social Security or Medicare, we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor would we have the problems they create (both economically and politically).  Once we have a government entitlement program, the press (and the politicians) always have a crying mother being stripped of her child or an old granny living on cat food to create photo-ops for the opposing side.    It is damned near impossible to get rid of a government revenue stream once it is in place.

This is not a new method of handling a matter among the political classes.  Creating issues to create a tug-o-war is not unique to the health care debate.

The abortion issue is exactly the same.

1. We have the not ever camp.


2. We have the only if camp.


3. We have the what's wrong with it, abortion shouldn't have moral considerations camp.

We can change the words, ever so slightly, for issues like school prayer.  Education has become political, where the political classes war over the hearts and minds, just as the health care issue is becoming politicized.  Regardless of how the health care issue is eventually decided, there will be winners and losers, if we allow the government to realize the objective of making it something the government involves itself.

Imagine, for just a moment, that there were no public schools. There might be a chattering class arguing for the creation of something like it, but we'd have developed other methods of addressing it.  Most parents, the vast middle class, would pay for cheap schools (probably chain type corporations offering mediocre, but not awful programs at an affordable price).  There would be a larger market for more expensive private schools, with the private sector donating to charities to allow poor children with prowess to attend them. The most the government might do is to allow everyone (rich and poor) to deduct the cost of education from their taxes.  We wouldn't get to the point where we'd discuss the pros and cons of vouchers, because the government wouldn't have inserted itself in the process to make it a compromise solution to a terrible problem.

The larger point is that education would not be a political issue.  There would be no arguments about prayer in school, the teaching of sex education, or if evolution or creationism should be taught. Each parent would make those decisions and it wouldn't create caverns between political camps.  Sure, people would have their opinions on the various subjects, but each wouldn't be able to remake the Jack Booted Thug the enforcer of their opinion.

Abortion is still a huge issue today.  If Roe v Wade had not been decided the way it had, each state would still be making the decision about its legality.  Planned Parenthood and NARAL would be running cheap abortion flights or shuttle buses from Mississippi to California, with protestors standing on the runways to try to prevent women from boarding the planes.  But, it wouldn't be a divisive issue at the national level, creating a situation where one party supports X and the other party supports -X.

I want Y, not the binary choice of X or -X.

If, for no other reason than the above, the health care issue should not become any more political than it is.  When the government controls the issue or delivers the service, the people will always be arguing about who should get what, as sharks fight over prey when they smell blood. They'll stop considering the option of the government not being involved at all, and allowing the private sector to handle the matter.  The private sector will no longer be a viable solution in its entirety, because the government's intrusion in the matter will have broken down parts of the infrastructure which allow it.

We already have enough issues to divide us.  Government-run health care, especially given the enormity of the costs and the life/death aspect adding fuel to emotions, is the last thing we need. In other words, the last thing we need is for the government to get involved at all.  The government will, inevitably, screw it up and where a politician stands on that issue will become a party platform, forcing people to choose one extreme position or the other, with suggestions and schemes on how to fix the mess.  If the government doesn't get involved at all, then there will be nothing to fix.  It will still be a mess, because few things are ever perfect, but the government just makes enemies of us all.

In 20 years, do we really want a politician's worthiness to be determined by how they'd decide on a particular health care rationing decision?  We're protesting for or against inclusion of heart transplants or cesareans at the national level?  That's what will happen if we create any additional government health care entitlements.

Chamber Music

In this little symphony by Andrew Klavan (City Journal, Romanticon by Andrew Klavan, August 10, 2009), he manages to merge the old and the new in a way that leaves the soul yearning for more:

It was, for Wordsworth, what the failure of Communism was for the radicals of a later day. He could no longer deny the error inherent in “speculative schemes— / That promised to abstract the hopes of Man.” He saw the Revolution as a dream that “flattered the young, pleased with extremes” and made “Reason’s naked self / The object of its fervour.” Confused by pure reason’s failure as a moral guide, he “lost / All feeling of conviction” and “yielded up moral questions in despair.” Slowly, he began to do the brave and difficult thing: to admit he had been wrong and change his mind.

RTWT.

We can only hope that the revolutionaries of our day will find the courage to "change his mind."

When conservatives fret about having to rebuild their party, they should take heart. None of this is new. If, however, they attempt to recreate the sensationalism of the Democrat's success and continue to fall victim to the cult of personality and populism, rather than an earnest rebuilding effort of our intellectual principles based on Western Civilization's values, we will fail.

Now, just as American reaction to the blatant political failures of sixties radicalism led to the Reagan revolution and the long dominance of political conservatism here, so, too, British reaction to the French Revolution led to 20 years of Tory rule. But neither Reaganism nor Toryism could ultimately disguise the fact that a profound and fundamental change in human outlook and attitude had taken place—a change that the sixties and the French Revolution represented rather than caused. When the smoke cleared, those who still believed in Western history, traditions, and institutions had to reestablish their relevance and rebuild their foundations in what was essentially a new world.

They're Still Campaigning

(More on the First Amendment violations of the "fishy" email requests by the White House.)

During the run up to the election, the Obama campaign effectively used electronic media. Most of us know how successful that was in getting out Obama's talking points as well as fund raising. Later revelations of the JournoList and the use of paid ACORN protesters were seen as despicable, but they fell within the typical dirty tricks camp of national elections.

What you can do when you're running for office and running a national campaign is entirely different from what you can do once you're in office. The then Senator Obama could not have solicited input on Americans who were exercising their free speech in declaring their concerns about Candidate Obama, but the Democratic Party hacks could have done that.

Seven months into President Obama's Administration, the staff at the White House are still behaving as if they're on the campaign trail. That was obvious to many, as the constant press conferences and stump speeches are signs that President Obama is still behaving as Candidate Obama.

But the White House Blog request for notification of "fishy" communications is unconstitutional for a member of government. I, as a private citizen, could ask for that information because the limitations on Free Speech don't apply to private citizens. I could set up a mechanism for collecting that information (and even pay people who send me the information). The restriction on limiting speech applies only to the government.

The Supreme Court has decided the matter in the past. Federal law prevents keeping a database on private citizens.

I would love to believe that the staffers at the White House Blog were intentionally engaging in a conspiracy to supress the free speech of citizens by setting up the "fishy" reporting mechanism, but that gives this Administration too much credit. They're not that clever. Rather, they're still in campaign mode, and are too stupid to know that they have violated one of American citizens' most precious liberties.

Sen. John Cornyn wrote a letter to the Obama Administration regarding the matter:

Dear President Obama,

I write to express my concern about a new White House program to monitor American citizens' speech opposing your health care policies, and to seek your assurances that this program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America's tradition of free speech and public discourse.

Yesterday, in an official White House release entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things," the White House Director of New Media, Macon Phillips, asserted that there was "a lot of disinformation out there," and encouraged citizens to report "fishy" speech opposing your health care policies to the White House. Phillips specifically targeted private, unpublished, even casual speech, writing that "rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation." Phillips wrote "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed "fishy" or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests.

By requesting that citizens send "fishy" emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House. You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.

I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program-and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.

So I urge you to cease this program immediately. At the very least, I request that you detail to Congress and the public the protocols that your White House is following to purge the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech. And I respectfully request an answer to the following:

• How do you intend to use the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech?


• How do you intend to notify citizens who have been reported for "fishy" speech?


• What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in "fishy" speech?


• Do your own past statements qualify as "disinformation"? For example, is it "disinformation" to note that in 2003 you said:"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan"?

I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

I suspect that no criminal charges will be filed, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse (especially by members of the government, and more especially the Office of the President as one of the primary duties of the President is to enforce the laws, not violate them), and the Obama Administration has committed a crime simply by creating this fishing hole (what they do with the information received is adding to the existing crime).

Sen. Cornyn got it exactly right and I hope that his cease and desist letter will be enough to get the program stopped. It won't stop the other crimes, misdemeanors, and constitutional violations being perpetrated by this Administration, but it is a good start.

During the campaign we were told that Obama had sufficient experience to hit the bricks running. The problem, of course, is that he didn't. He's running, but it is a still a campaign not an Administration.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

-- Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

All Your Emails Belong to Us

The recent news that the White House wants to be sent emails that spread "misinformation" about the socialized medicine bill is too crazy to parody (Macon Phillips, White House Blog, August 4, 2009):

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Opponents of health insurance reform may find the truth a little inconvenient, but as our second president famously said, "facts are stubborn things."

Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet [sic], breathlessly claiming, for example, to "uncover" the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions.

In this video, Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House’s Health Reform Office, addresses one example that makes it look like the President intends to "eliminate" private coverage, when the reality couldn’t be further from the truth.

For the record, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor, or both, you will be able to keep them. He has even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

[Emphasis mine.]

There are so many ways that the White House could have worded the above to make it appear less Orwellian and Hitlerian.  Just about everything this Administration (and Congress) are doing is like something from The Onion.

The White House Blog includes videos of people saying that the Health Care Bill won't become a single-payer program.

So what does the Bill actually say?

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE (pg 16):

(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

[Emphasis mine.]

So it is "misinformation" to suggest that the Bill doesn't gradually eliminate private insurance policies, yet the Bill itself requires that no new members are added to the rolls of private insurance after "Y1" date.

Pg 19:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

To decipher what the above means, we have to go to pg. 10:

(13) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The term ‘‘Health Insurance Exchange’’ means the Health Insurance Exchange established under section 201.

Alright, I'll play.  What does section 201 include?

Section 201 says (pg. 74):

(c) TRANSITION.—Individuals and employers shall only be eligible to enroll or participate in the Health Insurance Exchange in accordance with the following transition schedule:

(1) FIRST YEAR.—In Y1 (as defined in section 100(c))

(A) individuals described in subsection (d)(1), including individuals described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (d); and (B) smallest employers described in subsection (e)(1).

(2) SECOND YEAR.—In Y2—

(A) individuals and employers described in
paragraph (1); and (B) smaller employers described in subsection (e)(2).

(3) THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—

In Y3 and subsequent years—

(A) individuals and employers described in
paragraph (2); and

(B) larger employers as permitted by the
Commissioner under subsection (e)(3).

Good Lord! What in the Hell does that mean?  It becomes circular, to the point of distraction.  If single-payer is not the ultimate goal, why do the programs (for which an individual is eligible to enroll) change in Years 1, 2, and 3? It makes no sense.  It appears to read that if you're in a private plan now, you can keep it (unless the government later determines it doesn't meet a standard--and it is up to the Commissar to determine what that standard is), but is it is blurry regarding a job/insurance change after the Bill goes into effect.

Beginning on pg 82, there is a description of a survey that must be conducted by the Health Czar Commissioner.  Later we discover what the survey "report" will enable the Commissioner to do:

(3) REPORT.—Not later than January 1 of Y3, in Y6, and thereafter, the Commissioner shall submit to Congress on the study conducted under this subsection and shall include in such report recommendations regarding changes in standards for Exchange eligibility for individuals and employers.

So, basically, the Commissioner will conduct a study to determine what employers are providing in their health care plans and then the Commissioner will recommend whether or not those programs are adequate to remain eligible.

Based on what criteria?

There are "BASIC, ENHANCED, AND PREMIUM PLANS" described, but not the costs/benefits which must be included as each is up to the Commissioner (not the employer or individual consumer) to determine (pg 85):

IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish the following standards consistent with this subsection and title I.

At this point, you'd think that the various categories of Small, Medium and Large would be defined, but they're not. They're just descriptive categories that the Commissioner can codify anyway he/she damn well pleases, as long as the benefits/cost sharing get bigger in Medium and Large.

This Bill is long, but its substance is lacking.

In order for an insurance carrier to be included as an "Exchange" provider (and that means any private insurance program, not the one offered by the Federal government or various other public programs), there is a long list of requirements, including (pg 91):

(7) CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY APPROPRIATE SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS.—The entity shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communication and health services.

Orwell is laughing his ass off.

I'm sorry this post is discombobulated, but that's because the Bill is incomprehensible. You can argue just about anything in this Bill, because anything is how it is written (pg. 92).

(4) OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES.

—The Commissioner shall establish processes, in coordination with State insurance regulators, to oversee, monitor, and enforce applicable requirements of this title with respect to QHBP offering entities offering Exchange-participating health benefits plans and such plans, including the marketing of such plans.

And (pg. 88):

(a) CONTRACTING DUTIES.—In carrying out section 201(b)(1) and consistent with this subtitle:

(1) OFFERING ENTITY AND PLAN STANDARDS.—The Commissioner shall—

(A) establish standards necessary to implement the requirements of this title and title I for—

(i) QHBP offering entities for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan; and (ii) for Exchange-participating health benefits plans; and (B) certify QHBP offering entities and qualified health benefits plans as meeting such standards and requirements of this title and title I for purposes of this subtitle.

They might as well have written "to be determined by the Health Czar at some future date, based on any criteria he/she pleases" on every page after the introduction.

The requirements put on private insurance companies is simply mind-boggling as they're written, with wriggle room for the Health Czar to add any additional requirements they want, at their sole discretion. The Commissioner can deny a carrier based on dozens of defined and yet-to-be-defined criteria, and require Herculean levels of reporting and red tape. Anyone suggesting that this government bureaucracy will reduce medical costs is a liar. The paperwork alone will triple the costs.

There are many doctors who are refusing to take Medicare patients now, because the paperwork is too cumbersome to manage and the payments can take a 120+ days to process.  This Bill burdens the insurance carriers and doctors, by providing greater reporting and "accountability," but "accountability" is to be determined.

It is not unreasonable to speculate that the solution to the red tape created in this Bill would later be "fixed" by creating government-run hospitals (similar to the Veteran's Administration hospitals) with no paperwork requirements--just open the doors and let everyone in.  The result would be something like the Post Office or DMV, with the "quality" of service those institutions are famous for not delivering, or the Dickensian-like monstrosities of the VA.  This is speculation of course, but it is impossible to see how creating this regulatory bureaucracy could be seen as a benefit or cost saver by anyone.  If we don't pass this Bill there would be no regulatory bureaucracy to fix, so let's just skip to the end and not do it at all.

It is just common sense.  If you add more bureaucracy, an additional layer between the consumer and the supplier, of course your costs are going to increase.  In addition, the Bill requires the establishment of a Health Commissioner and staff to handle all the paperwork, conduct studies, review insurance carriers offerings and employer insurance plans and mandate their compliance.  For what benefit?  If the goal is to cover the uninsured then create a Bill that does just that.

If the goal is to also provide bridge insurance (when someone is between jobs), there is already legislation (COBRA) that requires an insurance company to allow a person to pay their own premiums (for two years, I believe) during their unemployment period (until they have a new job with insurance).  At the point a person is uninsured (either becuase they never had insurance, they couldn't afford their COBRA, etc.), there would be a plan they could get through the Feds. If that's the goal, then write a Bill that does just that, and/or the above.  This Bill goes far beyond any of that, requiring that everyone have health insurance (and a person will be taxed for it, if they don't pay for one on their own, or are provided a government-approved plan by their employer).

I'm not recommending any of the above, only suggesting that the sound bytes about what this Bill is supposed to provide does not jive with what the Bill would create.  This Bill mandates health insurance in some form and creates a regulatory bureaucracy of all insurance carriers and employers' health care offerings.  That's not "cost savings."  That's growing the size/cost of government.

Someone, please, report me to the White House for spreading "misinformation."  Anyone who quotes the Bill could be accused of that.

Not So Fast, Einstein

In an article by Yuri Kageyama (AP Business/Yahoo! News, Nissan rolls out electric car at new headquarters, August 2, 2009):

"This car represents a real breakthrough," Ghosn told reporters and guests at a showroom in the new headquarters.

He said the new car and new office building in Yokohama, southwest of Tokyo, marked two fresh starts for Nissan, which hopes to take the lead in zero-emission vehicles.

Has the world gone completely nuts?  The car may be zero-emissions, but producing the electricity needed for it to run produces all sorts of emissions, depending on how the electricity is produced.

We have emissions from creating energy (in a gas-powered car the emissions are created when the car is driven, in electric-powered cars the emissions are created when the energy is produced).  The fact that the energy needed for this car to run is emitted before it is used in the car, doesn't mean that the car has the net result of being "zero-emission."

This is propaganda at its finest. The debate will continue about how to produce electricity (and how to produce more electricity as the need for it rises, especially if we are producing and buying cars that need electricity to run). In general, however, distributive processing is a better idea. All the combustion engine cars on the road are producing the energy they need, and are not reliant on the strained power grid. Increasing the demand on the power grid will require considerable investment, as well as produce emissions in its overhaul, and the fuel source that runs it.

If an electrical plant runs on gasoline (or fossil fuels) or coal, and a car uses the power it produces to run, is the car really zero-emission?

Of course not!  It seems that the concept of "net effect" is lost on most people.

H/t Drudge.

Dangerous?

Glenn Reynolds linked to the article below (Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, Jobless Grad Sues College for 70G Tuition, August 2, 2009) with the succinct question: Dangerous Precedent?

The Monroe College grad wants the $70,000 she spent on tuition because she hasn't found gainful employment since earning her bachelor's degree in April, according to a suit filed in Bronx Supreme Court on July 24.

If I'm reading the article correctly (and the journalist got the facts correct), Trina Thompson is suing Monroe College because they did not provide employment assistance as advertised.

Two issues make this troublesome:

1. Suing is generally a bad idea. We've become all too quick to go to the courts to settle our differences. It is not clear if Miss Thompson attempted to reconcile the problem on her own. Miss Thompson may be labeled "sue happy" and if she is, she's doomed her future success (justifiably).


2. The article's title (and the comments) make it appear that Miss Thompson is suing because she didn't feel her education was up to snuff, but that doesn't appear to be the issue on which she is basing her lawsuit. Her issue seems to be that Monroe College made promises regarding employment assistance:

The information-technology student blames Monroe's Office of Career Advancement for not providing her with the leads and career advice it promised.

At the conclusion of the article we find the basis of Miss Thompson's claim:

The college's Office of Career Advancement advertises lifetime free service for graduates, and boasts on the school's Web site: "We have many resources available for students at any stage of their college career, and even after graduation."

This is an interesting situation. If a company enters into a contract to deliver services and those services are not delivered, then a person has a right to get their money back (or sue, if the company refuses to refund the money). What makes this different, but I don't think it should, is that it is a college. Miss Thompson received an education and was awarded a degree, but it doesn't appear that Miss Thompson attended college (specifically Monroe College) with that goal in mind. She seems to believe that the education and degree were superfluous. What she was after was a guarantee of job placement and believed that Monroe College made that commitment as part of her enrollment.

It will be up to the courts to decide if Monroe College made false claims or failed to deliver a service. Further, it will be determined if the claims of providing job placement services were part of the contract Monroe College committed to as part of their enrollment agreement with Miss Thompson.

This case doesn't appear to be about the quality of education Miss Thompson received, nor does it appear to be about how qualified Miss Thompson might be as a job applicant (or how well she interviews). What is interesting is that Monroe College granted Miss Thompson a degree and it would be reasonable to conclude that the degree meant something (especially given that Miss Thompson received a technical degree in Information Technology).

If students attend college in a major that is job-training specific (as opposed to more lofty pursuits) then it seems reasonable that the degree should mean something. If it doesn't, if having the degree is not transferable to getting a job (keeping the job is another matter and up to Miss Thompson), then what value does the degree have? If it means nothing, if it doesn't translate to job offers, then the degree isn't worth the paper on which it is printed, nor should Miss Thompson have to have paid for it.

That seems reasonable to me. Colleges (and universities) have chosen to become job training centers, as opposed to educational institutions, and engage in a type of collusion with employers to require degrees for employment. Schools could have remained bastions of knowledge of Western Civilization, providing students with an education, rather than job training. But they didn't choose that. They chose to be placement centers, with large fees for their services. They should be held accountable for what they claim and what they promise, as any other business would.

As to Prof. Reynolds question: I do not think it is a dangerous precedent. It think it is an about damned time precedent. Schools have been charging ridiculous fees for sub-standard educations (often for sub par students).  It's time they're put on notice.

Miss Thompson appears to have learned something of value (whether she learned it at Monroe College or not): that when you pay for something advertised, the company must deliver those services or refund your money.  I applaud Miss Thompson's actions. Perhaps this will put the fear of God in these mostly useless institutions, and be the basis of true educational reform in this country.