Right now almost one third of the Federal Budget is for Medicare and Medicaid and that quantity of spending actually comprises over 5% of our economy. Just imagine that a full third of your tax burden right now is already going to pay for a program that most tax payers do not benefit from. On top of that realize that conservative estimates put that 10% of Medicare and Medicaid payments are fraudulent.
We wonder why the U.S. spends so much on healthcare?? It is because the government basically forces us to! Aside from the built in 10% fraud that is occurring in the Medicare and Medicaid system there is also all the money being spent on mental health drugs - drugs that treat illnesses for which there is no physical diagnosis and for which there is no cure, only limitless treatments with drugs. If you don't think that is important consider this report about Medicaid expenditures in the state of Texas:
“According to a report on the state's Medicaid Vendor Drug Program, mental health drugs made up the largest category of expenditures among the top 200 drugs in 1999. They accounted for nearly $148 million. Those costs have more than doubled since1996.”
“For the proposed 2002-2003 budget, lawmakers have increased by $1 billion theamount of money allocated to health and human services. A significant portion of that will go for medications,officialssaid.”
So if you are thinking all that Medicare and Medicaid money is going to treat people with broken bones, cancer, heart disease and things like that - think again.
This brings us to the next point. It seems that if you open the tax payers' wallets to health care expenditure it is certain that someone will reach in there an take it.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Stimulus Success
It has been great this morning listening to CNN commentators argue about whether the stimulus created jobs or not. The point of these programs seems to be to discredit people who are saying the stimulus didn't create any jobs by bringing up isolated companies and how they got money and hired some people. As usual what is considered the "main stream" media is way off the point. I think even my 5 year old daughter could take $100 billion and wind up creating a bunch of jobs. The question is whether this was effective legislation to fix the problems with the country's economy.
So really what do we know? The net loss of jobs appears to have been around 6 million and the unemployment rate, even when taking a "rosey" view of it is over 10% right now. We have a huge national debt and our entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are constant sources uncontrolled public expense that basically threaten all private citizens and businesses. In other words anyone deciding to create a life or a business in this country knows they will automatically inherit huge expenses beyond their control. Many states have saved public sector jobs with stimulus dollars - jobs that will wind up unfunded when the stimulus runs out.
In the end has our government done what it takes to address the underlying problems? Did stimulus dollars just rob from Peter to give to Paul? Did the $100 billion spent result in more in added value to the American people than $100 billion plus whatever interest will have to be paid on that money?
These are the questions that we need answered.
So really what do we know? The net loss of jobs appears to have been around 6 million and the unemployment rate, even when taking a "rosey" view of it is over 10% right now. We have a huge national debt and our entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are constant sources uncontrolled public expense that basically threaten all private citizens and businesses. In other words anyone deciding to create a life or a business in this country knows they will automatically inherit huge expenses beyond their control. Many states have saved public sector jobs with stimulus dollars - jobs that will wind up unfunded when the stimulus runs out.
In the end has our government done what it takes to address the underlying problems? Did stimulus dollars just rob from Peter to give to Paul? Did the $100 billion spent result in more in added value to the American people than $100 billion plus whatever interest will have to be paid on that money?
These are the questions that we need answered.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Left and Right - the Political Conundrum
As I have been getting myself more and more worked up reading about how Goldman Sachs and other bankers basically fleeced every single tax paying American right in our faces and how our government opened up OUR checkbooks making it all possible I think about the Enlightenment in France and the struggle of the common folk against the aristocracy. That struggle ended with the people of France rising up and cutting the heads off of a lot of arrogant aristocrats in the bloodiest revolution known to man.
First - if you are not totally pissed at our politicians who have sold their souls to banking and healthcare special interests you need to wake up. Do you really think that defaults on what amounts to 20% of the subprime mortgage market that makes up only a quarter of the entire mortgage market was going to cause a total failure of the banking system? By the way those are generous figures. Folks, we were robbed by a scam and it was our elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, that provided the pipeline to suck the money out of our pockets and put it in the hands of these criminals.
Also, do you think that a several thousand page healthcare legislation that was crafted by healthcare lobbyist was ever going to benefit the people? That didn't pass (yet) but it doesn't really matter because healthcare special interests already have enough political clout at the state level to continue to fleece us via our taxes and Medicare payments.
The coining of the terms Left and Right politics came from the Enlightenment period in France when the aristocrats sat to the right of the king and representatives of the people sat on the left of the king. During that time period those on the left were tired of special treatment and benefits those on the right were receiving at the expense of the people. Today we have a similar struggle. There are special interests that use our elected officials to guide money from our pockets into their own and there are those elected officials in both parties that facilitate this activity.
Today political discussion likes to refer to Democrats as leftists and Republicans on the right but this is totally false. Right now both Republicans and Democrats are on the right because they refuse to take effective action to break the stronghold of special interests. Another misleading concept is that big government, socialism and communism are left wing concepts. History has shown us that big government ALWAYS winds up serving special interests at the expense of the people. Sometimes, in the case of communism, it is the politicians themselves who simply become aristocrats who use the state police forces to maintain their power.
Left wing politics would be politics designed to protect the rights and opportunity of all and favor none. It could never enact entitlements as entitlements always take more from some and benefit more others thus favoring one public sector over another. It also has the side effect of enslaving to a certain degree those that receive the benefits and starts to favor the politicians who give the benefits because they, as the "slave owners", now have a group of people who will vote for them to keep the entitlement they have grown dependent on.
First - if you are not totally pissed at our politicians who have sold their souls to banking and healthcare special interests you need to wake up. Do you really think that defaults on what amounts to 20% of the subprime mortgage market that makes up only a quarter of the entire mortgage market was going to cause a total failure of the banking system? By the way those are generous figures. Folks, we were robbed by a scam and it was our elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, that provided the pipeline to suck the money out of our pockets and put it in the hands of these criminals.
Also, do you think that a several thousand page healthcare legislation that was crafted by healthcare lobbyist was ever going to benefit the people? That didn't pass (yet) but it doesn't really matter because healthcare special interests already have enough political clout at the state level to continue to fleece us via our taxes and Medicare payments.
The coining of the terms Left and Right politics came from the Enlightenment period in France when the aristocrats sat to the right of the king and representatives of the people sat on the left of the king. During that time period those on the left were tired of special treatment and benefits those on the right were receiving at the expense of the people. Today we have a similar struggle. There are special interests that use our elected officials to guide money from our pockets into their own and there are those elected officials in both parties that facilitate this activity.
Today political discussion likes to refer to Democrats as leftists and Republicans on the right but this is totally false. Right now both Republicans and Democrats are on the right because they refuse to take effective action to break the stronghold of special interests. Another misleading concept is that big government, socialism and communism are left wing concepts. History has shown us that big government ALWAYS winds up serving special interests at the expense of the people. Sometimes, in the case of communism, it is the politicians themselves who simply become aristocrats who use the state police forces to maintain their power.
Left wing politics would be politics designed to protect the rights and opportunity of all and favor none. It could never enact entitlements as entitlements always take more from some and benefit more others thus favoring one public sector over another. It also has the side effect of enslaving to a certain degree those that receive the benefits and starts to favor the politicians who give the benefits because they, as the "slave owners", now have a group of people who will vote for them to keep the entitlement they have grown dependent on.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Michael Smerconish & President Obama
I just have to sound off about Philadelphia talk show host Michael Smerconish and his interview with President Obama yesterday.
First off, Michael's radio show is one of the best talk radio shows on the air. Unlike Rush and Glenn Beck and these other guys - Michael actually has an honest point of view on subjects instead of simply being against everything President Obama and the Democrats are doing. He actually supported Obama during the election despite being a Republican. He falls into the category of "conservative talk radio" but that is not really accurate.
During the interview President Obama was asked about the government takeover of the car industry, banks and health care. In his answer the President made the statement about how the Government has done helpful things and cited the enactment of Social Security and Medicare as examples. He made the statement that people protested those as Socialism but now that they have it they scream anytime someone tries to get rid of it.
Precisely Mr. President! That is exactly the point! Social Security is about to go bankrupt and will inevitably lead to higher taxes. It is the biggest ponzi scheme out there - it works the same way Bernie Madoff's scheme worked. Medicare is in the same boat - well it's not a ponzi scheme but it has set us up for higher deficits and higher taxes. Both of those programs ARE socialistic and are now a huge burden on our society and are very difficult to get rid of. They are also huge political tools - politicians know they have a built in voting public in those people who are dependent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Why would we want more of that?
People were correct to protest those programs back then as they are correct in protesting further expansion of government sponsored entitlements now. These things are very insidious. Which brings us to the next point: is President Obama involved in some conspiracy to have government control every aspect of our lives? I don't know but I don't think so. Rather he is misguided.
It can certainly seem great when a populace turns over power to an intelligent and benevolent person and he does a lot of good with that power. Especially when he uses that power to do something you like! But what is often not looked at is after that power has been granted to an institution (like the Presidency) it opens the door to potential malevolent use of that power. Too often we see government programs seemingly meant to be helpful get used to the profit of special interests and the harm of the populace. The truly large special interests love socialism, fascism and communism - they all involve central political control of large amounts of people/markets. Such special interests already have politicians in their pockets and use the governments power to suppress competition and free markets that threaten their interests. As a matter of fact that is already happening in our health care system. There is no free market and insurance companies are being regulated already and one aspect of that regulation is that they are forced to cover certain medical procedures and drugs that are ineffective at best and profit motivated.
Don't you think it is interesting that Big Pharma has already struck a deal with the current administration in terms of what will happen in health care reform? And guess what - part of that deal is to curtail competition!
We already know that the large special interests in that industry have infected both sides of the aisle. In the end they seem to be playing us like fools - damned if we take the currently proposed health insurance reform and damned if we stay with the same thing. They don't care. It is interesting to see both Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of being in Big Pharma's pockets. I guess that's the most honest thing happening out there!
First off, Michael's radio show is one of the best talk radio shows on the air. Unlike Rush and Glenn Beck and these other guys - Michael actually has an honest point of view on subjects instead of simply being against everything President Obama and the Democrats are doing. He actually supported Obama during the election despite being a Republican. He falls into the category of "conservative talk radio" but that is not really accurate.
During the interview President Obama was asked about the government takeover of the car industry, banks and health care. In his answer the President made the statement about how the Government has done helpful things and cited the enactment of Social Security and Medicare as examples. He made the statement that people protested those as Socialism but now that they have it they scream anytime someone tries to get rid of it.
Precisely Mr. President! That is exactly the point! Social Security is about to go bankrupt and will inevitably lead to higher taxes. It is the biggest ponzi scheme out there - it works the same way Bernie Madoff's scheme worked. Medicare is in the same boat - well it's not a ponzi scheme but it has set us up for higher deficits and higher taxes. Both of those programs ARE socialistic and are now a huge burden on our society and are very difficult to get rid of. They are also huge political tools - politicians know they have a built in voting public in those people who are dependent on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Why would we want more of that?
People were correct to protest those programs back then as they are correct in protesting further expansion of government sponsored entitlements now. These things are very insidious. Which brings us to the next point: is President Obama involved in some conspiracy to have government control every aspect of our lives? I don't know but I don't think so. Rather he is misguided.
It can certainly seem great when a populace turns over power to an intelligent and benevolent person and he does a lot of good with that power. Especially when he uses that power to do something you like! But what is often not looked at is after that power has been granted to an institution (like the Presidency) it opens the door to potential malevolent use of that power. Too often we see government programs seemingly meant to be helpful get used to the profit of special interests and the harm of the populace. The truly large special interests love socialism, fascism and communism - they all involve central political control of large amounts of people/markets. Such special interests already have politicians in their pockets and use the governments power to suppress competition and free markets that threaten their interests. As a matter of fact that is already happening in our health care system. There is no free market and insurance companies are being regulated already and one aspect of that regulation is that they are forced to cover certain medical procedures and drugs that are ineffective at best and profit motivated.
Don't you think it is interesting that Big Pharma has already struck a deal with the current administration in terms of what will happen in health care reform? And guess what - part of that deal is to curtail competition!
We already know that the large special interests in that industry have infected both sides of the aisle. In the end they seem to be playing us like fools - damned if we take the currently proposed health insurance reform and damned if we stay with the same thing. They don't care. It is interesting to see both Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of being in Big Pharma's pockets. I guess that's the most honest thing happening out there!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Healthcare. Paul Krugman and Switzerland
Last Sunday New York Times columnist Paul Krugman criticized the U.S. health care system making statements about how great socialized medicine is in other countries like Canada, Britain, France etc. He even cited the health care system of Switzerland as being an improvement over the U.S. system.
I guess it is not obvious to these pedantic columnists that looking at systems being used in countries with one-fifth (or much less) the population of the U.S. might not be the brightest thing to do. Switzerland barely has a population larger than the Philadelphia metro region and certainly lacks the cultural diversity. That can be said of Canada, Britain and France as well which have larger populations but still don't come to more than 25% of the U.S. population. None of those countries touch the religious, ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.
Think about it - here one big fight with the public option is about whether abortions will be covered. Many U.S. citizens find abortion immoral and don't want the Government forcing them to pay for it under any circumstances. I am not expressing any opinion on that issue but this country was founded on freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Wouldn't the Federal Government forcing a Catholic to pay for an abortion through tax funded subsidies be a violation of church and state? What about another "religion" in this country that promotes abortion because they want to control population explosions amongst the "undesirables" in society (take a guess who those are and if you don't believe me Google Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood). Those interests won't rest if abortion is not covered by the government plan. One could argue that they are using the government to forward their "church". In other words we have many different cultural and religious factions and health care choices are often modified by religious belief and cultural preferences. Trying to get a consensus for a large federal insurance plan that all tax payers will be forced to contribute to is simply not possible.
So how do we deal with that? Well if instead of moving toward a more socialized system for health care we moved to a free market system for health care then you get to decide for yourself. The problem of skyrocketing health care costs can be directly traced as coming from the limitations on competition resulting from the current government regulation. Do we really want more of that?
Our nation is not like the European nations and was founded on principles that promote diversity and freedom of choice. I for one want to keep it that way. After all if you want European socialism you are free to move to Europe and enjoy the security they offer. Me, I'd rather have my freedom and that includes the freedom to choose where my money gets spent.
I guess it is not obvious to these pedantic columnists that looking at systems being used in countries with one-fifth (or much less) the population of the U.S. might not be the brightest thing to do. Switzerland barely has a population larger than the Philadelphia metro region and certainly lacks the cultural diversity. That can be said of Canada, Britain and France as well which have larger populations but still don't come to more than 25% of the U.S. population. None of those countries touch the religious, ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.
Think about it - here one big fight with the public option is about whether abortions will be covered. Many U.S. citizens find abortion immoral and don't want the Government forcing them to pay for it under any circumstances. I am not expressing any opinion on that issue but this country was founded on freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Wouldn't the Federal Government forcing a Catholic to pay for an abortion through tax funded subsidies be a violation of church and state? What about another "religion" in this country that promotes abortion because they want to control population explosions amongst the "undesirables" in society (take a guess who those are and if you don't believe me Google Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood). Those interests won't rest if abortion is not covered by the government plan. One could argue that they are using the government to forward their "church". In other words we have many different cultural and religious factions and health care choices are often modified by religious belief and cultural preferences. Trying to get a consensus for a large federal insurance plan that all tax payers will be forced to contribute to is simply not possible.
So how do we deal with that? Well if instead of moving toward a more socialized system for health care we moved to a free market system for health care then you get to decide for yourself. The problem of skyrocketing health care costs can be directly traced as coming from the limitations on competition resulting from the current government regulation. Do we really want more of that?
Our nation is not like the European nations and was founded on principles that promote diversity and freedom of choice. I for one want to keep it that way. After all if you want European socialism you are free to move to Europe and enjoy the security they offer. Me, I'd rather have my freedom and that includes the freedom to choose where my money gets spent.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Health Care Reform: Real Change
Being bombarded constantly with the health care reform or more aptly - health insurance reform - I can't help but voice my frustration. Perhaps it will help me feel better. Now I am a bit of a radical and the change I propose would be real change. People are advocating for single payer insurance (where there is only one large insurance entity thus only one entity that pays health care bills) or continuing with the current multi-payer system. The real problem here is that both of those systems are still third party payer systems. In other words the person seeking health care is not the one paying for the service.
This is the root of the problem and we are not even looking in that direction! Believe me you do not want someone else paying for your health care. A third party by nature has in their main interest controlling cost. Health care providers like doctors are then put in the position of having to satisfy the requirements of the third party provider rather than the patient.
Why not set up health insurance just like any other insurance like life insurance where you can purchase fixed amounts of coverage based on what illness you might contract? Should you develop some illness you would receive a lump some payment to help pay for the costs of curing your illness. This would have a couple of effects: First it places a much greater focus on coming up with cures for illnesses rather than treatments. A patient would not be limited in any sense to where they seek treatment and payments to doctors would come in cash from the patient. This would save a ton of money in administrative costs. It also now makes the healthcare industry compete for payments from the party most interested in getting cured - the patient. Insurance companies can also manage their exposure to risk better - they will always know their exposure when someone gets an illness - which will help them offer better plans.
The last thing we want is the government to become the single payer for health care. Why? Because the government has the power by law to force us to pay for things we may not want. It is the only set up where healthcare costs can continue to explode and we would have to pay for it by law! Is that really a situation you want to be in? Factually it is "more of the same" of the system we already have in place.
So lets bring about real change for our health care system - don't bring about single payer or stay with any variation of third party payer like employer based group healthcare plans. ce.
This is the root of the problem and we are not even looking in that direction! Believe me you do not want someone else paying for your health care. A third party by nature has in their main interest controlling cost. Health care providers like doctors are then put in the position of having to satisfy the requirements of the third party provider rather than the patient.
Why not set up health insurance just like any other insurance like life insurance where you can purchase fixed amounts of coverage based on what illness you might contract? Should you develop some illness you would receive a lump some payment to help pay for the costs of curing your illness. This would have a couple of effects: First it places a much greater focus on coming up with cures for illnesses rather than treatments. A patient would not be limited in any sense to where they seek treatment and payments to doctors would come in cash from the patient. This would save a ton of money in administrative costs. It also now makes the healthcare industry compete for payments from the party most interested in getting cured - the patient. Insurance companies can also manage their exposure to risk better - they will always know their exposure when someone gets an illness - which will help them offer better plans.
The last thing we want is the government to become the single payer for health care. Why? Because the government has the power by law to force us to pay for things we may not want. It is the only set up where healthcare costs can continue to explode and we would have to pay for it by law! Is that really a situation you want to be in? Factually it is "more of the same" of the system we already have in place.
So lets bring about real change for our health care system - don't bring about single payer or stay with any variation of third party payer like employer based group healthcare plans. ce.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Happy Independenc Day
It was an emotional moment last night as I watched the fireworks here in Philadelphia.
After all here is where around 225 years ago our Founding Fathers and the citizens they represented decided to lay their lives on the line to fight for freedom. What would you do today if you were asked to do the same? Many of these citizens had comfortable prosperous lives. They had children and various other comforts. The punishment for the "treason" they were about to commit was death.
As some of our politicians and various vested interests use public relations techniques to push us towards greater entitlements keep in mind that with all government provided entitlements comes a loss of freedom.
In the past two years, in both the previous administration and the current, we have seen the government apparently, and in our name, basically say that there are some companies that are entitled to succeed: various investment banks, AIG, General Motors to name a few. We watched the resulting government intervention that came as a result of the public outrage at bonuses these companies made, retreats they had planned, that they used their corporate airplanes and more. The intervention to "right these wrongs" of course cost us of a reduction of the free market.
Increasingly it seems we are pushed to believe that a government exists to provide an increasing number of entitlements to protect us from the risks of life. Currently the big one is health care. My understanding is that our Founding Fathers set up government to provide certain entitlements including: The right to choose and follow a religion of your choice, to speak your opinions and beliefs freely, to pursue happiness as you see fit. Inherent in these rights is that you might make a choice in religion that others don't agree with, you might say things that others don't like and you may make bad choices in your pursuit of happiness that result in illness, failure or death.
In this country people can live better than anywhere else in the world. They are also free to make choices that will result in a pretty bad condition for them. It is true that our government does not provide the same level of safety as other governments. Do we a citizenry want it to at the expense of our liberty? Is it even capable of doing that or will we just lose liberty for not much more security than we currently have? Keep in mind that our government had all the regulatory power in place to prevent the banking fraud that is now causing our hardship. We spent (wasted) money on that regulation for the apparency of safety. To rephrase - money came out of your pocket, money you could have used to further your chosen pursuit of happiness, and went to attempting to guarantee your safety from a fraudulent banking system.
I will end with a quote from one of our Founding Fathers:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
After all here is where around 225 years ago our Founding Fathers and the citizens they represented decided to lay their lives on the line to fight for freedom. What would you do today if you were asked to do the same? Many of these citizens had comfortable prosperous lives. They had children and various other comforts. The punishment for the "treason" they were about to commit was death.
As some of our politicians and various vested interests use public relations techniques to push us towards greater entitlements keep in mind that with all government provided entitlements comes a loss of freedom.
In the past two years, in both the previous administration and the current, we have seen the government apparently, and in our name, basically say that there are some companies that are entitled to succeed: various investment banks, AIG, General Motors to name a few. We watched the resulting government intervention that came as a result of the public outrage at bonuses these companies made, retreats they had planned, that they used their corporate airplanes and more. The intervention to "right these wrongs" of course cost us of a reduction of the free market.
Increasingly it seems we are pushed to believe that a government exists to provide an increasing number of entitlements to protect us from the risks of life. Currently the big one is health care. My understanding is that our Founding Fathers set up government to provide certain entitlements including: The right to choose and follow a religion of your choice, to speak your opinions and beliefs freely, to pursue happiness as you see fit. Inherent in these rights is that you might make a choice in religion that others don't agree with, you might say things that others don't like and you may make bad choices in your pursuit of happiness that result in illness, failure or death.
In this country people can live better than anywhere else in the world. They are also free to make choices that will result in a pretty bad condition for them. It is true that our government does not provide the same level of safety as other governments. Do we a citizenry want it to at the expense of our liberty? Is it even capable of doing that or will we just lose liberty for not much more security than we currently have? Keep in mind that our government had all the regulatory power in place to prevent the banking fraud that is now causing our hardship. We spent (wasted) money on that regulation for the apparency of safety. To rephrase - money came out of your pocket, money you could have used to further your chosen pursuit of happiness, and went to attempting to guarantee your safety from a fraudulent banking system.
I will end with a quote from one of our Founding Fathers:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)