Obamacare

Here are some details of Obama's proposed healthcare plan which I've summarized from an article written by Scott Gottlieb, MD of AEI:

1. Expand Medicare & enlarge State Children’s Health Ins. Program.
2. National exchange. This means offering a selection of insurance options that meet new federal standards. A “Medicare-like” public program will be one of the national options.
a. Ten year cost estimated conservatively at 1.17 Trillion.
3. “Pay or Play” tax on employers. Employers who don’t offer health insurance will be taxed. Their employees will be able to choose from a menu of closely regulated private insurance plans. Taxes on employers to assist in paying these premiums. Employers will pass this on their employees through lower wages, etc. The employers will “get theirs”. These new insurance options will be available to everyone. Employers (especially larger ones and new ones) will weigh the costs of providing insurance options or funneling employees to the “exchange” (new gov’t approved insurance) and simply pay the new tax. He hasn’t said what the new tax rate will be.
4. What are the implications for patients, providers and medical product developers? If you’re healthy and don’t qualify for Obama’s subsidies, you could face higher premiums once insurers are req’d to sell policies to everyone. Wider access to gov’t sponsored health insurance is likely to come at the price of more federal restrictions on medical treatment and access to new products. (This will be done in the name of fiscal austerity)
5. He says his plan will save families up to $2,500 on premiums due to a series of measures he says will cut health care costs. The only real example he’s given is the adoption of electronic medical records. He also references greater “efficiency” but nothing more specific.
6. He’ll try to incorporate more medicare pricing schedules into the private market. (Some doctors already won’t see medicare patients because they lose money on them)
7. ”Ample research shows the effect of price controls, and central management of services, on access and innovation: It puts a damper on both. But a growing political majority sees these kinds of centrally-planned controls as the most efficient way to extend federal health benefits to more Americans--especially the uninsured--and see the trade-off as one worth making. This trade-off rests on the false assumption that technology drives increased health care spending, when in fact it lowers long-term morbidity and costs. But Obamacare is a triumph of egalitarian piety over innovation and medical progress. Those most affected won't be Mr. Obama's "rich" Americans who can opt out of the system and its controls, but those stuck inside of it.”

My thoughts: 1. Higher taxes on employers equals lower wages to their employees. One way or another, the cost will be passed on, it's just what happens. 2. I don't like the idea so many large gov't programs. There's no convincing me we won't be paying $8.00 per tube of chapstick if the gov't is involved... They can't get anything right. 3. Customer service will suffer--it always does when competition is removed and guaranteed customers line up in the lobby. 4. Care will suffer. Doctors won't want to spend any time with their patients because they're being so poorly compensated pursuant to the terms of the medicare-type pricing. They'll need higher volume in order to stay in business since they're being paid so little per person. 5. Too much regulation equals a poorer product all the way around.

Stay tuned for my book report on McCain's healthcare plan.

Time For Some Laughter

I usually hate forwarded emails. I rarely read them and when I do, I rarely find them them worth the energy I spend clicking on my mouse to read/view them. My friend Joe forwarded this one to me and I thought it was pretty funny. That means others might laugh out loud (I did chuckle a time or two).

Click here.

It's probably old, who knows since I never click on this stuff...

We the people...

I've always thought of our Constitution as a quasi holy document--inspired by God and revered by most Americans. The words of the preamble have a very unique effect on most of us. Who doesn't feel proud and slightly emotional upon hearing "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."? While I understand our founding fathers were imperfect men, I maintain that this document--our Constitution--was inspired by God and worthy of our continued study and sustaining efforts.

There have always been fringe groups who disagree with this assertion. Most would agree that these groups never made it into the mainstream of America. A closer analysis would indicate that they didn't want to make it into the mainstream; they want to bring the mainstream to them. Radicals on either side of the fence are probably good for us as they force us to consider our thoughts, learn what we believe, and become more educated in so doing.

I never thought we'd elect a president who didn't share my feelings about The Constitution. Don't get me wrong--I don't hate Barack Obama. In fact, I think he's a lot more likeable than John McCain. He's a nice guy and probably a good husband and father. But, it has become apparent in recent days how he feels about the Constitution.

In a radio interview in 2001 he made some revealing comments. He referred to the Constitution as being "constraining" and made reference to wanting to change it--either through the courts or the legislature. He made comments that the supreme court has never addressed "redistribution of wealth" or "economic justice". He talked about the constitution "constraining" the federal government and restricting what it can do for us. He discussed his hope for change of the constitution in these regards. Here is the interview:



I feel it is clear now. The right-wing radio hosts and talking heads have been saying it for several months, but being the stubborn guy that I am, I haven't completely made up my mind until now. Barack Obama doesn't like America the way it is. He doesn't love the Constitution. I believe him when he says he's grateful for the opportunities this country has given him, but I don't believe he will defend the constitution as that very document indicates he must. How can he take the oath of office and swear to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he doesn't believe in it in the first place? As Americans, we cannot overlook this divine document. It was given to us by God. It formed the basis of the most important, most powerful, and most prosperous country in the world. When the day comes that the Constitution hangs by a thread, we will look back at this election with sadness and regret.

Why so upset?

I don't know if I think Obama is being protected by the media or not. I do find it interesting that his campaign got so upset over this interview and advised the TV station they are banned from future interviews:


Seriously, is the media not allowed to ask Obama/Biden tough questions?

Does anyone else thing this is so bad that they should be banned from further interviews with the Obama compaign? Is it just me?

Update Oct. 27: Apparently the video I copied is no longer available due to a copyright claim by WFTV Channel 9. It has raised quite a stink since I first heard the clip. Barbara Brown is scheduled to be on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. I'm sure that will polarize the issue even more. I attached another link. Who knows how long this one will stay up.

Could the US go bankrupt?

I heard recently that Iceland went bankrupt. Frankly, I didn’t think much about it. I don’t know of anything good or bad that comes from Iceland so I didn’t have much reason to care, I guess. I can never remember if Iceland is really the green one or if that’s really Greenland. So confusing. Anyway, I also saw an article on google news (that’s the newspaper of my generation—who needs newspapers anymore?) describing how the national debt clock near Times Square had to come down to add more digits. We’re over ten trillion now in case you hadn’t heard. That got me thinking.

I’ve heard comments about the national debt on the evening news since I was a little kid. Just like I remember the news showing crazy nut-jobs with full beards riding around in Toyota pickup trucks waiving AK 47’s all over Afghanistan during the 80’s. Does anyone else remember stuff like that? Anyway, back to the post…

So the national debt is different from the budget deficit. I guess you can have a balanced budget or a budget deficit for a particular period of time. But, the national debt continues to accumulate. Here’s an informative graph:



So what’s the big deal? We’ve had national debt as long as anyone reading this has been alive. Apparently it hasn’t been a “good time to pay for stuff now” (Lincoln H.) in quite some time.

Here’s how it would work if our household was the government. Emily and I decide we want to buy a gold plated toilet for our house. We kinda-sorta review our budget, but clearly we can’t afford it. Rather than choosing a nice “toilet-to-go” from Lowes, we decide to take out a loan for the shiny gold throne. We find a friendly person with lots of money to loan us the dough we need, and we get the new one delivered. We’re happy but we’re paying interest on the loan (debt held by the public.). It’s ok with our friend though, because he knows we have a steady income and we’ll make the payments. After a while, I decide I just can’t live without the aquarium wall I’ve always wanted. You know—those aquariums built into the wall of your house—man those are cool. It just doesn’t seem right that I shouldn’t get it—after all, I’ve always wanted one and that should be enough. We look at the budget again to see if there’s anything we could do to make it happen. I think about borrowing from Emily’s slush fund (intragovernmental debt, like taking from social security, etc) but there isn’t enough there to make it happen. We’ll use that on other stuff we shouldn’t. So, we throw an ad up on the web saying we need some money and we’re willing to pay 8% interest on it. We find a taker (probably from Japan or China—those are the two biggest lenders to the US) and make it happen.

After a while, we realize we should probably stop borrowing money since we’re in so much debt. We have a family council (session of congress) and we set a limit (law) on how high we’ll let the family debt continue to rise. We don’t do anything about the reckless spending though and it just continues. Rather than cutting spending or getting a higher paying job (raising taxes, kind of) we just borrow more money. We hold more family councils and decide the family debt needs to be addressed so we set a new limit on how high we’ll let it get. That pretty much means nothing by now, but we continue to do it. I do get some raises (higher GDP, higher taxes, etc.) in the mean time, but we all know no matter how much we make, we never have enough. The spending continues and pretty soon, we’re paying more on interest than anything else. Emily thinks we should stop spending so much and start paying the debt down, but I figure I’ll just get a better job (raise taxes) and continue borrowing. After all, there are so many things that have to be paid (mandatory expenses like Medicare, Medicaid, social security, etc.) and so many others that I want to buy (like social programs, funding for neat bridges, etc.). Before long, we’re just used to it and we only talk about it when we’re deciding who’s going to run the family councils or when we hit a neat bench mark like $10,000,000,000,000,00.

Ok, so that’s overly simplistic, but how far off the mark is it when we get right down to the bottom line? The only way to stop the nonsense is to curb the spending. The government borrows from its own citizens, internationals, other governments, etc. It even borrows from itself which we know destroys programs like social security. BTW, social security is not a tax. So many people think it's just another tax and don't understand why income over $112k(or whatever) isn't "taxed".

The spending has to stop. Eventually, we’ll be paying nothing but the interest and the lending will dry up. I don’t want to get “all conspiracy theorist” and all, but I could see this leading to trouble with certain other countries… My conclusion is this is a big problem and it’s not getting enough attention. President Bush royally failed us on this one. The gold toilet he’s sitting on sure chaps my hide. Hopefully he likes it.

(Note: this is a typical blog—probably full of errors and not very well researched)

Confession

I have a confession to make--I'm jealous of the democrats in this country. Not because they're going to win the White House or senate or congress... I'm jealous of them because they have someone to be excited about. They have a good speaker and a smooth guy who espouses their ideals in a charismatic, inspiring way. Inspiring to them anyway.

After the RNC, I was hopeful that conservatives might have someone to get excited about. Palin was folksy and down-home, but she did seem to relate to the average person and she threw some zingers out there as well. I was hopeful but reserved. I was afraid she would get destroyed by Biden in the debate so I was withholding judgment until later. I wanted to see how smart she seemed in the debates. Did she have good speech writers, a nice smile, and pleasant personality, but not much else, or was she the whole deal? Biden played the debates perfectly in my opinion. He resisted his natural tendency to be a snotty, condescending jerk and just let Palin hang herself. I was extremely surprised to hear the pundits opine that she hadn't done so poorly--I thought she was terrible. She didn't sound intelligent. She kept going back to her talking points and did so with no elegance whatsoever. She wasn't on top of the issues and didn't make the come backs I wanted her to. She doesn't feel executive and doesn't inspire confidence.

John McCain screwed up again. While I still think Palin's a good person and good for conservative values, I don't think she was the right pick. I imagine that McCain figured he would attract all the independents himself, so he needed someone to appeal to the displeased conservative base. Let's face it--no hard core, gun toting, bible reading conservative is ever going to vote for Obama. That being the case, why even worry about the base? The truth is that McCain doesn't appeal to many independents. His smug smirk, grouchy demeanor, and out of touch persona doesn't appeal to ANYBODY as far as I can tell.

So, there it is--I've confessed. How we got in this mess is beyond me.

Recovered Gem

So Emily's making me clean up the basement, throw things away, and install shelves--thanks to her obsession with food storage and emergency prep. I'm sure you'll see that riveting stuff on her blog... But, I did finally pull the hard drive (a whopping 3 gig drive!) out of the old computer to rescue the photos.

Here's a beauty:



I have no idea where it came from but it reminds me of a guy I saw here in Fort Wayne a few years ago. This dude was riding a bike similar to this one, only he had strapped a plastic lawn chair to the back of it so his German shepherd could ride along. The dog looked right at home--he even posed for me as I pulled my work camera out and took their picture. I'll have to see if I can find that one...

These two deserve the stupid of the year award. I love how they both have helmets on. I don't know what there is to protect between those ears, given their obvious stupidity.

Barney Frank needs an intervention.

When I heard Barney's comments today, I found myself yelling at the radio again... While it must be entertaining to my fellow drivers, it can't be good for my blood pressure. Since this topic irks me more than just about any, it's the subject of today's post.

Ladies and gentleman, here's Barney:



Now, why this bothers me so much I'm not totally sure. I'm not likely any time soon (if ever...) to find myself in the targeted tax bracket. I should probably adopt the same attitude that so many other americans have taken lately: "if it doesn't affect me, then who cares" or "what's in it for me."

How can anyone think that stealing money from private parties, families, and small businesses to bail out failed government policies is the morally correct thing to do. Government has very few responsibilities in my opinion, including keeping us safe and not much else. If the world became such a dangerous place that I needed to pay more in taxes in order to keep my freedom, I would understand that. But to tax us just so our miserable government can get bigger and more miserable is unfathomable to me.

"I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money."

As far as I'm concerned this is legalized stealing. I hope he's planning to repent after he plans to steal from us.

What's wrong here?

Pic from a hurricane katrina claim I handled. Notice anything askew?

Time to be GREEDY or FEARFUL?

"A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful."

--Warren Buffet

Here's what the market (DOW) has done in the last 2 weeks:

-127.04
+401.35
-733.08
-76.62
+936.42
-128.00
-678.91
-189.01
-508.39
-369.88
-157.47
-348.22
-19.59

That's a total change of -1,998.44 or nearly 20% just in the last 2 weeks.

Warren Buffet would tell us to invest now... Anyone out there feel like doing that???

Who cares about Bill Ayres?

Just a guy from the neighborhood? Just another run of the mill university liberal? A small piece of the Obamanation?


William Ayres, 63, University of Chicago Professor (elementary education theory). Son of late Commonwealth Edison (largest electric utility in Illinois) CEO Thomas G. Ayers. Attended the University of Michigan.


Question: What makes him controversial?


Answer: He was an active member of the Weather Underground.


For those of us fortunate ones that weren't alive in the sixties (thank Heaven a million times over), here's the skinny: This was a radical group of anti-Vietnam protestors that thought it would be groovy to bomb the Pentagon, US Capitol, and other government buildings. Some say there were no deaths; however, the preponderance of evidence suggests there were. Nice that they didn't have real jobs to hold down (thanks to their rich parents) or families to support, or countries to protect--those things really would have put the damper on all the bombing fun... Anyway, Ayres spent the 70's as a fugitive before finally surrendering in 1980. Why didn't this upstanding young man go to jail you ask? Apparently incompetent police investigation (illegal surveillance). That's a discussion for another day...


So what's the link to Obama? Well, Mr. Ayres eventually became a prof at the University of Chicago and lived in the same 'hood as Obama. This is where the truth becomes more difficult to discern.


Barry was an up and coming politician in Chicago when he met Ayres. What we know for sure is that Ayres held a fund raiser/"mix-and-mingle" for Obama in his home. This was at the very beginning of his political career. McCain tells us that he "launched his political career" at this event. Obama denies this vehemently crying foul. Some say he "launched his political career" in a hotel or some such place. It's splitting hairs from here so we'll move on...


Unfortunately for us(or maybe not), the association doesn't end there. Obama and Ayres served on at least two boards together. In case you didn't know, that's what cool, important people do to fill their time and feel fulfilled--serve on boards... These include the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago (A grantmaking foundation whose goal is to increase opportunities for less-advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area. Woodsfund.org) and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (A Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago's public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation. Wikipedia). Undoubtedly, they attended events together, sat in council together, and interacted as you would if you were on boards together.


So, does any of this really matter to us? While it bothers me that he chooses such unsavory characters as colleagues, friends, and mentors (more to come on that in another post), I'm not really sure that it does. As an aside, I think Ayres is a dirt bag who admits he doesn't regret all the psychedelic bombing and wishes he'd done more (not sure if he meant more bombing or more in general, i.e. "helping the world" as only the 60's & 70's hippies can) as told in a NY Times interview done in 2001--great timing there Billy--to advertise his book (Fugitive Days, 2001). But anyway, back to Obama. I honestly don't feel like they were best buddies and I don't think the guy is a threat to society today. I'd rather they weren't associates at all and I don't believe Obama is telling us the truth regarding the extent of their associations. However, I also recognize that as a politician and a liberal in Chicago, you're likely to cross paths with less than upstanding folks. I do believe Obama when he says Ayres isn't forming policy for him or advising him on important matters. Obama probably didn't know all about Ayres when he first met him, and even if he did, he was trying to get elected, right?

On the bright side, having experience hangin' out with terrorists might make Obama more qualified for his face to face, no pre-requisites meetings with the likes of Ahmadinejad. That should make us all feel better.

The Plumber Exposes the Truth...

I spent a couple years living in Brazil. During that time, I walked all over the city of Sao Paulo. There was always something interesting to see and smell... Everything seemed exhotic, even though I didn't really know the details of what I was seeing or smelling...

Years later, I found myself dealing with a plumbing problem in our 75 year old house. We had a basement with a floor drain in the old place that was backing up--and getting worse all the time. Being the do-it-yourselfer that I am, I did what I could to diagnose the problem myself. That meant checking the various drain pipes leading to the floor, etc. Periodically I'd get a whiff of something that really made me feel like I was back in Brazil. You know what they say about the sense of smell and our memories... Anyway, after some speculation on what was happening, I decided to do an experiment. I found some red food coloring and squirted the whole bottle into the toilet upstairs and repeatedly flushed the toilet. Sure enough, the water that seemed to be getting higher in the basement suddenly turned red... It all made sense at that moment. I had been walking through, well, you-know-what, all that time in Sao Paulo... I suddenly didn't feel so good about wearing flip-flops either... The truth was exposed...

This week a real plumber exposed another truth. Here's the story: "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

The truth is finally exposed. Obama is a socialist. In spite of how angry I've been at the lack of outrage we've seen from the public, I'm glad the truth is finally offered from the man himself.

We're going to need a lot more plumbers during the next four years and anyone who dares to wear flip-flops does so at their own risk...