Why ObamaCare is doomed

Now that things are becoming clearer....

Don't get distracted by the problems with Obama's Facebook Page Healthcare website.  Here is why Obamacare is doomed.  I've been preaching this same sermon for about two years.  Hit the Healthcare and Obamacare links to your right for more rants repeating the same tiresome thing, some longer, some shorter. 

Insurance guards you against the bad thing that hasn't happened yet.  If you pay a set amount of money to an insurance company every month or every quarter, they will make good your losses should the bad thing happen.  (Your house burns, you get a rare disease, or you wreck you car.)

We would never expect an insurance company to insure, and then pay for, a house that has already burned, or a car that has already been wrecked.  If that car that Paul Walker recently died it wasn't insured, no one is going to insure it now that it has been wadded into a heap of aluminum and burned.  But because the American Electorate has the collective intelligence of a pack of lemmings, we now expect insurance companies to blindly pay for a lifetime of medical treatment for anyone with one month's premiums in hand. 

If a homeowner's insurance company can't take a pass on someone whose home has already burned, they are no longer in the insurance business.  They are overseeing a wealth transfer. 

Obamacare declares that insurance companies can't turn away anyone with a pre-existing condition.  You can sign up for insurance in the freakin' ambulance. 

Therefore, insurance is now unnecessary.  No 25-year-old is going to sign up for it with his own money.  The fine costs less than a tenth of most insurance.   

I repeat....  Insurance is now unnecessary.  The kids aren't going to buy it.   

Second, things are more expensive when they are scarce, and they're less expensive when they are common.  Obamacare creates 16,000 new IRS agents, but no new doctors, nurses, or pill-producers. 

This is going to be a disaster of Biblical proportions. 

Hide and watch. 

 

ObamaCare in two charts

Here's your first chart, explaining how much your premiums will likely rise.  It was put together by the Society of Actuaries.  (You can go here to read what the sent to the Wall Street Journal editors about our upcoming healthcare debacle.  Good stuff.) 

Here's the 2nd chart, explaining WHY your premiums are likely to rise.  It was put together by some Republican Congressman's staff.  And I bet they had a great time doing it. 

I hope these help.  Don't get sick. 

Jesus and Ayn Rand

A friend of mine sent out a group email about Ayn Rand a few days ago.  The recipients were mostly church members.  Here’s the gist of it…..

A few days ago, (spouse) and I watched a documentary about the life and work of Ayn Rand.  She summed up her philosophy in two words:  objective reality.  Even though her parents were Jewish, at about age 10, she confided to her diary that she was an atheist.   Possibly she used objective reality because, leaving The Soviet Union in 1926, she saw how propaganda and coercion could create false reality and control people.  She abhorred altruism, the idea on which Communism and Nazism were able to function by convincing people that the individual is unimportant, that only the group, the nation is worthy of dedication.  She believed each person should pursue self interest openly without deception.

Is it possible that, when we do something good or charitable, we do so in order to feel better about ourselves, to earn approval of our peer group or, in some cases,  to earn a reward after death?  If true, it would mean the person doing good is acting on enlightened self interest. 

I realize you may consider this silly and unworthy of thought or comment, but if you have any thoughts on Rand's work or this  subject, I would be glad to receive them.   Possibly you will share your thoughts with this group of addressees.

I sent back the following, from Rand’s 1964 Playboy interview:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal . . . .

To view the question in its proper perspective, one must begin by rejecting altruism’s terms and all of its ugly emotional aftertaste—then take a fresh look at human relationships. It is morally proper to accept help, when it is offered, not as a moral duty, but as an act of good will and generosity, when the giver can afford it (i.e., when it does not involve self-sacrifice on his part), and when it is offered in response to the receiver’s virtues, not in response to his flaws, weaknesses or moral failures, and not on the ground of his need as such.”

This prompted a few emails about Rand’s atheism, and the vast philosophical chasm that separates Ayn Rand and Jesus.  Here’s a sample, from a guy I genuinely admire:

Ayn Rand was very clear that her personal philosophy is the antithesis of the Christian teaching on selfless love.  She disagreed with Jesus in a fundamental way and made no bones about it.  It follows, therefore, that if Christians are attracted to her philosophy they are either confused, they think Rand seriously misread Jesus, or they see Christianity as a private matter with few moral implications.  I think Rand was right on the money.  The two philosophies are antithetical.  Jesus has my vote.

It went on for a while longer.  Most of the people copied on the email were good church people, all of whom I respect and admire.  I like to think that these are the people who would come to my aid if my family were to get into serious trouble.  I like to think that I would help them out in similar circumstances.  But I started thinking about what Rand said and what Jesus said.  NOT how they’ve both been interpreted, but what they actually said. 
Jesus supposedly said the following, in Matthew 6.  The additional italics are mine, for emphasis:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon (money).

Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the birds of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much better than they?
 
Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his height?

And why do you worry about clothing?   Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow; they don't work, neither do they spin fabric for themselves:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these flowers.

Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, How shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knows that ye have need of all these things.

But seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

That's kinda intense. 
Don't worry about what you're going to eat or drink. 
Look at the birds.  They don't grow crops, but God cares about them and provides for them.  Aren't you better than they are? 
Consider the flowers.  They don't work.  They don't make fabric, or anything else, yet they're more beautiful than Solomon! 
 

Here’s Matthew 5:40 – 42:  And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And if someone forces you to carry his load for a mile, go with him for two miles. Give to him that asks upi, and from him that would borrow of you, turn not him away”.

Translated: If the damn lawyers take away your jacket, let 'em have your overcoat also.  If someone forces you to carry their load for a mile, go ahead and put in two miles.  GIVE to anyone who wants what you have, and if someone wants to borrow from you DO NOT turn them away. 

Luke 14:12-14: “Then said he also to him that asked him, When you make a dinner or a supper, call not your friends, nor your brethren, neither your kinsmen, nor your rich neighbors; lest they also ask tyou again, and a recompense be made thee. But when you make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and you shall be blessed; for they cannot recompense you: for you shall be paid back at the resurrection of the just”
 
Don't have family over for dinner.  Ever.  Never, ever, ever.  Always feed the street people first. 
 
Now.... Compare Ayn Rand's statements on charity with those of Jesus.  I only know of one Christian who lives his life according to the statements of Christ quoted above, and most people think the guy is stark raving mad.  Maybe he is. 
 
Everyone that I know, and I mean everyone, Christian or not, tries to maintain health and life insurance, and keep up their house payments.  They try to get educations so they can provide for themselves and their families.  I've never seen anyone go into debt so they can feed more strangers, and I've never seen a robin drop worms into every nest in the forest. 
 
The average yearly income on this planet is $6,000 per person.  I've never known any follower of Christ to give away his stuff until he had less than that.  Ayn Rand advocated giving to people you feel like giving to, but only if it's not going to put you at risk.  Jesus taught that we should sacrifice ourselves, our stuff, and our security. 
 
In short, there has been an ongoing battle in the Christian church between the philosophy of Ayn Rand and the philosophy of Jesus. 
 
Ayn Rand has won it. 

We're from the IRS and we're here to collect for State Farm

Here's another graphic for you....

Why Markets Are Miraculous

I'm browsing through a new hardback called "Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion", by Jonathan Haidt.  Haidt is a psychology professor at the University of Virginia.  He also teaches Business Ethics at New York University. 

This is good stuff.  Here's a snippet called "Markets Are Miraculous", where he looks at the Libertarian mindset on a few issues:

"In 2007, David Goldhill's father was killed by an infection he caught while in the hospital.  In trying to make sense of this unnecessary death, Goldhill began to read about the American health care system, which kills about 100,000 people annually buy such accidental infections.  He learned that the death rate can be cut by two-thirds when hospitals follow a simple checklist of sanitary procedures, but most hospitals don't adopt the checklist. 

Goldhill, a businessman (and Democrat), wondered how it was possible for any organization to pass up a simple measure that yielded such massive payoffs.  In the business world, such inefficiency would soon lead to bankruptcy.  As he learned more and more about the healthcare system, he discovered just how bad things get when goods and services are provided without a properly functioning market. 

In 2009, Goldhill published a provocative essay in The Atlantic Monthly titled "How American Health Care Killed My Father".  One of his main points was the absurdity of using insurance to pay for routine purchases.  Normally we buy insurance to cover the risk of a catastrophic loss.  We enter an insurance pool with other people to spread the risk around, and we hope never to collect a penny.  We handle routine expenses ourselves, seeking out the highest quality for the lowest price.  We would never file a claim on our car insurance to pay for an oil change. 

The next time you go to the supermarket, look closely at a can of peas.  Think about all the work that went into it - the farmers, truckers, and supermarket employees, the miners and metalworkers who made the can - and think how miraculous it is that you can buy this can for under a dollar.  At every step of the way, competition among suppliers rewarded those whose innovations shaved a penny off the cost of getting that can to you.  If God is commonly thought to have created the world and then arranged it for our benefit, then the free market (and its invisible hand) is a pretty good candidate for being a god.  You can begin to understand why libertarians sometimes have a quasi-religious faith in free markets. 

Now let's do the devil's work and spread chaos throughout the marketplace.  Suppose that one day all prices are removed from all products in the supermarket.  All labels too, beyond a simple description of the contents, so you can't compare products from different companies.  You just take whatever you want, as much as you want, and you bring it up to the register.  The checkout clerk scans in your food insurance card and helps you fill out your itemized claim.  You pay a flat fee of $10.00 and go home with your groceries.  A month later you get a bill informing you that your food insurance company will pay the supermarket for most of the remaining cost, but you'll have to send in a check for an additional $15.00.  It might sound like a bargain to get a cartload of food for $25.00, but you're really paying your grocery bill every month when you fork over $2,000.00 for your food insurance premium. 

Under such a system, there is little incentive for anyone to find innovative ways to reduce the cost of food or increase its quality.  The supermarkets get paid by the insurers, and the insurers get their premiums from you.  The cost of food insurance begins to rise as supermarkets stock only the foods that net them the highest insurance payments, not the foods that deliver value to you. 

As the cost of food insurance rises, many people can no longer afford it.  Liberals (motivated by Care - you'll have to read the entire book to get that part - TWS) push for a new government program to buy food insurance for the poor and the elderly.  But once the government becomes the major purchaser of food, then success in the supermarket and food insurance industries depends primarily on maximizing yield from government payouts.  Before you know it, that can of peas costs the government $30.00, and all of us are paying 25 percent of our paychecks in taxes just to cover the cost of buying groceries for each other at hugely inflated costs. 

That, says Goldhill, is what we've done to ourselves.  as long as consumers are spared from taking price into account - that is, as long as someone else is always paying for your choices - things will get worse. 

In the U.S., 84% of our healthcare checks are written by someone else - Uncle Sam or an insurance company - TWS

We can't fix the problem by convening panels of experts to set the maximum allowable price for a can of peas.  Only a working market can bring supply, demand, and ingenuity together to provide health care at the lowest possible price.  For example, there is an open market for LASIK surgery (a kind of laser eye surgery that removes the need to wear contact lenses).  Doctors compete with one another to attract customers, and because the procedure is rarely covered by insurance, patients take price into account. 

Have you ever heard a radio ad about a doctor who will fix a broken arm better and cheaper than anyone else?  I haven't.  How about LASIK surgeons?  They advertise as much as McDonald's.  - TWS. 

Competition and innovation have driven down the price of the surgery by nearly 80 percent since it was first introduced.  (Other developed nations have had more success controlling costs, but they too face rapidly rising costs that may become fiscally ruinous.  Like America, they often lack the political will to raise taxes or cut services.) 

When libertarians talk about the miracle of "spontaneous order" that emerges when people are allowed to make their own choices (and take on the costs and benefits of those choices), the rest of us should listen.  Care and compassion sometimes motivate liberals to interfere in the working of markets, but the results can be extraordinary harm on a vast scale.  (Of course, as I said above, governments often need to intervene to correct market distortions, thereby making markets work properly. - I believe he's talking about externalities, etc. - TWS)    Liberals want to use government for so many purposes, but health care expenses are crowding out all other possibilities.  If you think your local, state, and federal governments are broke now, just wait until the baby boom generation is fully retired. 

I find it ironic that liberals generally embrace Darwin and reject "intelligent design" as the explanation for design and adaptation  in the natural world, but they don't embrace Adam Smith as the explanation for design and adaptation in the economic world.  They sometimes prefer the "intelligent design" of socialist economics, which often ends in a disaster from a utilitarian point of view. 

I can't wait to read the rest of this book. Greatness. 

Corrupt Insurance Company DOUBLES Bills After Signing Up Customers !!!

From The Washington Examiner comes an expose of unscrupulous healthcare providers quoting a low price for medical treatment and then DOUBLING the amount charged to the customer. 
I look forward to breathless editorials from the New York Times, the Washington Post and 60 Minutes condemning this practice and those who oversee it. 

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

Raise your hand if you are shocked.  Anyone?  Anybody?  I didn't think so. 

Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO's standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama's pledge that the legislation would cost "around $900 billion over 10 years." When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

The 2014 date also got Obama past the 2012 elections and also gets some distance between the 2008 Congress and the inevitable consequences of this mess. 
This graph is old and out of date, but it's the most recent one I could find.  Like the Democrats, I like to post eye-popping charts of disastrous consequences.  In this case the chart isn't horrible enough, and I apologize. 

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law's core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That's because we now have estimates for Obamacare's first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn't overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then.

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn has said that ObamaCare will never be repealed.  That's why you need to start voting for Libertarians. 
Mitt Romney was the John The Baptist for ObamaCare.  He will be the Republican nominee for president.  That's why you need to start voting for Libertarians. 
Fort Worth's Trinity River Vision Authority has had similar cost overruns without accomplishing much of anything but marketing.  They're trying to build a massive lake downtown that will be known to your granchildren debtors as "Lake Granger", after the family of Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger.  That's why you need to start voting for Libertarians. 

Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we're likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.
UPDATE: I've done another post with additional details from the CBO report.

These are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.  I don't think the Congressional Budget Office could properly predict the winner of a New York Giants vs. Little Sisters Of The Blind wager in the Super Bowl. Their predicted cost is very, very low.  Hide and watch. 

Cough Drops - The Mandate

I hope everyone has enjoyed the media firestorm about whether the government should be able to force the Catholic Church to provide birth control pills to its employees. 

I also hope that you'll take just a few minutes from your busy day to enjoy this bit o' brilliance from Reason magazine:



Here's a modest proposal from the great Virginia Postrel about selling birth control pills over-the-counter:

Making the pill available over the counter could reduce the amount of outrage and invective available for entertaining radio audiences, spurring political fundraising and otherwise amusing the American public. But the medical risks are quite low....

Birth-control pills can have side effects, of course, but so can such over-the-counter drugs as antihistamines, ibuprofen or the Aleve that once turned me into a scary, hive-covered monster. That’s why even the most common over-the-counter drugs, including aspirin, carry warning labels. Most women aren’t at risk from oral contraceptives, however, just as most patients aren’t at risk from aspirin or Benadryl, and studies suggest that a patient checklist can catch most potential problems....

Aside from safety, the biggest argument for keeping birth- control pills prescription-only is, to put it bluntly, extortion. The current arrangement forces women to go to the doctor at least once a year, usually submitting to a pelvic exam, if they want this extremely reliable form of contraception. That demand may suit doctors’ paternalist instincts and financial interests, but it doesn’t serve patients’ needs. As [a 1993 editorial in the American Journal of Public Health] noted, the exam requirement “assumes that it would be worse for a woman’s health to miss out on routine care than it would be to miss out on taking oral contraceptives.”

Hit this link to read the whole thing. 
From Nick Gillespie:

Can't legislators agree that those of us who are, say, over 18 years old, are adults and if we can buy condoms without a prescription, we should be able to shop for birth-control pills on our lonesome too? And a host of other drugs?

And this young woman, Sandra Fluke, claims that birth control for her three years of law school is an intolerable burden, and that other people should be forced to pay for it.  She claims that it will cost her $3,000.00 for three years. 
Bullshit. 
Can we not do the charitable thing, and put a damn condom machine in her dorm room? 

Pilgrims, Chinese Farmers, and Property Rights

“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
                                                                    -Mark Twain

Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die.  The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle).  It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving. 

On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "

The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China.  It had a huge influence.  Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land. 
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy.  To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks.  In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household.  There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document. 

The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.

That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense.  Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".   

The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.

Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy.  This one hits closer to home. 

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.


Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time.  Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create. 

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.

Like we're about to do with healthcare. 

People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.

In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard?  They started Going Galt.   

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.

And what have we learned from this? 
Nothing.  Absolutely nothing. 

The Socialism Kills sign came from here. 
The Pilgrims, from here.

Hurricane Earl is about to SAVE AND CREATE SOME JOBS ! ! ! (Thank you for your continued support)

Hurricane Earl is headed toward The Carolina coast. 
Let's all hope that everyone is ok, and that property damage is minimal. 

A brief digression....  My family used to own a little shotgun house/shack/cabin on Beulah lake near the Mississippi river.  For the benefit of the Brits, Aussies, and occasional Canadians who frequent these pages, this is a shotgun house:

They're called shotgun shacks because you can fire a shotgun into the front door, and the pellets will go through all three rooms and all doorways of the house without hitting anything.  You can look in the front door and see out the back door. 

We couldn't get insurance on our shotgun shack.  Guess why.  Go ahead, take a few seconds and guess. 
No one in his right mind would have insured our lakeside cabin because it was built inside the Mississippi river levee. 
It flooded every three or four years. 
Every time water got into the cabin, my father and I would go in with a high pressure hose, wash out the mud and snakes, put down some new linoleum, nail up some new wall paneling, and declare the house "repaired".

That was then, this is now.

Hurricanes have a tendency to hit the east coast, doing a spectacular amount of damage every few years.  But that doesn't stop people from building mega-beach houses in the middle of hurricane alley.

Here's Donald Trump's beach house, courtesy of a site called NoBeachHouseBailouts.org  (Yeah, another bailout effort is underway.)

 I bet you could fire a shotgun in the front door, and hit at least 3 reality show contestants. 

Here's a photo one of Beyonce's family homes in Galveston.  Right there in the path of Hurricane Ike. 

Here's the Business Insider, reporting on what you did for Beyonce shortly after Hurricane Ike. 

Unlike say, Nic Cage or Lindsay Lohan, Beyonce Knowles is living the life. She and her husband Jay-Z are worth a reported $265 million and she's still the hottest singer on radio.
But did you know Beyonce's father Matthew Knowles owns a block of property in Galveston, Texas that was devastated by Hurricane Ike?

And did you know that FEMA is going to pay Beyonce and her father a cool $425,000 to reimburse them for close to the original value of the house? Yep, it's true, according to an excellent report from Mother Jones.

The house is one of 68 that will receive a FEMA-sponsored buyout according to KHOU.

Hell, I'd be willing to go in with a high-pressure hose and clear out the mud and snakes for much less than $425,000.00  

Here's the Frum Forum, on an effort to require you to subsidize the insurance of people who want to build McShacks in Hurricane Alley....

For the past several years, Congressman Gene Taylor (D-MS) has been on a mission to add wind damage coverage to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is already swimming in red ink.

His legislation, called the “Multiple Peril Insurance Act,” was slated to be voted on by the House of Representatives twice in the weeks before Congress left town for its August recess. The Democrats’ Daily Whipline announcing the floor schedule urged a yes vote on Taylor’s bill, but luckily for taxpayers, both times the leadership decided to pull the bill for lack of support.

Taylor and the Democrat leadership are concerned that it is hard for folks living in storm-prone coastal areas to get reasonably-priced wind insurance from private insurance companies.

Well, there is a very well understood reason for this. It is called RISK. Homes built in hurricane country are at high risk of exposure to wind damage.

.....A recent Houston Chronicle story revealed that between 1977 and 1995, NFIP paid out $806,591 for repeated storm damage to a suburban Houston home that was valued at $114,480.

Hurricane Earl is probably going to do a lot of damage to the Beach Houses along the Carolina coast. 
It will do much less damage to the less spectacular homes built further inland.
The beach is a foolish place for a McShotgun Mansion.
The people who built homes further inland are probably responsible for 100% of their own insurance. 

Guess who is about to get a huge FEMA payday?

Check out the aftermath, paying particular attention to who is going to pay for rebuilding. 

The Trumps and Beyonces of the Carolinas appreciate your continued support.

Our Obamacare victory message from our Health Insurance Company

My employer, Jukt Micronics, uses Aetna for employee medical insurance.
Our Human Resources Manager knew I would want to do something with this letter that Aetna sent him yesterday. 
We are about to get screwed, glued, and Bar-B-Q'd on the healthcare scam. 
Get ready for it.
 

March 24, 2010
Dear Plan Sponsor,

Yesterday, President Barack Obama signed health care reform legislation passed by the Senate in December and the House on Sunday. As a result, millions of Americans can look forward to gaining access to health insurance, a significant milestone for this country. The challenge unmet by this bill, however,is how to effectively deal with the critical issue of affordability, which has become a burden for so many people, particularly individuals and small business owners.

The phrase "The challenge unmet" is an ancient bureaucratese expression meaning "Nobody even thought about paying for it".  That would also be "the challenge unmet" if we were to give everyone a yacht, a G.M. vehicle, or even a free pony.  "The challenge unmet" in this bill is that it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce scarcity of medical care.  Therefore, "millions of Americans can look forward to" costs and prices going through what one of our salespeople recently called The Next Stratosphere. 

We are aggressively working to weigh the impact of this legislation on our various businesses, customers, and members. In the meantime, the Senate is still wrestling with a “reconciliation” bill that contains “fixes” to the legislation signed by the President today.

Note the scorn quotes around the words "reconciliation" and "fixes".
In other words, the Senate believes that with enough sanitizing and cleaning and sculpting and power-washing, it will be possible to pick up this turd by the clean end. 

It is important to remember that most of the legislation will not go into effect until 2014 or later.

I remember going to hear Candidate Obama speak at Reunion Arena in Dallas, back in February of '08.  It was inspiring, even to a skeptic.  One of the phrases that Obama used was Dr. Martin Luther King's quote about "the fierce urgency of now".  Whatever happened to now?  If this thing is wonderful, why not now?  Why the fierce urgency to delay implementation until 2014? 
Election cycles, anyone? 

The details of implementing legislation can take months, even years to work through the regulatory process. Much of what Congress has passed will require additional regulations that will bring further clarity to this new law, and those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers.

"...that will bring further clarity..."
"...that will bring further clarity..."
"Those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers." 
"Those regulations will truly shape the impact on consumers and employers."
Can clarity be furthered?  Or can it only be increased or added?  Can impacts be shaped?  That sentence is so poorly written that it is almost unfiskable. 

We will continue to play an active role in the detailed discussions during the lengthy implementation process.

Translation from bureaucratese: "We've been working with Obama to divide your carcass for about a year.  We've got 30 million new customers.  You're on your own.  Keep them checks coming !"

Given what we know about the mandates and taxes included in the legislation,we do anticipate the likelihood of additional new costs.

No shit.  I now anticipate the likelihood of Polar Bears refusing to migrate southward to Miami.  I now anticipate the likelihood of compass needles pointing north.  I anticipate the likelihood of....

The longer I go with it, the worse it gets.  You anticipate things, and sometimes you think things are likely.   Anticipate the likelihood of something is like making a bet that something is probable. 

I didn't mean to become the grammar/style Nazi, but this dude is distracting me from the topic at hand, which is Obamacare.  Sheesh.  Say that the our prices are going to go up.  Speak English. 

We intend to focus our efforts in the rulemaking process to lessen the financial impact of these changes on our customers and members.

How about this: We're going to lobby for less government so you don't have to pay as much. 
There. 
Is that better?  Sometimes I get wordy, but I'm usually trying to be colorful or mildly entertaining at the same time.  Intend focus efforts process lessen impact....Christ almighty, I started this post thinking this guy was on my side. 

Aetna plays a significant role in helping both employers and individuals meet the cost challenge. Our role won’t change with this legislation. But, as a nation, we need to come together to bring greater focus on addressing the many underlying factors that are driving soaring health care costs. When the nation inevitably turns to finding ways of reducing this alarming trend, we stand ready to help.

We will continue to keep you updated as this process moves forward.

Yes.  Move the process forward.  Forward moves the progress, addressing that which is focused upon, lest challenges go unmet, not just in helping, but by playing a significant role in helping when mere helping is not enough.  Or something. 

Sincerely,

Anonymous Bureaucrat,

Vice President of Sales and Service,
Southwest Region

If you think this is confusing, verbose, and intentionally vague, go here to see the Healthcare bill.  Everyone involved in this debacle - Congressional Staffers, Insurance Execs, Legal Vultures, and Lobbyists - learned English from the same set of Taiwanese DVD player instructions.

Why we should all pray for Barack Obama's continued good health

Here's more from the people who want to take over healthcare, run our auto companies, take care of our retirement, stop us from emitting any carbon, and determine which groups we have to hire. 



From Hot Air:

Vice President Biden added to his lengthy list of gaffes Wednesday when he took a moment to honor the memory of the Irish prime minister’s mother — a woman who’s very much alive.



“God rest her soul,” Biden said as he introduced Brian Cowen and President Obama at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House Wednesday. …


“Wait … your mom’s still, your mom is still alive. It was your Dad (who) passed. God bless her soul. I gotta get this straight,” Biden said.


 
What a great bunch of kidders, those guys.  I wish they could take care of my health, order my food for me in restaurants, help me at four-way-stops, spell-check my blog posts, remind me not to break the speed limit, watch my caloric intake, restrain my dachshund population, make me switch to decaf, and just help me out with everything.  I need them and you need them.  You really do. 
Give them your money. 
We're in good hands.  Really.  I'm 3,000 % less concerned about everything than I used to be. 
 
The picture of the Irish Prime Minister, Barack Obama, and Obama's guarantee of non-impeachment came from here. 

Insurance Stocks And The Public Option

Talking Points Media, one of the most left-wing outfits outside of a few academic enclaves, understands that the current healthcare abortion puts a greater burden for the uninsured and allows the insurance companies to continue to operate as oligopolies/monopolies.

Why do so few other people get this? And second, why do people tune in to news shows where hosts won't allow guests to answer questions?



One other thing.... the current mess doesn't include much in the way of a public option. It has created space for a public option, which will be voted in as attachment to other bills. Here's all ya need to know about the public option:



Both of these came from the Tom Lewis blog.

We have seen the future of Health Insurance. And Health Insurance is delighted.

From The Business Insider:

Howard Dean, who knows a thing or two about medicine, and has long been an advocate for reform, just said on CNBC that "you may want to buy health insurance stocks if this thing passes."

Basically, "reform" has turned into a big ol' gravy train for private industry....

What? This isn't about providing low-cost healthcare for America? What else has Howard Dean had to say about the Healthcare Bill?

On Sunday's Meet The Press, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was asked a simple question about health care: What has President Obama achieved? His answer: "He has made a lot of people with insurance stock a lot richer."

"This [bill] is great for insurance companies," he explained. "They were going to reform the system [but] neither side wanted to take on the insurance companies. Neither side wanted to get rid of anti-trust exemptions. Neither side really pushed hard to allow you or me or anybody here to buy across state lines."
And as Howard Dean said -- and this is a devastating fact -- insurance companies' stocks reached [52-week] highs on Friday after this so called reform bill got its 60th vote. So David Axelrod, who I love and respect, but David Axelrod kept saying 'we took on the insurance companies, this is real reform, they're against it.'
Really? I don't think so."

What? Insurance stocks are now at a 52-year high? Do The Playahs know something that we don't know?

Well, yeah, they do.

When time permits, look up Regulatory Capture.

Then do a bit o' Googling on Barriers To Entry.

Speaking of Howard Dean, and our failure to encourage competition, here's Dr. Dean in full competition mode:

Projected Unemployment - with Porkulus, without Porkulus, and Reality Based

This is from Greg Mankiw's blog. Mankiw is an Economics professor at Harvard, where he teaches Econ 101 to our future elites, so they can forget everything he's taught them when they go to be our Lords And Masters in government (ahem) "service".

The light blue line shows what the Teleprompter Jesus predicted would happen if he wasn't allowed to throw $750,000,000.00 to Wall Street, the Unions, Detroit, ACORN, and various manufacturing friends. This 3/4 of a Trillion was to be spent on bridges, roads, and Turtle-Tunnels. This line blue line was generated by Team Obama prior to the bailout. At the time, this line represented the scariest unemployment number imaginable.

The dark blue unemployment line shows what the Teleprompter Jesus predicted would happen if we would just allow his buddies to get into your wallet. Or purse. Or, more accurately, your childrens' savings. This line looks a lot better than that light blue scary line, doesn't it? Once again, these were Team Obama's estimates. What a nice, soothing dark blue line.... Too bad it's as fake as....well....as fake as a thing that somebody made up to get their hands on some money.

The line composed of the red dots represents what has actually happened with unemployment in the real world, as opposed to the scenarios fabricated by The Chicago Gang. What direction do the red dots seem to be going?

Let me state this one more time, and I'll try to be brief. If you take money from taxpayers to "create" a job, it doesn't count. You're just moving money from the shallow end to the deep end of the pool. The people you're taking the money from don't get to choose which job the money is spent on. Nancy Pelosi gets to decide.

If you print money to "create" a job, that doesn't count either. It produces inflation, now or in the future. We've got a certain amount of money, and a certain amount of stuff. We use one to swap for the other.

Want to create some jobs, some great jobs? Lower the tax burden on business and individuals. Give entrepreneurs a reason to open a factory here, as opposed to, say, North Korea. Encourage the entrepreneurs to get filthy rich, Social Justice be damned. Otherwise, they're going to keep going John Galt on you, and sit on their hands until someone takes over in Washington who is slightly less full of Llama manure.

Want to create some more great jobs? Drop all this business about tax cuts for small and medium-sized businesses. Regardless of the Newspeak coming from D.C., corporations don't pay taxes. Individuals in those companies pay the taxes. Owners, investors, and employees. You don't think that the janitors at a mega-company receive less pay because of corporate taxes? Guess again. At least some of the money flushed to Washington comes out of their potential pay.

Next time some Student Council Refugee starts blathering about tax cuts for small and medium-sized business, he's talking about a tax cut for the #1,#2, and #3 people at those small companies. The #53,487th employee at the mega-corporation isn't eligible for this compassionate tax relief.

Want to create some more great jobs? De-regulate. De-regulate. De-regulate. Remember that the subprime mortgage/real estate crisis was caused by people following regulations to the letter.

Remember that employers aren't looking to hire indentured servants, dependents, or vassals who are going to be with the family for decades. Do you want to set up a business and be required to provide for the health insurance of other people? Do you want a piece of that? Well, most people don't. They also don't want to be lectured on the subject by a 3rd rate Community Organizer who couldn't organize a Chinese Fire Drill in a dead K-mart parking lot.

Let insurance companies operate anywhere in the U.S., so that changing jobs isn't such a risky endeavor. Is there anything that locks someone into a job more than insurance?

Want to do even more, especially for teenagers? End the fake "minimum wage". (The real minimum wage is Zero, and 26% of teenagers are now earning it, the most since World War II.) Let employers pay whatever they want to pay. Let workers agree to work for whatever wage they're willing to take. The teenagers would get some experience. The employers would get some help in a tough time. New businesses would take off. Next thing you know, the employers would have to pay the good workers more and more as they established themselves. It really would be "stimulative" for the economy. Millions of people would find work and make money, but we'll never do it. We're too compassionate.

Oh well. Those are the numbers. This is what we get when government must intervene. For government to do nothing would be irresponsible.

Note to the turtles: I hope you like the tunnels.