How ironic is it that as we prepare to celebrate Independence Day, our elected officials took perhaps the most substantial step towards relegating their constituents to a lives of government dependence. While the founding fathers risked life and limb to insure that they and their families would be insured of their life, liberty and property, American citizens today are apparently willing to give it all back for a cradle to grave life of mediocrity provided by government. My local newspaper covered the House of Representatives vote on the Waxman-Markey bill ON PAGE 4!!! Of course page 1 was filled with coverage of the passing of Michael Jackson and the indiscretions of Gov. Sanford. Undoubtedly newsworthy, but are these events as important as the most recent and largest step toward socialism to date?
Now I consider myself to be a rational conservationist. This bill seems to be nothing more than a modern day version of the Catholic church's selling of indulgences that led to the Protestant revolution. My impression of this bill seems to be justified by the evaluations of this bill by both the EPA and Greenpeace, which were lukewarm at best. Regardless of which side of the climate debate you are on, with the exception of Congress, most people understand that this bill does little to nothing to address the stated goal while effectively chasing production from this country.
There is a general lack of courage among our politicians, as evident by the roll call of the House vote. Those congressmen who abstained from voting on such an important bill did so in order to retain their seat rather than take a stand. The courage of our forefathers is lost on today's politician. Perhaps because the concept of a career politician is a rather recent concept. It is no longer public service, but admission into the aristocracy with Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes.
While you are enjoying your July 4th Independence Day next week, take a moment to contemplate just how many more you will be able to truly celebrate. In fact, take a moment to contemplate just how much you value independence and liberty. If this bill becomes law, it may be the date we will recognize in the future as Dependence Day.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Joint Underwriters Associations: The Simple Answer
I have long been frustrated in listening to the debates regarding a solution to the supposed dilemma regarding health care coverage. Have you ever wondered why other forms of insurance share the same risk exposure to the providers (i.e. flood, automobile, home, medical malpractice, etc.), yet health care coverage is the only form of insurance that has this supposed issue with availability? The difference is that these other forms of insurance are made available despite the risk exposure through Joint Underwriters Associations (JUAs). This is a market based solution that is already being successfully applied in other coverage areas, yet no one (no even those who claim to be in favor of market based solutions) are pushing this issue. I will use automobile insurance as an analogy to make this easily understandable to the average reader.
Let us assume that due to your extraordinary bad driving history, you find it impossible to obtain auto insurance in the regular market. In effect, you are not insurable, or the premium cost to get a policy is not affordable. Rather than have you uninsured, your State Insurance Commissioner has probably created a JUA. This is a collective group of all the insurers who do business in your state. Membership in this group is required if the company is to write policies in your state. You, as a driver who was unable to get insurance, now purchase a policy through the JUA group. Let's say that Insurance Company A has written 25% of all the regular auto policies in your state and Insurance Company B has written 10 % of the policies. Insurance Company A received 25% of the premiums from JUA policy holders and is responsible for 25% of the groups claims. The same is true in proportion for each insurance company in the group. This shared exposure to the unwanted higher risk policies is a cost of doing business, or a type of membership dues for access to the market.
What does this do?
1)It allows the bad risk drivers to obtain insurance at a slightly higher, but attainable, premium rate.
2)It decreases the number of drivers who would otherwise drive up costs for all drivers by choosing to be uninsured.
3)It disperses the risk among the insurance companies in proportion to the amount of business they derive from that state.
Remember, this is ALREADY BEING DONE with other equally risk sensitive policies by the same companies who provide health insurance policies. If this system is adequate to cover the PHYSICIANS' MALPRACTICE POLICIES in this day and age, don't you think it is more than adequate to apply to health care coverage? It does not even have to be administered by the state. A proper self policing association could handle the task (think of how the American Medical Association regulates physicians). Heck, do you think the insurance companies would allow a competitor to cheat this system without blowing the whistle?
But yet we need another trillion dollar expenditure and a soon to be televised town hall pep rally to tell you how "complex" the problem is. Our politicians seem to have a knack for making the easy appear difficult. Will someone in the media, or perhaps at the televised event, PLEASE ask this question?
Let us assume that due to your extraordinary bad driving history, you find it impossible to obtain auto insurance in the regular market. In effect, you are not insurable, or the premium cost to get a policy is not affordable. Rather than have you uninsured, your State Insurance Commissioner has probably created a JUA. This is a collective group of all the insurers who do business in your state. Membership in this group is required if the company is to write policies in your state. You, as a driver who was unable to get insurance, now purchase a policy through the JUA group. Let's say that Insurance Company A has written 25% of all the regular auto policies in your state and Insurance Company B has written 10 % of the policies. Insurance Company A received 25% of the premiums from JUA policy holders and is responsible for 25% of the groups claims. The same is true in proportion for each insurance company in the group. This shared exposure to the unwanted higher risk policies is a cost of doing business, or a type of membership dues for access to the market.
What does this do?
1)It allows the bad risk drivers to obtain insurance at a slightly higher, but attainable, premium rate.
2)It decreases the number of drivers who would otherwise drive up costs for all drivers by choosing to be uninsured.
3)It disperses the risk among the insurance companies in proportion to the amount of business they derive from that state.
Remember, this is ALREADY BEING DONE with other equally risk sensitive policies by the same companies who provide health insurance policies. If this system is adequate to cover the PHYSICIANS' MALPRACTICE POLICIES in this day and age, don't you think it is more than adequate to apply to health care coverage? It does not even have to be administered by the state. A proper self policing association could handle the task (think of how the American Medical Association regulates physicians). Heck, do you think the insurance companies would allow a competitor to cheat this system without blowing the whistle?
But yet we need another trillion dollar expenditure and a soon to be televised town hall pep rally to tell you how "complex" the problem is. Our politicians seem to have a knack for making the easy appear difficult. Will someone in the media, or perhaps at the televised event, PLEASE ask this question?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
16 Tons And What Do You Get
Everyone from coal country (like my people up the line in NEPA, heyna? Sorry, it's an inside reference.) are familiar with the lyrics of the Tennessee Ernie Ford song that tells of the indentured servitude created and solidified by the concept of the company store. What most people do not recognize is that our government is in the process of creating a federalized version of the company store today. It is unfortunate that many are too naive, or apathetic, to stand up and acknowledge what is happening.
For those who are not familiar with the concept of a company store, I will provide a brief history. Through the early part of the 1900's, coal companies utilized a company store to provide a one stop shop that sold all the goods and services that a miner would need. Of course, this created a monopolization of the miners' entire lives by regulating their income and recapturing all expenditures. Need tools to do your work? You must buy it at the company store at their price. Want to by a house? Borrow from the company store at their rates. Want your children to be educated? The company runs a school. The examples could go on indefinitely. The shortsighted take on this was that the company was simply trying to make the most profit possible. The more accurate and insidious reason was to gain total control over the miners and insure future generations of trained labor. If the miner's were able to save, and/or become educated in something other than mining and (gasp!) improve their standard of living, they may leave mining. The intent of the company was to create a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in the miners to avoid the troublesome task of maintaining a trained workforce.
This is near fruition in our country today. Want to buy a house? The federal government has controlling interest in the major mortgage lenders and banks. Looking for a car? The federal government is the controlling interest of GM. You don't think they will structure tax credits, manufacturing restrictions and trade subsidies to disrupt competition, do you? Want your children to get a private education? That is fine. You just have to pay for the government school education first, even though your child does not utilize their service. Are you in need of medical care? Soon the government will tell you when, how and what care you will be able to receive at their prices. Of course the promise is that most of this will be "free". Yes, for the mere cost of the your freedom (and that of your future generations)the government will take all that pesky personal responsibility off of your shoulders. As the song goes, you will "owe your soul to the company store".
I am not given to conspiracy theories, as more often than not, they lessen your credibility. I refrain from even assuming that the intentions of socialist are evil. They simply have the arrogance to believe that the political aristocratic class has the responsibility of holding dominion over the masses for their own good. We already know that this socialization is all about gaining and maintaining political power. I sincerely hope that we do not find ourselves confronted by a new version of the Pinkerton Guards. They were members of a private security firm who's actions exceeded any Constitutional authority to enforce the interests of the government and coal companies. President Obama has called for a "civil defense force as well funded as the military". Why would this be of need? We already have local, state and federal law enforcement agencies who are sworn to protect and serve the law, and hence are accountable to it. Much like the coal company used the Pinkerton Guards to put down dissenting miners, it is possible to arrive at a time and place where the government uses similar tactics to maintain the political aristocracy.
For those who are not familiar with the concept of a company store, I will provide a brief history. Through the early part of the 1900's, coal companies utilized a company store to provide a one stop shop that sold all the goods and services that a miner would need. Of course, this created a monopolization of the miners' entire lives by regulating their income and recapturing all expenditures. Need tools to do your work? You must buy it at the company store at their price. Want to by a house? Borrow from the company store at their rates. Want your children to be educated? The company runs a school. The examples could go on indefinitely. The shortsighted take on this was that the company was simply trying to make the most profit possible. The more accurate and insidious reason was to gain total control over the miners and insure future generations of trained labor. If the miner's were able to save, and/or become educated in something other than mining and (gasp!) improve their standard of living, they may leave mining. The intent of the company was to create a sort of Stockholm Syndrome in the miners to avoid the troublesome task of maintaining a trained workforce.
This is near fruition in our country today. Want to buy a house? The federal government has controlling interest in the major mortgage lenders and banks. Looking for a car? The federal government is the controlling interest of GM. You don't think they will structure tax credits, manufacturing restrictions and trade subsidies to disrupt competition, do you? Want your children to get a private education? That is fine. You just have to pay for the government school education first, even though your child does not utilize their service. Are you in need of medical care? Soon the government will tell you when, how and what care you will be able to receive at their prices. Of course the promise is that most of this will be "free". Yes, for the mere cost of the your freedom (and that of your future generations)the government will take all that pesky personal responsibility off of your shoulders. As the song goes, you will "owe your soul to the company store".
I am not given to conspiracy theories, as more often than not, they lessen your credibility. I refrain from even assuming that the intentions of socialist are evil. They simply have the arrogance to believe that the political aristocratic class has the responsibility of holding dominion over the masses for their own good. We already know that this socialization is all about gaining and maintaining political power. I sincerely hope that we do not find ourselves confronted by a new version of the Pinkerton Guards. They were members of a private security firm who's actions exceeded any Constitutional authority to enforce the interests of the government and coal companies. President Obama has called for a "civil defense force as well funded as the military". Why would this be of need? We already have local, state and federal law enforcement agencies who are sworn to protect and serve the law, and hence are accountable to it. Much like the coal company used the Pinkerton Guards to put down dissenting miners, it is possible to arrive at a time and place where the government uses similar tactics to maintain the political aristocracy.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)