In business, if your marketing is compelling enough, you will successfully sell even the most useless product. If this were not true, infomercials and the likes of the also recently deceased Billy Mays would not be so prevalent in our society. Style over substance seems to have become the American way. All indications from the last twenty four hours seem to infer that the left is once again going to change their marketing strategy as it relates to their plans for Universal Health Care, I mean Health Care Reform, I mean Health Insurance Reform with an essential "Public" Option, I mean not essential "Public" Option. No, wait it is essential again.
The left has tried to rename and repackage this plan numerous times to make it sound palatable to he American people, but have not substantively changed a single thing about the plan. That is because it is a plan in name only. That is because as with every other government plan, there is no clear estimate as to its cost and no documented source for funding other than you the taxpayer. Now realizing that the President's charm and eloquence are not enough to overcome the plan's lack of substance, and that the shrill nature of Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Frank are not enough to scare away critics, the face of the plan is once again being repackaged. With the death of Sen. Kennedy, the left is attempting to use emotion to overcome rational thought and garner support for their still ideologically and fiscally flawed plan.
I actually agree with Sen. Dodd when he said he hopes Sen. Kennedy's passing will, "cause people to take a breath, step back, and start talking with each other again in -- in more civil tones about what needs to be done, because that's what Teddy would do." That is exactly what many of us opposed to the very premise of the left's plan have been trying to do. Direct and open civil discussion would expose the plan for what it is, a gross expansion of government that serves no purpose other than bringing the majority of the Gross Domestic Product under the control of the federal government. Real solutions that successfully address identical issues in other segments of the insurance industry are ignored for purposes of political power. The anger is a result of the surreptitious manner in which the plan has been moved forward. Average people with an increasingly limited political voice are reduced to anger and frustration at an aristocratic political class that seems intent on holding dominion over the population.
It is truly a shame that someone's death is trivialized in such an infomercial style repackaging of the same plan.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Deceptive Barney Frank
Barney Frank showed himself to be the consummate politician in his town hall meeting yesterday. His strategy was perfect. First agitate the already charged crowd. Further inflame the audience with insults (the last weapon of the intellectually bankrupt) and sensationalize the event. When emotions take over, you are able to be untruthful while supposedly providing reference material. Finally leave without ever addressing the issue, with the appearance of being forthright.
Case in point, Mr. Frank quoted Title II Subtitle C Sec. 246 of the monstrous HR3200 Bill that simply states that "No federal payments will be made for undocumented aliens medical treatment". What the inflamed audience missed is:
1. "undocumented" is not defined
2. Illegal aliens will still be treated.
3. Someone will have to pay, just not the Government Plan.
4. The hospitals are not just going to take it on the chin.
4. Rates paid by the Government Option for services are fixed by the Government. (Title II Subtitle B Sec. 223)
5. This leaves those who wish to pay for quality health care with private coverage with the burden of carrying the increased costs for those who still don't pay.
In summary, if you wish to pay for quality private insurance, you will still pay for those on the Government Option through your tax dollars. You will still pay for the services provided to illegals and you will still have to pay for your increased premiums for private insurance.
This is much like the government school system. If you send your child to private school, you still pay for the services rendered to all children who attend government schools (both legitimately and illegitimately)through your tax dollars. You then have to pay the tuition for the quality education you desire for your child. The only difference is many have the ability to educate their own children, but few have the education and training that reaches the level of a licensed physician.
For those attending town hall meetings, please bring a written question with references. In fact bring many with references and distribute them to others. In this was someone will be able to ask the real questions. They will not want to answer them. Ask a direct question and ask for a direct answer.
Case in point, Mr. Frank quoted Title II Subtitle C Sec. 246 of the monstrous HR3200 Bill that simply states that "No federal payments will be made for undocumented aliens medical treatment". What the inflamed audience missed is:
1. "undocumented" is not defined
2. Illegal aliens will still be treated.
3. Someone will have to pay, just not the Government Plan.
4. The hospitals are not just going to take it on the chin.
4. Rates paid by the Government Option for services are fixed by the Government. (Title II Subtitle B Sec. 223)
5. This leaves those who wish to pay for quality health care with private coverage with the burden of carrying the increased costs for those who still don't pay.
In summary, if you wish to pay for quality private insurance, you will still pay for those on the Government Option through your tax dollars. You will still pay for the services provided to illegals and you will still have to pay for your increased premiums for private insurance.
This is much like the government school system. If you send your child to private school, you still pay for the services rendered to all children who attend government schools (both legitimately and illegitimately)through your tax dollars. You then have to pay the tuition for the quality education you desire for your child. The only difference is many have the ability to educate their own children, but few have the education and training that reaches the level of a licensed physician.
For those attending town hall meetings, please bring a written question with references. In fact bring many with references and distribute them to others. In this was someone will be able to ask the real questions. They will not want to answer them. Ask a direct question and ask for a direct answer.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Getting Down to Brass Tacks
The health care reform debate seems to be finally getting down to the two issues that people are most concerned about. The argument over whether premiums are affordable and whether those who are high risk or have preexisting conditions are insurable, are the two major concerns of most Americans.
As I wrote in a previous blog, these very concerns are being addressed in auto insurance and medical malpractice insurance through the use of Joint Underwriters Associations (a.k.a. reinsurance pools). there is no practical reason why such a proven successful model should not be duplicated for health insurance. The question remains, what would be the motivation of politicians who wish to create another large governmental entity when a proven solution that does not require massive infrastructure is right in front of their eyes?
To believe the current administration, the solution is government involvement. The President himself has used the metaphor of UPS/FedEx/United States Postal service and an analogy of the "Public Option" to Medicare and the Veteran's Administration. I cheered the usage of these comparisons, as it almost seemed that the administration wanted to reverse its course. The President admitted that it is the USPS that is struggling more so than UPS or FedEx. This is because a government run agency simply can not be as nimble, or contain costs as easily as UPS and FedEx. Postal rates have consistently risen while services are in effect being rationed through a reduction service. However, poignant the metaphor, I am sure he did not intend to relay the truth as he did. Medicare and the VA have been praised as successful government programs (remember "public" is less threatening synonym for government). However, they are a prime example of cost over runs. The VA despite the dedication of many professionals, simply can't avoid the bureaucracy that comes with anything government run.
The final piece to the puzzle would be an elimination of the employer sponsorship of health care plans. With the issues of high risk/preexisting conditions resolved through JUAs or reinsurance pools, there is no reason that health insurance can not be purchased in the same fashion as every other type of insurance. The question as to why liberals cling to governmental ownership also raises the question as to why conservatives are not quick to get rid of employer sponsorship. Competition, as with the auto insurance industry, is what controls costs and improves service. The answer is right in front of you.
Politicians just have a knack for making the easy appear difficult, rather than making the difficult appear easy.
As I wrote in a previous blog, these very concerns are being addressed in auto insurance and medical malpractice insurance through the use of Joint Underwriters Associations (a.k.a. reinsurance pools). there is no practical reason why such a proven successful model should not be duplicated for health insurance. The question remains, what would be the motivation of politicians who wish to create another large governmental entity when a proven solution that does not require massive infrastructure is right in front of their eyes?
To believe the current administration, the solution is government involvement. The President himself has used the metaphor of UPS/FedEx/United States Postal service and an analogy of the "Public Option" to Medicare and the Veteran's Administration. I cheered the usage of these comparisons, as it almost seemed that the administration wanted to reverse its course. The President admitted that it is the USPS that is struggling more so than UPS or FedEx. This is because a government run agency simply can not be as nimble, or contain costs as easily as UPS and FedEx. Postal rates have consistently risen while services are in effect being rationed through a reduction service. However, poignant the metaphor, I am sure he did not intend to relay the truth as he did. Medicare and the VA have been praised as successful government programs (remember "public" is less threatening synonym for government). However, they are a prime example of cost over runs. The VA despite the dedication of many professionals, simply can't avoid the bureaucracy that comes with anything government run.
The final piece to the puzzle would be an elimination of the employer sponsorship of health care plans. With the issues of high risk/preexisting conditions resolved through JUAs or reinsurance pools, there is no reason that health insurance can not be purchased in the same fashion as every other type of insurance. The question as to why liberals cling to governmental ownership also raises the question as to why conservatives are not quick to get rid of employer sponsorship. Competition, as with the auto insurance industry, is what controls costs and improves service. The answer is right in front of you.
Politicians just have a knack for making the easy appear difficult, rather than making the difficult appear easy.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Cash For Clunkers: Enabling Debt Addicts Nationwide
Before I begin my rant, let me remind you that many politicians of both parties originally thought that this was a good idea. That is what we get for electing lawyers with no background in fundamental economics.
Here is a scenario:
You notice that an acquaintance is obviously shaking. He/she tells you that they are experiencing withdrawal symptoms. They admit to you that the are an alcoholic and that they have just begun the Alcoholics Anonymous program. They have admitted the problem and have taken steps to correct the problem.
Do you
1) Congratulate them and offer to help in a productive way.
or,
2) Pull out your flask (because you too are an addict) and offer them a drink to calm their nerves.
The answer seems simple, but our government has chosen option #2 with the Cash For Clunkers program.
Economists agree that systemic deficit spending, and the subsequent compounding debt, is a major cause of our current economic woes. My issue with the highly publicized program is not its obviously underestimated appeal and underfunding, but I oppose the very premise of the program. As a nation and as a population, we have been a people that have been addicted to debt for several decades. That is why our national debt and annual deficits have grown. It is also why, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the savings rate of U.S. households has been below 4% since 1994 and went into negative territory in 2005. In 2009, the BEA reported that the U.S. savings rate had risen, but was still far below the 1950 - 1992 average of 8.6% of disposable income. This was a sign that U.S. households had admitted the problem and began to take corrective steps. Then the U.S. Congress passes a Cash for Clunkers plan that offers the recovering addict another drink. Sure, take on more debt. You need a new car. Not because the Congress wants more fuel efficient cars on the road, but because Congress needs the tax revenue generated from your purchase to feed their own spending addiction. Don't worry, we'll subsidize your purchase with money from some fiscally responsible tax payer. How silly of us not to spend every dollar we have (and then some). Keep the party rolling someone else will pay the bills. Right??? What happens when the band stops playing? Who will pay? You again? Remember this when you vote.
Here is a scenario:
You notice that an acquaintance is obviously shaking. He/she tells you that they are experiencing withdrawal symptoms. They admit to you that the are an alcoholic and that they have just begun the Alcoholics Anonymous program. They have admitted the problem and have taken steps to correct the problem.
Do you
1) Congratulate them and offer to help in a productive way.
or,
2) Pull out your flask (because you too are an addict) and offer them a drink to calm their nerves.
The answer seems simple, but our government has chosen option #2 with the Cash For Clunkers program.
Economists agree that systemic deficit spending, and the subsequent compounding debt, is a major cause of our current economic woes. My issue with the highly publicized program is not its obviously underestimated appeal and underfunding, but I oppose the very premise of the program. As a nation and as a population, we have been a people that have been addicted to debt for several decades. That is why our national debt and annual deficits have grown. It is also why, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the savings rate of U.S. households has been below 4% since 1994 and went into negative territory in 2005. In 2009, the BEA reported that the U.S. savings rate had risen, but was still far below the 1950 - 1992 average of 8.6% of disposable income. This was a sign that U.S. households had admitted the problem and began to take corrective steps. Then the U.S. Congress passes a Cash for Clunkers plan that offers the recovering addict another drink. Sure, take on more debt. You need a new car. Not because the Congress wants more fuel efficient cars on the road, but because Congress needs the tax revenue generated from your purchase to feed their own spending addiction. Don't worry, we'll subsidize your purchase with money from some fiscally responsible tax payer. How silly of us not to spend every dollar we have (and then some). Keep the party rolling someone else will pay the bills. Right??? What happens when the band stops playing? Who will pay? You again? Remember this when you vote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)