CNN Provides the Answer to Saving Money on Health Care

And the answer they come up with should surprise no one. Do they espouse a state-sponsored solution, with more government controls on pricing? Nope. Instead, the answer in the CNN health care article is more competition, through comparison shopping. This makes total sense.

The key to affecting any behavior in America is to aim at the wallet or pocketbook of the individual. When you make people more individually responsible for paying for their own care, people will start making better decisions. Thus, removing obstacles between the cost of care and the individual making the decision will help people make more cost efficient decisions.

The key, of course, is knowing what the price of something will be at different locations. The CNN article mentions several resources you can expect to provide information on the cost of different medical procedures. This includes insurance company web sites and social network sites dedicated to the health care industry. So, the more information you have, the better decision you can make regarding your health care.

Lowering the cost for health care consumers should be what any "reform" in Washington is about. To lower the cost, you need to provide more information to people about their options. The internet is a great resource, allowing people to quickly and easily compare providers. In the article, a woman even picks the ER for her daughter based on a web site that provides information about health care facilities.

You also need to foster real competition in the health insurance industry. You can do this by allowing health insurance companies to compete across state lines, similar to car insurance companies. This means businesses would have to offer a better plan than their competitor or risk losing their clients. It also opens the door for people with pre-existing conditions to get a health insurance plan, though this population will probably never get as cheap a rate as a healthy person for the simple fact that they are a higher business risk.

The idea of a 'public option' as the best way to foster competition has some major flaws. Yes, it would provide another health insurance choice for individuals, especially people who cannot get a "high risk" private insurance plan. Unfortunately, the down side to a Federal public option is that every tax payer pays for the plan, not just the individuals enrolled in the plan. Thus it decreases the motivation for people in the plan to price shop services.

The public option idea also duplicates something we already have, Medicare and Medicaid. Both of these medical coverage plans offer services to people who cannot get private insurance. Both of these plans, though, cost a large amount just to support the bureaucracies for each agency. As government run organizations, they have no business need to keep these costs down for the simple fact that they're not trying to earn a profit.

Studies have shown that our current health care system costs too much because we've placed intermediaries, both government and insurance companies, between the patient and the service. We simply need to open the health care market again to bring costs down.

Friday Stimulus Funny

This wouldn't be so funny, except it's true.

The BS Package has produced no new jobs, it's intended goal. In fact, the job numbers are worse than those projected for the country by Obama's administration if we had 'done nothing.'

Hat Tip - Hot Air

Why Slow is Better Than Fast

I wish our Congress worked slower. Seriously. It would be much better for the country if Congress went slow instead of fast. Slow is deliberate. Slow is contemplative. Slow is unhurried and just-in-time. Slow allows us to consider the ramifications of the bills (if passed) and determine whether we want to live with the outcome or leave well enough alone.

This article at Reason dares to ask, "What would happen if we do nothing, instead of rushing in?" The author gives some good examples of bills with unintended consequences.

One he only mentions in passing, though, is the BS bill. Remember, this is a bill needed to save America. How are we doing? Not so good, acutally. The unemployment rate is almost 2 percentage points higher than projected with the stimulus package. And, get this, the current unemployment is about 1 percentage point higher than if the stimulus bill had not passed.

Seems like we've discussed before how the BS package has enormous waste and little actual stimulus. Of course, if Congress had actually read the bill before they passed it, they might have noticed this.

Can We Opt Out of Socialism, Please?

What is Socialsim? A short answer can be found in Wikipedia, where they define Socialism as "Any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of good." So, in Socialism, the State controls businesses, either in part or in whole.

Keep this in mind as you think about how Obama's Federal government tries to get its hands in everything. Government tries to manipulate the economy, with questionable effects. Government intervenes in previously private businesses and banks that are "too big to fail."

Now, even though Obama's budget deficit will be historically high, Obama wants to step in, spend even more money and muddle about with our private health care system. An aside: How does government interference help restore or rebuild our economy? Answer: It doesn't.

This scares me more than most of the other systems, since it has the potential to do several things, none of them good. I've listed some of the effects below.

First, it will INCREASE the cost of care, not decrease it. We would have to fund the system twice, both as patients and as taxpayers. When we go to the doctor, most Americans would still have to pay money out of pocket for service. In addition, taxpayer money would have to go into paying for the administration of this system. And we all know how efficient government administered programs are.

Second, there will be fewer doctors and fewer specialists to treat everyone. Don't believe me? Then quickly review this New York Times article about how the current government run healthcare system, Medicare, is working.

The recommendation from the article seems to be that individuals should find "Concierge Medicine" in their area. The anecdote provided at the end illustrates how coverage in concierge medicine, coverage for services not covered by government funding, saved a person's life. Would a government paid doctor answer the phone after business hours to offer life-saving services? As mentioned above, even with "Government Healthcare," individual spending for appropriate, necessary, life saving care is necessary.

Finally, we would have face a shortage of service. This is the really scary effect, one that will kill people. With fewer doctors and specialists, rationed health care is garunteed. Look at the evidence provided by this video.



With all of these effects of Socialism, why is Obama pushing us further in that direction?

Awesome Friday Funny... Burn!!

I saw this video and knew I had to share.

The sad thing about this video is it pretty accurately portrays what Obama has done with our tax dollars.

The Bail Outs, as Explained by South Park

This is AWESOME!!! I mean, how else can you explain the government mucking about in the economy, throwing away billions of dollars, without any noticable effect?

South Park	Wed 10pm / 9c
Bailout!
comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

US Corporate Taxes Explained... Obama, are you listening?

In this debate about making sure the U.S. corporations pay their 'fair share,' let's take a look at the current laws and what Obama proposes to change. 

This video quickly and concisely breaks everything down in a logical manner. And as anyone who chooses to use their brain can tell you, doubling taxes on U.S. companies abroad is not going to help our recession anymore than increasing taxes on U.S. citizens will.

This tax dodge myth is one Obama is trying to use to his advantage. As the article's author states, "Obama sacrificed substance for grandstanding." Sounds about par for the Obama course.  

Hat tip - Hot Air

Obama is Not Really Helping the Economy

This video is scary. Not only are we in tough economic straits, but apparently the tax money give away that started with Bush and went rampant with Obama is not really helping things.

One thing that struck me is the accounting rules that changed recently. Oh my gosh! It appears that, instead of trying to acurately report items, banks and financial institutions (with the help of our Federal Government) said, "Let's just change how we report things to mak eour balance sheets look better."

I also agree with Black about the bogus stress tests. It's a FARCE and a SHAM! And we know this based on the real facts, not the revised accounting numbers. How do we know the tests are a sham? Stress test doesn't test for asset quality. And, as Black states, "How can the banks all pass the stress test if they collectively need $2 Trillion in U.S. Taxpayer money?"

Also, the whole idea that we can simply inject capital into the banks to make them solvent is ILLEGAL! Black states, "The prior administration violated that law and the current administration is violating that law."

I love his almost blunt answer to the question, "Tim Geitner's the Treasurey Seceratary. Doesn't he know what he's doing?" He starts to say, "No," but backs off and gives a more politic answer, although going on to offer MOUNDS of evidence detailing how Geitner is not qualified.

Watch the whole thing to understand just how screwed up things are right now.

Friday Funny... Not So Funny, Actually.

A great image for Friday. Very telling.

Obama's Budget Cut... to Scale

This video describes the Obama budget cuts and provides an understandable scale. Remember, the large Federal budget is being driven by programs President Obama wants.



There is definitely a way to cut more from this budget.

Hat Tip Hot Air.

Stop Giving Away My Money!!!

This article perfectly illustrates my frustration with my government giving away my money to corporations.

The whole idea of the capitalist system is, "You reap what you sow." This means if a company makes bad decisions, the company goes under. Period.

This also means that no company is "too big to fail," contrary to what some in the Obama administration would have you believe. This also means, stop giving them more money when they are failing.

He's Exactly Who We Thought He Was

Well, in a previous post during the campaign, I had hopes for now-President Obama. My hope was that Obama's connections to the far left radicals marked him simply as a political animal who would use whoever was around him to get ahead. My fear was he would be more like a true believer and start moving this country to the left.

Based on what I read in this Washington Examiner article, Obama is a believer. It's interesting to note how Obama won the primary election by "out lefting" the rest of the Democratic candidates, and won the general election by moving back to the center. An important note in how he managed to do this was the coddling given to him by the main stream media. With the information they provided, people could hope for a centrist Obama who happened to be among a 'few' bad apples.

However, with his economic BS package and his new budget, Obama has marked himself as a liberal of the higest order. I can't say I'm surprised.

Santelli Telling It Like It Is

This video is AWESOME!!

Every American should be enraged, outraged and severely PO'd by the Bailouts and the BS package. The bonuses aren't really the issue. The real issue is that we put any money into these businesses at all.



Something to remember, the way our system should work is that businesses should be allowed to fail if they are not profitable. Business bankruptcy is there to allow businesses to liquidate their assets to people who have been better money managers, not to the Federal government.

What More People Should Read

This article really hammers the Obama administration on their handling of the economic crisis so far. They really point out some major flaws in how the current administration is handling things.

The part I like best:

"Indeed we should do something—but, as usual, it’s exactly the opposite of what the federal government intends to do. We should cut the government’s budget as drastically as possible, thereby releasing resources for use by the productive sector. (That worked pretty well in stopping the terrible depression of 1920–21.) We should stop the Fed from interfering in the recovery process. We should let the private economy sort out which activities undertaken during the artificial Greenspan boom are genuine wealth-generating activities and which are wealth-destroying bubble activities. The latter should be promptly liquidated so their resources can be better employed by the former.

Meanwhile, we still have some conservatives, frozen in the 1980s, calling for reductions in marginal income tax rates, among other feckless suggestions. Tax reductions are desirable, to be sure, but the crisis we are facing is a systemic one that is not going to be fixed by marginal changes here and there. We need to start talking big changes. We need to open up questions the regime has long since considered closed. We need to talk about the monetary system, the Fed, entitlements, and much else.

In other words, if the Left can advocate $1 trillion-plus annual deficits as far as the eye can see, why can’t supporters of the free market be equally bold in the opposite direction?"

It's worth reading the whole thing, so go read the whole article.

The Media is Catching On

No matter that Obama initially inherited a troubled economy. He's had almost three months to lay out his policies for moving forward. However, from all indications, he's really messed up.

Here's a great article that takes a look at the changes he's made and how they impact the economy:

1. Raising the tax rate on hedge funds and private equity funds will do nothing but slow investment in new business (and it's already been having a negative impact).

2. The cap-and trade program for carbon emissions (which don't matter anyways) would put a big handicap on any chance already hard hit manufacturers would have rebuilding their business.

3. Housing prices are definitely not going to go up if you make buying houses harder for anyone. Yet that is what Obama's new cut back on tax deductions for home loan interest for some individuals would do.

So far, all of the President's moves have had a negative effect on the economy. Is that what he's going for?

The Wall Street Journal's Take on Obama

After reading this article and this article from the Wall Street Journal, it seems our fears about the Obama BS package are justified.

The first article notes that the economy has continued to slip, and even accelerated its slide, with the announcement of the new BS economic plan. Maybe that's because investors read the Congressional Budget Office report stating the stimulus doesn't spend the money fast enough to make a difference and may stunt future growth. It's enough to scare me off from buying anything new, and I live in a 2 income household.

The second article appears to be rather dry, giving statistic after statistic about how the crashing stock market means we have a 20% chance of a depression. However, the last paragraph is very telling. The author reports he believes the economy will recover "despite" the spending past, not because of it.

My big question is, who are the Democrats in Washington listening to? It's certainly not the expert economists and it's not their constituents. I'll say before what I've said in the past, the Democrats used the recession as an excuse to push through a HUGE amount of earmarked spending they know wouldn't have gotten through otherwise.

I'm so mad, I want to cuss.

Just How Bad is The BS Package?

Well, based on recent facts (about a week ago), enormous amounts from the BS Package will be plowed into... non stimulus items. And, looking at the list, it seems most of these other items are projects and causes near and dear to the heart of many "progressives."

This includes:

• $650 million for digital-TV coupons - Since when did TV stimulate anything?
• $5.2 billion for community-development block grants and “neighborhood stabilization activities,” - ACORN will be eligible to apply for these.
• $600 million to convert the federal auto fleet to hybrids
• $450 million for NASA (carve-out for “climate-research missions”)
• $600 million for NOAA (carve-out for “climate modeling”) - They definitely need more money for climate modeling and climate research to explain why "global climate change" seems to be slowing or reversing course (not predicted by their models).
• $2 billion for renewable-energy research ($400 million just for global-warming research)
• $2 billion for a “clean coal” power plant in Illinois (because less CO2 is better? Yeah, right. See link below.)
• $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects - Try telling them that, based on science, it's not CO2, it's the SUN!
  

Take a look here for the full list. Yeah, keep trying to sell this BS as a 'stimulus package, progressives.

Even the Brits Can See We've Gone Wrong

This article quickly covers just how bad the BS package is, with a quick run down of why it sucks so badly. The British writer describes, with great clarity, the big mistake Obama and the Democrats made.

Obama is backing the most primitive interpretation of Keynes’s theories: that any form of government spending amounts to an economic stimulus. He is almost blind to supply-side economics, which suggests that if you want to encourage profitable job creation, you should concentrate on reducing companies’ payroll taxes – and then leave individual businesses to decide how best to employ the funds released.

Instead, the young president seems to want to take us back to some of the failed policies of the 1930s, under the mistaken impression that they were a great triumph. He illustrates with dreadful clarity George Santayana’s most-quoted aphorism: those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Of course, any thinking person can see the Democrats are more worried about their pet programs than they are about helping the nation.

Too bad the rest of us have to pay for their lack of intellect.

Hat Tip Hot Air.

Well, Here's Hoping

I've done verything I can think to do, including calling my Representative and my Senators. Now, we just have to wait for their vote. My hope is that someone grows a brain, especially the three defectors.

This BS spending has little to do with actually improving the lives of Americans. If it did, then it would be good over the long haul, not harmful to our economy. Instead, the BS package is stuffed with all sorts of goodies that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with spending money where Democrats want it to go.

Way to put one over on the American people, Democrats.

Partisan Politics Could Kill the BS

Pelosi is my hero, but not for the reason you may think. Somehow, she has managed to find one sure-fire way to ruin the chances for the BS package. And that's good, because this spending package is not needed. The economy has to retract a bit.

If the Pelosi and the Democrats were serious about passing a bill to help Americans, they would have listened to all ideas. They would have reviewed history to see what works and what doesn't.

Instead, we have the Democratic leadership pushing through a bill without even completely listening to their own party. We have a party trying to push through a stimulus package that the public does not want and that most certainly will HURT the US economy in the long term.

So Pelosi, for helping make the BS fail, thank you.