Ann Coulter and victims

Ann and I are on the same page with Liberals being obsessed with victims and exploiting the victim mentality. Her book, Guilty, also showed me a different side. I believe (and still do) that the Democratic party is always on the lookout for groups they can single out and proclaim as the latest victims. For victims to exist, you need the villains. And for villains to exist, you need heroes. So the Democratic party tirelessly proclaims how groups of people (by ethnicity, social class, gender, life choices) are being victimized by Republicans, businesses, or other traditional targets. Ann's book highlights that some of the very groups that are being victimized arent victims at all! I can't say that I agree with everything in her book, but she raises some very valid points about the victimization of single mothers for instance. She also highlights the disparities in media coverage and victimization between democrats and republicans. Now, Ann is not known for her tact. Her book would probably be unreadable by card carrying liberals. That is really a shame. Her book is incredible well researched with hundreds and hundreds of citations. Ann just cannot hold back, though, constant jabs and sarcasm when it comes to liberal thinking.

Obama just recently has stated in speeches how HE is going to be targeted personally on his health care ideas. He is going to be attacked. He is a victim. Bill Clinton said similar things during his presidency. I cant remember though G.W. making himself out to be the victim though. Can you?

Creating this false victim mentality distracts from real issues and real debate. Conservatism does not believe of segragating people into groups. Always talking about people as latino, black, gay, or poor. As if all latinos think alike. Conservatism focuses on personal responsibility and the power of the individual. Republicans have a hard time criticizing the record of Judge Sotomayor for fear that they will be called racist and sexist. You cannot criticize that poor poor latina.

It seems like as long as the Democratic party pushes that kind of racial nonsense, racism will never truely end in this country. I would even wager the Democratic party would be WORSE off if racism truely ended in this country. That wont keep them down, though. They will just find new ways to segregate groups and tell them how oppressed they are.

Cars, CAFE, the future

It is a hysterical car, this. Mad. Bonkers. Stupid. It sits on the road network like a Class-1 powerboat would sit at the Henley regatta. Of course, it is also utterly pointless. No one is going to buy a lumbering Q7 for outright speed.

However, let us not dwell on such things. Let us instead rejoice at the fact that it exists. It’s crap. But it’s brilliant too. I don’t want one. But I don’t want to live in a world where I never had the choice in the first place.

-Jeremy Clarkson

Much has been said recently around CAFE standards and how we need to raise these standards to protect the environment. I think that this is completely ridiculous. When the price of gasoline spiked last year, we did not need the government to tell us which cars would be best for us. With those high prices, people avoided SUVs like the plague. The point of CAFE standards is to dictate what cars that a company can and cannot make. This is completely counter to conservative ideals that any invidual should be able to purchase what they want. If there is a market for fuel inefficient vehicle, any company should be able to produce it. The fuel efficiency race is a natural part of competitive behaviour regardless of any government standard. The free market determines whether or not they are willing to pay more up front for a vehicle that is (all else held equal) more fuel efficient. They are also free to decide if they want to trade horsepower for fuel efficiency.

It may be a misperception on my part but I find that Progressive (liberal) thinking is full of policies where you HAVE to do something. You HAVE to recycle, you HAVE to do what is in the best interest of everyone, you HAVE to make your vehicles run on ethanol. Conservative thinking on the other hand sets restrictions and then lets the free market decide how to proceed from there. Liberal thinking has a solution to the end goal in mind, conservative thinking does not limit itself to one solution.

If I had the power I would end CAFE standards entirely in this country. This is not so that we can go back to producing SUVs for all but to at least give people a choice. Fuels produced from crude oil are a finite resource and as they become more scarce the prices will rise. This will give other alternatives a chance to become more competitive. Right now, there is no other solution that can replace gasoline and diesel fuel with any immediacy. However, vehicles that use alternative fuels or use less fuel in general are a good thing. But why do we need to mandate that on all?

I really do think America needs to become energy independent. As long as we are not, it is potentially a national security disaster. If government were to step in, here is what I would propose as a solution. The gasoline tax would increase by $0.25 every year over four years. Since we cannot track how much gasoline every family uses, each family would be given a gasoline tax credit based on the size of the size of the family. We would then estimate how many miles we think are appropriate to be driven and reimburse the housefold for gasoline tax they paid up to that level of appropriate use. So lets say that you have a very long commute in a ineffient car. You may have paid $1000 in gasoline tax throughout the year, but only be reimbursed for $300 (the standard level). Someone who has a short commute in a fuel efficient vehicle may have only paid $200 but will still be reimbursed for $300. Finally, someone who uses an all electric car will be reimbursed for $300 without paying any gasoline taxes. One day, at the rate we are heading now with CAFE, a Corvette with its 7.0L engine may be ILLEGAL to produce. Under my proposed system, companies could still produce these cars. As long as they were driven mainly for leisure, a family could still come out ahead on fuel taxes. The whole point is to provide financial incentive to people to use energy more efficiently. Instead of increasing CAFE standards as we do now, we may in the future decide to lower the standard reimbursement rate to make sure we are not paying out more than we collect. Having to reduce the standard rate would mean the action was indeed working and people were using less or using energy more efficiently.

Now I am not sure that this action even needs to be done. Even I do not find it ideal (or even close) but it would have the desired goal of swaying individuals to make choices for more efficient vehicles. I would rather the free market sort it all out on its own rather than government step in at all. Letting that happen, though comes with the assumation of risk.

In the future, we will also need to find a new way to collect transportation taxes. If vehicles in the future run on electricity, we would then have to levy a tax on electricity to fund improvements for roads. This transition is going to have to be managed very carefully to avoid leaving highway infrastructure projects unfunded.

Youtube Idiot, Bait and Switch

If I were in love with the American model I'd go and live in America. This is not the case. I admire the social mobility of American society. You can start with nothing and become a spectacular success. You can fail and get a second chance. Merit is rewarded... On the other hand I’m not a great fan of the American social model. Social insurance is insufficient and unequal. I do not accept that someone must receive substandard health care or no health care at all, just because he is poor. - Nicolas Sarkozy, Testimony

I should have saved that quote for when I plan to write about what my vision of American social insurance is. However, it is a good lead in to again write about the deception going on around the public health care option. Exhibit A, the "Young Turks" whoever they are. If you watch the short video, the brainless commentator quips that Republicans are scared the plan will work too well. If this guy doesn't get it, there are probably millions more who don't get it as well.

This was really the heart of my Florida Insurance post. For the public option to be competitive and to put pressure on the private insurers, it must be priced less than private options. It therefore must be priced regardless of risk, or underpriced with respect to risk. This is false competition introduced into a free market. No private firm can compete with these prices. If anything, it will force private insurers to only insure the LEAST risky of all individuals. The YouTube video states that because people would dump private insurance for public then public must be the way to go. This is idiotic. Households seek to maximize utility and if a public option were cheaper than any private insurance, it would be a stupid decision on a household level to not choose the public option (unless the service provided by the private insurer provided more utility which the individual deems worth paying for). So what will happen is that more and more people will start dumping their private plans. Employers will stop paying for private insurance because it will be cheaper for everyone to just put them on the public plan.

Now, I just said "cheaper". You have to realize that you will at first be paying for the public option like you do for your normal insurance. But you are also paying for in taxes (if my current reader is successful enough to pay taxes). Regardless of whether you are on a public or private plan, you cannot get out of paying for the public option with your tax dollars.

"One of the virtues of it, though, is that you can at least make the claim that there is a competitive system between the public and private sectors." -Dr Jacob Hacker

"Someone once said to me this is a Trojan Horse for single-payer, and I said, well its not a Trojan Horse, right? It’s just right there." -Dr. Jacob Hacker

Dr. Hacker does not even try to coat this public option in the veil of politics. The end goal of this public option is to destroy, to put the private health insurance industry out of business. And we can see exactly how it gets there.

So what then? After a sufficient amount of people are attached to public insurance, the next logical step is to go to the UK model. Our own NHS (National Health Service) will be completely taxpayer funded (no premiums paid) and doctors, nurses, hospital staff will all work for the government. Here is the catch, though. Remember how risk in the public option had to be under assessed? For an American NHS to work, it will need more funding. It will need more taxes. The amount of these taxes will no doubt be HIGHER than any amount you were ever paying for private insurance. Again, politicians will seek to tax the wealthy but they will not find enough funding there. They will have to tax the middle class as well. The quality of our health care system will be reduced. Innovation will decline. And procedures and medicines will be denied based on government policy and saving the taxpayers money.

The rich need not worry. I am 100% sure we will see a two tiered system in this country. For the rich, who can afford it, there will still be private insurance and doctors NOT on the government pay roll. Rich patients will be able to get all the care they wish for regardless if the government thinks they are too old to be wasting tax payer dollars on for that operation.

The intent of this post is not to argue that the poor, the elderly, or the currently uninsurable should not receive medical care. As I said, I will try to outline later my views on setting a framework for what government's social responsibility should be (I do agree with Sarkozy). What I am arguing is that the public option is a BAIT AND SWITCH. The consumer is promised one thing (more affordable health care) and then is slapped in the face with a single payer system, less freedom, and much higher taxes.

UNIONS

My personal views on the federal government are of a rather limited set of responsibilities. Among those responsibilities are enforcing property rights, enforcing the rule of law (including contracts), and seeing to the safety and security of its citizens.

The Employee Free Choice Act is a horrible piece of legislation that I might go into more depth to in the future. Its purpose, though, is to drastically increase the power of unions. Because I am a believer in contracts, I *have* to be a believer in unions. The following is my simplistic view of unionized labor.

Laborers have the most power when the supply of labor is constrained. Skilled factory workers in a small town would have much more power and incentive to unionize than unskilled (easily replaceable) labor where there is excess supply. I see unions as a contract between all laborers who sign into it. The laborer agrees to pay dues to the union which will elect representatives to negotiate better wages and conditions from their employers. I am also a strong believer in Right to Work. No laborer should ever be forced into this unionization contract. It is the choice of the laborer whether to sign on to a union contract or a direct labor contract with the employer.

Employers should be under no circumstance required to negotiate with union representatives (unless there has been a previously signed contract to do so). If it is in the employer's best interest to do so, they can choose to negotiate and set forth a labor contract with the members of the union. If it is not in the employer's best interest, there should be no reason the employer should not be able to fire all workers who have breached the original terms of their employment by striking. Now I am not saying that employers should be able to fire any worker who talks unionization. What I am saying, is that if during the course of unionization, an employee breaches the terms of their employment then they can be subject to termination.

That's it. That should be the extent of union labor law (or lack of law) in this country. As long as our country sets strong regulations to ensure the safety of workers and ensure workers are not discriminated against, I do not see a place for unions at all. But as I stated before, my beliefs in contracts make me accept their existence.

Unemployment reaches 26 year high

If you look back at the planned stimulus spending Here you can see why it does nothing to help. Now, I never think the stimulus packed should have been passed in that form, but as you can see, most of the money was planned to be spend in years after the recession would most likely be over. There were $109B proposed to be spent THIS year and I dont think we are anywhere near that.

Look for Obama to take advantage of this unemployment rate AND the projections that the rate will be over 10% in a few months. Instead of debating what is in the Cap and Trade and Health care bill, they will again be emergencies. They will be so critical to pass imediately in order to create jobs and get this country back on track regardless if they are good or BAD for the economy and country. It will be sickening how these pieces of legislation will be shoved down our throats all in the name of taking advantage of a crisis.

Florida Insurers

Obama has said on multiple occassions that if you are on private insurance and are happy, he has no intention of taking that away. The state of Florida may have said the same thing when they created a state run option for hurricane insurance, no doubt to keep the private companies honest. The public option does not accurrately assess risk and therefore the premiums are lower than any private company could offer. Several private insurers have already gotten out of the business and Allstate looks to follow. Even though citizens are free to choose any insurance option they wish, they are making the correct economic decision for their households: Choosing the cheapest insurance option.

So what is the problem? People in Florida are saving money in insurance! However, since the state run plan does not assess risk properly, the plan is DRASTICALLY underfunded. If a massive hurricane were to hit, the Florida plan would not be able to pay out to its policyholders and would need a federal bailout. If the state run plan were to assess risk properly, I do not believe they could match the rates of private companies due to the inefficiencies inherent in government.

Now, think about this in terms of a public (federally run) health insurance option.

Conditionally Contingent Health Care Reform

If you believe Michael Moore, health care in the UK and in France is absolutely perfect and those countries have none of the problems we have here. The United States is third world in comparison. The documentary, though, was a very narrow sliver of reality. A single payer health care system isn’t the end of the world but you must not sweep its drawbacks and problems under a rug. Many on the left say the right is trying to scare the public with words like rationing and waitlists. Under a single payer system, the price of consuming health care is essentially nonexistent. What if a movie theatre was purchased by the government and did not charge for tickets? The theatre would be full every night. People who could not previously afford to go, but wanted to, would now be able to. In addition, people who did not necessarily need to go would start going because it is free. This is exactly what happens with a single payer system. The demand for health care drastically increases whether you really needed it or not. I would like to see those who cannot afford health care have a real option to get the care that they need. I reject, though, Michael Moore’s and the left’s premise that health care is a human right. We have a constrained supply of doctors. They can only treat a finite number of patients and problems. If there are no doctors there is no health care. I do not have to depend on anyone else for my unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Health care for the poor is a social responsibility that should be debated in the public square. So let’s debate what is not being talked about.

The UK, France, and Canada all have socialized medicine. The idea is that if you cut out the administration costs, the total cost of health care will go down under this system. It is true that we need to focus on cutting out non value added paperwork and administration to cut costs. A single payer system seems like amputating an arm to cure an itchy mosquito bite. In the US, malpractice insurance is paid directly and indirectly by doctors. They must pay enormous premiums to protect themselves from lawsuits. In addition, every piece of equipment they buy from health care companies comes with the price of insurance built in to protect the manufacturer. The UK, France, and Canada do not have to pay these enormous costs. Why? Are their doctors just less prone to making mistakes? No. In those countries, the legal system is not a lottery.

Have you ever heard of contingency fees? Under our legal system, a lawyer can sign a contract with a client where pay is contingent on the outcome. If the lawyer loses the case, the client does not pay. However, if the lawyer wins, the client would need to pay 5, 10, 15% of the damages award (based on what the contract stated). For lawyers and clients, the legal system acts just like a lottery. Lets compare this to “Conditional” fees. In the UK, lawyers may write contracts which are also conditional on the outcome. However, their pay is a predefined fee or rate. They are not allowed a percentage of the outcome. They can though agree to a risk fee with the client (up to 100% of the fee). This risk fee is added on to the total fee and represents the risk to the lawyer of losing the case and not getting paid.

Take the example of a lawyer in the UK and one in the US. They sign conditional and contingent fees respectively with their clients. Both lawyers rack up $100,000 in fees and both win the cases with their clients being awarded $10,000,000. The UK lawyer had a risk fee of 100% and the US lawyer had a contingency fee of 10%. The US lawyer would earn $1,000,000 while the UK lawyer would only earn $200,000. This looks like all we have done is shaft the lawyer and make the lottery even greater for plaintiffs in the UK but there is one more trick up the sleeve of the UK (and other) legal systems. Loser pays.

If both lawyers had lost their cases the US and UK lawyers would not be paid. However, the client in the US is no worse off than they started. The plaintiff in the UK is not so lucky. They are financially responsible for paying the defendant’s legal costs. The message is: if you bring a frivolous lawsuit and lose, there will be consequences. In the US, it is often cheaper for insurance companies to settle cases out of court because win OR lose their legal fees might be just as high as the settlement costs. Rudy Giuliani once said the defendants of these cases lose even if they win and he is exactly right.

In all the debate we are hearing, the left wants a health care system like the UK, France, and Canada. Sadly though, there is no mention of tort reform to match what is in the UK, France, and Canada. Is it any coincidence that trial lawyers are the biggest donors to the Democrat party?

The cost of all of this weighs heavily on the costs of healthcare. If we truly want to control skyrocketing health care costs, these are simple reforms we could make. It would not involve new government programs and it would not cost the taxpayers any money. Trial lawyers and plaintiffs would be much more careful about the malpractice suits they bring and the cost of our healthcare would fall dramatically. That is a conservative solution for America.