Dirty, Filthy, Greedy Capitalists
In the midst of the Obamacare debate, an astounding and possibly racist, imperialist discovery has been made.
Capitalism is responsible for lowering medical costs. Can you believe it?
In some of the most significant changes in decades, hospital systems are beginning to post their prices publicly and offer a range of help, including big discounts to uninsured and underinsured people with limited household incomes.
Health insurers also have embraced the trend. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Health Alliance Plan, Priority Health and Aetna are among those with improved Web sites that provide the average cost of a procedure. Some sites even zoom in on local prices when visitors type in their ZIP code.
"It's a fundamental shift" in how health care prices are set and publicized, said Stephen Hathaway, chief revenue officer for the Detroit-based Henry Ford Health System.
The changes come as Michigan's uninsured population has grown to 1.35 million, an increase of 200,000 between 2007 and 2009, the latest year of information available from the state health department.
Didn't Obama and his progressive minions assure us that only the government can bring down health care costs? And they insisted that only their preferred method, strong government intervention to the point of forcing all citizens to buy health insurance from from a government insurance provider )as private insurance companies are to be driven out of business) would insure that we Americans continue to enjoy some of the world's best medical care. This, of course, doesn't apply to the over 700 organizations (including labor unions who fought long and hard to encourage the passage of Obamacare) who have been
given waivers so that they do NOT have to participate in Obamacare because it's driven up their health care costs. Huh? What? Driven costs up?
Wait. Did up become down, and down become up? Have I not been informed of Progressive changes in the English language? Or is somebody not being honest with the American public?
But seriously folks, now that it has been demonstrated once again that Capitalism and free markets are responsible for lower costs, greater wealth creation, greater freedom, increased innovation, a better standard of living by just about any honest measure you can choose, and that increased government control over the economy leads to the opposite, why are some people still clamoring for more government spending to "create jobs."
Do some people absolutely refuse to learn?
Update: I found
this article after I posted.
“It’s an industry that’s going through the roof,” said Mark Semple, president of Vancouver-based Passport Medical. “It’s wait times, it’s cost, it’s price, it’s quality and accessibility.”
Retired accountant Gary Davidge of Calgary started looking into hip replacements two years ago when they cost $45,000 U.S. in Arizona. When the arthritis pain in his hip intensified in December, a medical broker found him a price of $18,800 in Montana.
Although Mr. Davidge’s preference would have been to have his operation at home funded by Canada’s public health system, the average wait was a year to 18 months, and no one could tell him with certainty when the surgery would take place.
So, as others before me have asked, where do the Canadians go (and where do we go) to escape socialized medicine?
Labels: capitalism, economics, economy, Obama, Obamacare, Progressives
The Daniel Schorr Solution
I had NPR on the radio this morning as I was driving.
Daniel Schorr was doing his weekly news analysis schtick with who-ever-the-host was. In discussing Obama's plan for an executive order to create a
deficit reduction panel, they brought up the conundrum associated with reducing the deficit. You see, according to these two NPR geniuses, we need government spending in order to create jobs. And this, of course, will increase the deficit. We have two mutually exclusive needs which can only be solved by the Obama government.
Now, I'm probably not smart enough (as evidenced by the fact that I did not vote for Obama) to work for NPR, but in my backward, simple-minded way of thinking, it seems to me that the way to reduce the deficit is to stop spending so much money, especially the money that the government has to borrow. As approximately
two thirds of government spending is done on entitlement programs, I would suggest we start cutting there. After all, entitlement spending is predicated on taking my money that I've worked for, and money from other workers and giving it to people who did not work for it. So besides cutting government spending, that would also leave more money in the pockets of the people who worked for it. We, the people who worked for the money could then take this money and spend it on things that we wanted to spend it on. You know, things like home improvement, new appliances, food, clothes, cars, books, music, vacations to exotic places.
Hey! Wait a minute. If we regular folk we allowed to keep more of our own money and spend it on things that we in our own simple minded, non-government controlled think that we want and need, more people would need to work to create the things that we want and need. Why, that would mean more jobs. For people. Outside of the government. It would be just like an uncontrolled market, a free market even.
That's my embarrassingly foolish plan. I bet Daniel Schorr and the other heavy thinkers at NPR would never come up with anything as silly as what I'm suggesting. After all, they're on NPR. They love Obama, and they understand that all wealth and all freedom is government created. The idea of being endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights is the height of naivete. How could I think such a thing possible?
Labels: Danlel Schorr, economy, government, NPR, Obama
The Plight of the Palestinians
Here is an
interesting article by
Melanie Phillips on the current economic situation in the West Bank.
# As security has been strengthened in the West Bank and suicide bombings have virtually disappeared -- thanks overwhelmingly to Israel's much criticized security fence -- the tourism industry in the Palestinian areas has rebounded nicely. The city of Bethlehem saw 1 million tourists in 2008, an increase of 500,000 from the previous year. The city of Jericho saw 500,000 tourists in '08, an increase of over 100,000 from 2007. To put it in perspective, the entire state of Israel had 1 million tourists in 2008.
# The unemployment rate in the West Bank in 2002 was a whopping 31 %. This was during the second Intifada, when Palestinian terrorism was at its peak, and the Israeli security fence had not yet been erected. Today, that unemployment rate stands at 15 %. To put it in context, Israel's unemployment rate right now is at 9%, and the U.S. rate is hovering around 10 %. In the longtime West Bank terror hotbed of Nablus, which has now become an unlikely shopping destination, unemployment has dropped all the way down to 6 %.
# 229,000 trucks passed between Israel and the West Bank in the first half of 2009, a 41 % increase from 2008. This has helped lead to a 29 % increase in fuel deliveries to the West Bank between '08 and '09.
But wait. There's more!
Stock market: A 12.5% rise since the beginning of the year.
· Foreign investments in the West Bank: A six-fold increase (!) compared with the corresponding period last year, as a result of the economic conferences that were held in Bethlehem and Nablus, and of the improved security in the area (this figure was provided by the Palestinians and the Joint Economic Conference held on September 2).
Hmm, things certainly do change when change your outlook from murder and destruction to growth and prosperity. I wonder if this will burst any bubbles.
Labels: economy, Israel, Melanie Phillips, Palestinians, terrorism
But It's For Our Own Good
Let's see. In a few years we won't be allowed to use incandescent light bulbs. If we don't have health insurance we can face fines and possible jail time. We shouldn't use oil from Islamic nations, but we aren't allowed to drill our own or build nuclear power plants to power the future battery powered automobiles, which I'm sure we will be "encouraged" to buy in order to "save the planet." Muslims who promote and engage in Jihad are the victims and the people that they murder are - um - are - the oppressors? And that's not just in Israel any more. Local Detroit papers went on for days with articles about how the local Muslim community was afraid of that backlash that we've been warned about since September 12, 2001, you know, due to the latest unfortunate incident where a Muslim is stricken with
Sudden Jihad Syndrome, this time at Ft. Hood, where a Muslim major went on a short shooting spree that had nothing to do with the fact that he's Muslim - and well, I'm sure everyone has read about all of those politically incorrect red flags that were ignored, since had anyone in authority taken action, they would have been roundly attacked by CAIR and their fellow traveling diversity mongers. And yes, many fellow citizens have allowed themselves to be convinced that this had nothing to do with Islam.
And then there's
this piece by Mark Steyn about how we're poised to loose even more of our formerly Constitutionally protected, but granted by our Creator, rights.
I’m always appreciative when a fellow says what he really means. Tim Flannery, the jet-setting doomsaying global warm-monger from down under, was in Ottawa the other day promoting his latest eco-tract, and offered a few thoughts on “Copenhagen”—which is transnational-speak for December’s UN Convention on Climate Change. “We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen,” remarked professor Flannery. “We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”
Hold that thought: “They deal with every aspect of our life.” Did you know every aspect of your life was being negotiated at Copenhagen? But in a good way! So no need to worry. After all, we all care about the environment, don’t we? So we ought to do something about it, right? And, since “the environment” isn’t just in your town or county but spreads across the entire planet, we can only really do something at the planetary level. But what to do? According to paragraph 38 on page 18 of the latest negotiating text, the convention will set up a “government” to manage the “new funds” and the “related facilitative processes.”
The whole thing is worth reading because one, it's by Mark Steyn, and two, we need to pay attention to what these "selfless" environmentalists have in store for the rest of us.
As our rights are slowly eaten away, it appears that it is with the blessings of a large portion of our fellow American citizens. Of the 53% of the voters who elected our current president, there are many who did not know his real agenda. Some of them foolishly depended on the Obama-loving, Bush-hating MSM for their information. Others were just stupid. But a lot of folks agree wholeheartedly with the Obama agenda. For example, there was this letter in today's Detroit Free Press.
Thanks for the comprehensive coverage of Michigan tax needs and present income statistics.
You report, "The top 5% of households in Michigan now have as much or more income than the bottom half." Anyone who reads this and does not support a graduated income tax either didn't graduate from the 7th grade, or did graduate from Harvard Business School and is now one of the millionaires or billionaires protecting their incomes in that 5% bracket.
It's not hard to guess who is fighting the graduated income tax movement, and who is funding it.
Most of your readers are too young to remember the days when our country and leaders believed in a sane and fair distribution of wealth in this country.
In the '50s, we had an excess profits tax where companies had to pay their excess profits in taxes or give the money to their employees in bonuses. Blue-collar workers received healthy bonuses every quarter at the company where I worked.
Excess profits? How much is excess? And what will this writer say when some bureaucrat decides that he has to part with more of his excess income? I bet this is a person who decries "obscene" profits too . . . as opposed to merely erotic profits, or "artistic" or . . . you get the idea. Too many people today find freedom an
irksome burden and are looking for scapegoats for their problems. Obama and the Democratic Congress are helping out with lists of the most popular, you know, Fox News, Big Pharma, Wall Street, the Insurance Industry.
But remember - Obama and his cronies, and environmentalists, and the diversity lobby, and the Islamic community have your best interests at heart. They know what's better for you much better than you do. After all, they're intellectuals.
Labels: Detroit Free Press, economy, environment, islam, Mark Steyn, MSM, Obama, Obamacare
Things You Can Say When You're Spending Other People's Money
"If it increases costs to pay people a decent wage, so be it,"
Those are the words of Oakland County Commissioner
Tim Greimel, a Democrat (what a surprise). The concept is referred to as paying the "prevailing wage."
Greimel's proposal, which his fellow Democrats support, would require construction contractors on county projects to post and pay prevailing wages and benefits -- basically union scale -- as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor. Contractors also would be required to submit forms to the county showing how much they paid to whom.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and the idea was shot down. Buying votes is expensive, and we taxpayers are running out of money, you know, times being what they are and all. And I think unions (including the one that I'm forced to belong to) have entirely too much power in this country.
Labels: Democrats, economy, labor unions
Good News?
The White House is predicting a
lower than expected deficit this year. That's good right? I'm not so sure.
The federal budget picture will look slightly better next week. Relatively speaking.
The White House plans to announce the federal deficit will still be a record breaker, at $1.58 trillion, for the current 2009 fiscal year. But the amount is about $262 billion less than officials predicted earlier this year.
That's mostly because the administration erased a $250 billion contingency fund it had penciled into the budget in case Wall Street needed more government help in getting out of the financial crisis.
While the numbers still represent a tremendous amount of red ink, they would give the administration the opportunity to say its policies have prevented a more extreme financial crisis and eliminated the need for further bank infusions.
That's quite a spin, but this administration needs all the spin it can get. However,
Even at $1.58 trillion, the deficit this year would be three times larger than last year. A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the report before its release Tuesday, said the report for the budget year that ends Sept. 30 also will predict Washington will spend $3.653 trillion this year. Revenue, however, would reach only $2.074 trillion.
So according to my calculations, based on the previously quoted numbers 56.7% of government spending will be from tax revenue. The other 43.3% will be borrowed. That's pretty close to half. That's insane. And we're supposed to add to that by making health care a right for all Americans? That's even more insane. But there's more.
The nation's debt now stands at $11.7 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and ignores previous debt that is still outstanding.
How high can the debt go before it becomes unsustainable? I'm just asking, because I don't know. Maybe I'm not seeing things correctly, but a steadily and faster climbing debt load is always bad news.
In a final note, it's all Bush's fault.
Stan Collender, a former congressional budget official, said the White House's new deficit numbers can't be blamed on Obama. Collender, now with Qorvis Communications, a Washington consulting firm, said that when President George W. Bush left office the deficit estimate for this fiscal year was $1.2 trillion, and that didn't include a tax adjustment and additional spending for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, approved this year, that Bush also would have sought.
As long as Obama is in office, everything that can't be pinned on the Jews, will be Bush's fault.
Labels: deficit, economy, Obama
Bailout Madness
We've all engaged in gallows humor recently, asking each other, "Hey, where's my bailout?" as we bemoan the fact that our elected dopes in Congress, who made a major contribution to the current economic mess, are claiming that only their tireless efforts can save us from financial ruin and another even greater depression.
Well, some people are serious. There are always those that, no matter how educated they are, or how smart they think they are,
just don't get it and never will.
This is truly an historic victory for workers in the United States.
But this struggle is just the beginning! As the economic crisis deepens we need to launch a working class fight back. Rallies for a "People's Bailout" will continue today and throughout the rest of the week.
The People's Cube couldn't parody these idiots if they didn't really exist.
Labels: bailout, Congress, economy, The People's Cube
Why are Oil Prices Falling?
I couldn't help but notice that as soon as President Bush ended the presidential
moratorium on drilling in the sacred, forbidden, offshore areas, oil prices went down. That was yesterday. They've gone down further today. I thought there could be a connection. The Detroit Free Press, wedded to a certain way of thinking, had
other explanations for the fall of oil prices. But if there's one thing I've learned about the "progressive" mindset, it is that - for every true statement from the non-progressive side, they've got a barrel full of contrary explanations, very few of which can stand up to scrutiny, which is probably why they need so many arguments to convince us nonprogressives that we need to believe them over our own lying eyes.
Anyway, over at NRO Online, Larry Kudlow, who I assume knows a lot more about this than I do, says,
In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.
Now isn’t this interesting?
Democrats keep saying that it will take 10 years or longer to produce oil from the offshore areas. And they say that oil prices won’t decline for at least that long. And they, along with Obama and McCain, bash so-called oil speculators. And today we had a real-world example as to why they are wrong. All of them. Reid, Pelosi, Obama, McCain — all of them.
Traders took a look at a feisty and aggressive George Bush and started selling the market well before a single new drop of oil has been lifted. What does this tell us? Well, if Congress moves to seal the deal, oil prices will probably keep on falling. That’s the way traders work. They discount the future. Psychology and expectations can turn on a dime.
The congressional ban on offshore drilling expires September 30, so that becomes a key date. A new report from Wall Street research house Sanford C. Bernstein says that California actually could start producing new oil within one year if the moratorium were lifted. The California oil is under shallow water and already has been explored. Drilling platforms have been in place since before the moratorium. They’re talking about 10 billion barrels worth off the coast of California.
There’s also a “gang of 10” in the Senate, five Republicans and five Democrats, that is trying to work a compromise deal on lifting the moratorium. So it’s possible a lot of action on this front could occur much sooner than people seem to think.
So I repeat: Drill, drill, drill. Deregulate, decontrol, and unleash the American energy industry. Those hated traders will then keep selling oil as the laws of supply and demand and free markets keep working.
Bravo for Bush. Bravo for the traders.
Democrats, though, will, according to Michelle Malkin, continue, along with environmentalists, to
hold our economy hostage. How long will the American people allow this? I don't know, but I'm going to fire off another letter to my elected representatives. The other ones don't seem to have done much good, but if they turn out to be part of an avalanche of letters and phone calls, maybe we can see some change from these so-called servants of the people.
Labels: Congress, economy, Larry Kudlow, Michelle Malkin, NRO, Oil
Tax Cuts for the Rich, the Deficit, and Serendipity
According to
this article in today's Detroit Free Press,
White House budget officials cut their estimate for this year's deficit to $333 billion Wednesday as rising tax receipts from growth in jobs, income and corporate revenue put President George W. Bush in sight of the first decline in the annual shortfall since he took office.
The midyear estimate is less than the Office of Management and Budget's February forecast of a $427-billion deficit for fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30, and will help Bush make the case that he is fulfilling his promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.
The forecast includes all money appropriated by Congress this year for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan -- approximately $100 billion -- and $50 billion for the fiscal 2006 budget resolution.
The report is "a sign that our economy is strong, and it's a sign our tax-relief plan, our pro-growth policies are working," Bush said.
And according to the
The New York Times,
The White House predicted in February that the deficit would hit $427 billion this year, up from $412 billion in 2004. But tax revenues are running about 15 percent higher, and corporate tax revenues are expected to be 40 percent higher.
For economists, an important measure of fiscal health is the deficit as a share of the gross domestic product. The deficit reached 3.5 percent of G.D.P. last year, not a record, but high enough in a period of expansion to alarm many economists. This year, the administration predicts, the deficit will drop to 2.7 percent of gross domestic product. If the latest White House forecast proves accurate, the deficit would shrink to 1.1 percent of G.D.P. in 2009.
Isn't this what happened after the Reagan tax cuts? More discretionary income, spent on things so that businesses were able to expand, leading to more tax revenue? Of course, Democrats disagree, accusing Bush of overstating the orignal deficit estimates, complaining about the cost of the war in Iraq, the looming problems with social security, etc.
Even a lower projected deficit is pretty huge at $350 billion. Maybe we could save some money if we cut some unneeded government programs.
Since the democrats accuse the Bush administration of only producing tax cuts for the "rich", I decided to run the following chestnut that's been floating around the Internet for the past few years.
Today's Economic Lesson in Taxation
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that everyday, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the
restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until
one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy
up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth
man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when
I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all.. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat
down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being
wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are
lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
Courtesy of : ?
I removed the name of the alleged author of this piece because when I went to his website, there was a prominent disavowel of his authorship. According to
Urban Legends Reference Pages The
only question we're covering about this humorous parable explaining "how taxes really work" is its authorship, and the investigation reveals this item to be one of those favored pieces of writing adopted and reprinted by numerous columnists without their knowing (or necessarily caring) who originally penned it.
But is the analogy accurate? It certainly makes sense, even to
William Buckley. Finding new things makes research exciting, even if I don't get the information I was looking for, like the author of the Tax piece, and whether or not the deficit projections are accurate.
Labels: deficit, Detroit Free Press, economy, New York Times, urban legends, William Buckley
War's legitimate object is more perfect peace. Flavius Vegitius Renatus
This is an optional footer. If you want text here, place it inside these tags, and remove this comment.
CHALLAH AKBAR
