Banking reforms:
President Obama wants to impose new regulations on banks to halt what he calls “risky lending.” President Obama has once again demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of the fundamental causes of the recession. It was his Democratic presidential predecessor Bill Clinton’s administration which encouraged Fannie and Freddy to give loans to people who couldn’t necessarily pay them back (subprime loans), all in the interest of “fairness” and equality. It was George Bush who continued that policy. To blame the banks for the housing bubble and its subsequent burst is like blaming your car for getting arrested for drunk driving; risky lending was encouraged by government, so Obama blames the free market and offers more government as the solution. As a result, the American stock market, particularly in reference to those bank stocks, has plunged deeper into the toilet for three days straight so far.
And Obama wonders why people are so goddamn angry with his administration after his first year in office.
Haiti:
Over 100,000 people are confirmed dead in Haiti from the recent devastating earthquake. The human suffering in that country is indescribable and unimaginable for most Americans.
The subpar infrastructure has been rendered completely useless, save for the main airport, which normally saw air traffic of about 80 planes a day (or something like that). The US military has increased the efficiency of the airport, and it now is processing about 130 planes, I believe. And here in America, people are getting all angry at the US military, wondering why it’s taking so long to distribute aid and why that aid is having little effect. Celebrities didn’t miss a chance to thrust themselves dutifully into the spotlight to demonstrate their humanitarianism by encouraging economically-bankrupt America to throw money at Haiti.
So in a country with no working infrastructure, hundreds of thousands of dead, an ineffectual government, a roaming gaggle of criminals who escaped from the wrecked prison by the Haitian presidential palace, and a frantically desperate population, our solution is to send wheelbarrows full of money? That’s ridiculous. None of you should donate a penny to Haiti. Haitians need care packages; Haitians need food, water, medicine and other medical supplies, and construction equipment. Haitians aren’t really going to be able to run to their local Home Depot or Rite Aid to pick this stuff up, either. Americans should hold on to their dwindling dollars and organize shipments of actual supplies. Americans should volunteer their skills and physically help out in Haiti, if they can. But I fear that Haiti will become a black hole of donations, with millions of dollars going in and no progress coming out. So save your money, America, and give some help to Haiti that they can actually use.
If Americans want to donate money to a cause, they should donate to their local tent city, or something similar.
Ben Bernanke:
Ol’ Ben is expected to pick up the confirmation for a second run in the Federal Reserve. His supporters, including President Obama, praise his actions during his first tenure, saying that he staved off a potentially devastating depression and mitigated the effects of the recession. As if keeping interest rates artificially low (almost at zero) for this long, printing more fiat currency backed by nothing, and bottomless quantitative easing is going to help us in the long run. What good is a rallying stock market or a small boost in consumer confidence if our currency isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on?
January 19, 2010
Health Care Czars? No Thanks.
The health care system of the United States needs some reform. Truly progressive and effective reform cannot come from the federal government, however. Here’s why.
One side of the health care debate, the side which is dominated by politically left-leaning Democrats and liberals, the argument states that the solution to millions of Americans’ lack of adequate health insurance is a government-run “public option” health care plan which its supporters say will force private insurance companies to become more efficient and reduce costs to Americans. The other side of the argument which is comprised of right-leaning Republicans and conservatives claim that legislation establishing a public health care option is tantamount to a federal government takeover of health care, and in addition to not actually reducing health care costs for Americans on a private insurance plan, would also launch the national deficit into the stratosphere and lead to usual government inefficiency in health care.
Neither side of the debate is arguing that the current health care system that exists in the United States is perfect, or does not need to be reformed. Both sides admit that the current system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive. As is usually the case, the argument about solutions to this issue are divided by those who want more government involvement (liberal Democrats) and those who want less government involvement (conservatives). My question to liberal Democrats is this: if you truly believe that our current health care system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive, then why in the world would your solution include the federal government as the driving engine of this policy train?
The only entity that is less efficient, less responsive, and worse with money than insurance companies is the federal government. The only body less accountable than large corporations is the federal government. Don’t think so? How long did it take the federal government to distribute water at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? What has the federal government done to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States? Why does the US have one of the worst infrastructures (in terms of roads, bridges, et cetera) in the world, despite being one of the richest nations on earth? And we’re now considering entrusting that same federal government to make crucial decisions about our health care?
The big-government solution of throwing money at a problem and multiplying bureaucrats and bureaucratic agencies rarely, if ever, leads to a successful resolution of a national problem. The health care problem in the United States is no exception. Want some proof? Just look abroad to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. An argument by liberal Democrats goes something like this: “It’s a shame how far the United States is behind Europe in providing health services to its citizens.” This argument is based on the premise that governments are good at running health care, and should therefore provide “free” health care to citizens; the example of the NHS in the UK demonstrates otherwise.
While the currently-debated public option in the United States is quite a distant stone’s throw away from the NHS, British MEP Daniel Hannan pointed out that the UK had a similar “public option” which precluded the current socialized health care industry in that country. In reference to the slippery slope of socializing or nationalizing an industry, Hannan rightly asks, “Where does it end?” Indeed, giving the federal government the opportunity to provide a non-obligatory public health care option could open doors at the policy level of further burdensome expansions of the federal government.
Unlike private corporations, the financial coffers of the federal government are essentially endless, so long as Congress approves. This means that the federal government is entirely unresponsive to consumer concerns, efficiency and cost of care, and other market mechanisms that drive pricing because in terms of finances, the government doesn’t have to worry about a loss of funds due to customers finding better care elsewhere. Combine this with the natural tendency for government programs of any sort to foster crippling dependency among the citizens benefiting from them, and we have the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. The United States is currently trotting down the same road that the United Kingdom has traveled, and that road leads to rationed care, cueing for services, and potential months of waiting time; in short, typical centralized government inefficiency.
Lastly, our national deficit and public debt is outrageous. The national public debt is just over $12 trillion. President Obama, one of the driving forces behind the pending health care legislation, promised Americans that the bill will help ease the national debt. Many Congressmen and even the President himself promised that they would not support any bill that adds to the national deficit. President Obama estimated that the initial costs of the planned health care reform would be about $900 billion. Although that may seem like small potatoes now after the multi-billion-dollar “stimulus packages,” $900 billion is truly a staggering price tag for a non-obligatory service. Even now, though, after the bill has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Obama team is admitting that the initial $900 billion price that America had been quoted during the debate is not enough. James Cabretta of the Heritage Foundation estimates that (even after the four years of “preparation” to raise revenue for the health care project) the bill will actually cost about $2.3 trillion between 2014 and 2023. Both the House version of the bill and the Senate version have comparable price tags when all costs are considered.
What sort of allegedly-responsible government would tack on over two trillion dollars to an ever-bloating $12 trillion of national public debt? Despite what President Obama and President Bush said, the federal government cannot stimulate the economy in a way that will also fill the government’s coffers. The health care bill is therefore more than just fiscally irresponsible; it’s comparable to giving a compulsive gambler a bottomless credit line.
If President Obama and his supporters really want to reform American health care for the better, then they will be best served avoiding the federal government option. The current bill is almost all costs with no guaranteed results, in addition to the political implications of socializing medicine. America will be better off finding innovative market solutions to our health care woes, as can be found in Switzerland’s health care system. Liberty always works better than centralized planning.
One side of the health care debate, the side which is dominated by politically left-leaning Democrats and liberals, the argument states that the solution to millions of Americans’ lack of adequate health insurance is a government-run “public option” health care plan which its supporters say will force private insurance companies to become more efficient and reduce costs to Americans. The other side of the argument which is comprised of right-leaning Republicans and conservatives claim that legislation establishing a public health care option is tantamount to a federal government takeover of health care, and in addition to not actually reducing health care costs for Americans on a private insurance plan, would also launch the national deficit into the stratosphere and lead to usual government inefficiency in health care.
Neither side of the debate is arguing that the current health care system that exists in the United States is perfect, or does not need to be reformed. Both sides admit that the current system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive. As is usually the case, the argument about solutions to this issue are divided by those who want more government involvement (liberal Democrats) and those who want less government involvement (conservatives). My question to liberal Democrats is this: if you truly believe that our current health care system is inefficient, unresponsive, and grossly expensive, then why in the world would your solution include the federal government as the driving engine of this policy train?
The only entity that is less efficient, less responsive, and worse with money than insurance companies is the federal government. The only body less accountable than large corporations is the federal government. Don’t think so? How long did it take the federal government to distribute water at the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? What has the federal government done to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the United States? Why does the US have one of the worst infrastructures (in terms of roads, bridges, et cetera) in the world, despite being one of the richest nations on earth? And we’re now considering entrusting that same federal government to make crucial decisions about our health care?
The big-government solution of throwing money at a problem and multiplying bureaucrats and bureaucratic agencies rarely, if ever, leads to a successful resolution of a national problem. The health care problem in the United States is no exception. Want some proof? Just look abroad to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. An argument by liberal Democrats goes something like this: “It’s a shame how far the United States is behind Europe in providing health services to its citizens.” This argument is based on the premise that governments are good at running health care, and should therefore provide “free” health care to citizens; the example of the NHS in the UK demonstrates otherwise.
While the currently-debated public option in the United States is quite a distant stone’s throw away from the NHS, British MEP Daniel Hannan pointed out that the UK had a similar “public option” which precluded the current socialized health care industry in that country. In reference to the slippery slope of socializing or nationalizing an industry, Hannan rightly asks, “Where does it end?” Indeed, giving the federal government the opportunity to provide a non-obligatory public health care option could open doors at the policy level of further burdensome expansions of the federal government.
Unlike private corporations, the financial coffers of the federal government are essentially endless, so long as Congress approves. This means that the federal government is entirely unresponsive to consumer concerns, efficiency and cost of care, and other market mechanisms that drive pricing because in terms of finances, the government doesn’t have to worry about a loss of funds due to customers finding better care elsewhere. Combine this with the natural tendency for government programs of any sort to foster crippling dependency among the citizens benefiting from them, and we have the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. The United States is currently trotting down the same road that the United Kingdom has traveled, and that road leads to rationed care, cueing for services, and potential months of waiting time; in short, typical centralized government inefficiency.
Lastly, our national deficit and public debt is outrageous. The national public debt is just over $12 trillion. President Obama, one of the driving forces behind the pending health care legislation, promised Americans that the bill will help ease the national debt. Many Congressmen and even the President himself promised that they would not support any bill that adds to the national deficit. President Obama estimated that the initial costs of the planned health care reform would be about $900 billion. Although that may seem like small potatoes now after the multi-billion-dollar “stimulus packages,” $900 billion is truly a staggering price tag for a non-obligatory service. Even now, though, after the bill has passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Obama team is admitting that the initial $900 billion price that America had been quoted during the debate is not enough. James Cabretta of the Heritage Foundation estimates that (even after the four years of “preparation” to raise revenue for the health care project) the bill will actually cost about $2.3 trillion between 2014 and 2023. Both the House version of the bill and the Senate version have comparable price tags when all costs are considered.
What sort of allegedly-responsible government would tack on over two trillion dollars to an ever-bloating $12 trillion of national public debt? Despite what President Obama and President Bush said, the federal government cannot stimulate the economy in a way that will also fill the government’s coffers. The health care bill is therefore more than just fiscally irresponsible; it’s comparable to giving a compulsive gambler a bottomless credit line.
If President Obama and his supporters really want to reform American health care for the better, then they will be best served avoiding the federal government option. The current bill is almost all costs with no guaranteed results, in addition to the political implications of socializing medicine. America will be better off finding innovative market solutions to our health care woes, as can be found in Switzerland’s health care system. Liberty always works better than centralized planning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
