Paul M. Jones

Speaking of Obama's scare tactics, that 46 million is a very dubious statistic, the kind Mark Twain had in mind when he talked about lies and damned lies. Here's a chart from a GOP Senator (based on U.S. Census data) that explains who those 46 million actually are.

...

So what we actually have is about 12 million American citizens of income less than $75K who have no access to insurance or government programs. That's about 4% of the population. Many of those are young, healthy people who don't particularly need insurance, and those at incomes of $40-$50K or above can probably afford to borrow and repay medical bills over time; half seems a reasonable estimate of the two combined. So we have 2% of the country that really has a need for this reform.

via Classical Values :: Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Health Care Crisis?.

via http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/01/obama-joker-poster-popping-los-angeles.

File this under "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." ;-)

UPDATE (Mon 07 Aug):

“Want to know where I got these cars?”

via Pajamas Media » Is Obama Really Like the Joker?.

When every benefit is received as a right, there is no place for good manners, let alone gratitude.

...

In the welfare state, mere survival is not the achievement that it is, say, in the cities of Africa, and therefore it cannot confer the self-respect that is the precondition of self-improvement.

...

...a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism.

via Theodore Dalrymple:
What is Poverty?.

Apollo was not a methodical space program; it was an anomalous race in the Cold War in which anything could be wasted but time. It turned out to be unsustainable and unaffordable, which is why it boggles the mind that over three decades later--during which time there were huge technology advances--Apollo was chosen as a model for a program that was supposed to be affordable and sustainable.

The shuttle program didn’t demonstrate that reusable vehicles don’t work. In fact, the one reusable part of the shuttle--the airplane-like orbiter--was the only part that didn’t kill crew (the solid rocket booster was responsible for the Challenger accident, and the external fuel tank’s foam was responsible for the Columbia accident). Moreover, the shuttle program tells us nothing at all about reusable space transports that are designed to reasonable requirements and high flight rates--particularly fully reusable ones that don’t shed hardware each flight.

Neither does the shuttle experience prove that we shouldn’t mix crew and cargo. All it tells us is that if we are going to build a reusable vehicle, it has to be sufficiently reliable to safely carry either crew or valuable cargo (just as airplanes are), because space transports cost too much to lose, regardless of their payloads. When Columbia was lost, we lost seven astronauts, yes. But we also lost a quarter of our orbiters. That is simply unaffordable. Cheap bulk cargo could reasonably be launched on less expensive, less reliable vehicles, but when we do develop practical space transports, the notion of throwing rockets away will make no more sense than burning a 747 on the runway after it lands with a load of cut flowers.

Likewise, the space station doesn’t teach that we must avoid assembling things in orbit; if anything, it shows that orbital assembly can be very effective when building something large out of many smaller pieces. That it took so long and cost so much is attributable to the constraints of the shuttle (and of the co-opting of the station for diplomatic ends). For that matter, the several repairs to the Hubble Space Telescope, various satellite repair missions, and the first Skylab mission back in 1973 show how even complicated and dangerous repair and servicing operations can be successfully conducted in orbit.

via The New Atlantis » A Space Program for the Rest of Us.

It's crazy for a group of mere mortals to try to design 15 percent of the U.S. economy. It's even crazier to do it by August.

Yet that is what some members of Congress presume to do. They intend, as the New York Times puts it, "to reinvent the nation's health care system."

Let that sink in. A handful of people who probably never even ran a small business actually think they can reinvent the health care system.

Politicians and bureaucrats clearly have no idea how complicated markets are. Every day people make countless tradeoffs, in all areas of life, based on subjective value judgments and personal information as they delicately balance their interests, needs and wants. Who is in a better position than they to tailor those choices to best serve their purposes? Yet the politicians believe they can plan the medical market the way you plan a birthday party.

via The Arrogance of Health Care Reform: Why do politicians with no business experience think they can run 15 percent of the economy? - Reason Magazine.

I think it is fair to conclude from this that the Massachusetts health reform plan, which in some ways is the model for the plans currently under discussion in Congress, was a failure. Thanks to Mark Ambinder for the pointer.

Maybe the commission's proposal is a step in the right direction. Even if it is, I would suggest that perhaps no expert knows how to design the health care system. We may need a lot of trial and error. Government takeover means that you try something new every few years...maybe. Your choices are limited because entrenched interests preclude many options.

With markets, trial and error takes place continuously. A lot more things get tried. Failure gets weeded out more ruthlessly.

via Massachusetts Health Reform, Version 2.0?, Arnold Kling | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty.

According to the chap who runs the Massachussetts exchange, the state and medical providers still face a hefty expense for treating those who don't have insurance, with over half the cost of medical care for the uninsured still persisting. And the new system is very expensive, particularly in a time of fiscal trouble.

It's thus predictible that a commission appointed by the governor wants to move in a new direction: capitation. That's when the state pays providers a fixed amount for each person (in the plan, or in their practice) and lets the providers figure out how to treat them.

Capitation looks attractive, because it discourages doctors and hospitals from doing too much. But, as with all good things in life, it has a few downsides ...

I don't like a system where the doctor has a financial incentive to give me unnecessary tests. But I'm even less fond of the idea of giving her financial incentives not to give me necessary ones.

via Massachussetts Health Plan Pushes for Capitation - Megan McArdle.

I take Lipitor. The drug may extend my life. But this doesn't lower my health-care costs. Years of pill-taking increases costs. If the pill works, I may live long enough to get an even more expensive disease. And maybe I, like millions of others, take Lipitor unnecessarily because we would never have had heart attacks. We then spend more, not less, on health care.

Health-care expert John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says there are "literally hundreds of studies from over the past 40 years that show preventive medical services usually increase medical spending ... Contrary to popular belief, checkups for children and adults do not save the health care system money."

If the policy elite really wanted cost-cutting competition, they would deregulate medicine. No one has ever found a better way to stimulate competition than freedom.

via Health Care Competition: If the policy elite really wanted to cut costs, they would deregulate medicine. - Reason Magazine.

The writer suggested I begin: "it was once the most powerful company in the world…"

GM was indeed the most "profitable," or "biggest"--that I get. But powerful? Why do people think about business that way? GM has/had no armies with which it can invade other companies. It had no power for force anyone to work there. It couldn’t force anyone to buy GM cars.

Your average two-bit government bureaucrat has more "power." He can send people with guns to take your money (tax collection). He can lock you up, seize your property, tell you what you cannot do on your property, summon you to court, and so on. Government has the monopoly on power.

via "Powerful GM" - John Stossel's Take.

It's also time, Obama tells his viewers, to lose weight, and stop smoking, and pull up your socks. Later on he tells people that they are foolish to prefer brand name drugs to generic drugs, and to want multiple medical tests. "If you only need one test, why do you want five tests?" Stop clinging to your tests! You're worse than those people in Pennsylvania.

Who knew we were electing a national mother-in-law? And get a chance to endure increased taxes for the privilege. Obama's supposed to be rallying support from voters, not castigating them. Outside the S& M parlor, most people do not enjoy paying to be disciplined.

via Kausfiles : Obama as Health Care Salesman: He Sucks!.