Arnold Kling makes a pretty good summary of the speech here.

Medicare spending will never be brought under control under his watch. And if Medicare spending is not brought under control, then he certainly will not be the last President to have to address health care reform.

Basically, it was a “Win one for the Gipper” (in this case, Ted Kennedy) speech. Intellectually, it amounted to a vacuous claim that health reform will be a free lunch, because we’ll get rid of all the waste, fraud, and abuse.

via What’s Wrong with Obama’s Health Care Speech – The Atlantic Business Channel.

Blah blah let’s just start this revolution and get the darn thing over with…

“Both parties need to step up to the plate with specific solutions to our nation’s health care crisis.”

If the Republican’s want to take true leadership of this country they need to point the crisis at government spending and the huge off books debt of Medicare and the costs of Medicaid forced onto the states as well.  We have the best doctors in the world in nearly every category.  Therefore, it is a plain fact that their is absolutely NO health care crisis.  The crisis is to much power centered in Washington D.C. of which is now of course (as power does) being corrupted and abused.

As for addressing the cancellation of Medicare/caid, a cancellation is simply a ceasing of action or bringing to an end something.  I did not address the means or methods of this end.   However, I do stand by the point that I believe that Medicare/caid has to be ended or canceled and as Tennessee Paul states, “The details of the order are open for discussion.”   I haven’t really looked into the details of methodologies for canceling Medicare although I’ve heard some suggestions of voucherized programs to begin weening American’s off of government payer health insurance/care, I’m sure there are other suggestions of merit.   Again, as I stated in the previous posts I’m not the technocrat for those types of plans.

Finally Tennessee Paul states,

The opposition intends to oppose with the goal of regaining leadership. Rarely does it offer a logical counter solution. Perhaps it is time to lobby our congressmen to unite on an alternative solution that Americans truly do want.

This is more to my point.  We need to be holding the oppositions party’s feet to the FIRE, which I don’t see happening.   By saying there is no debate on health care, there is no health care crisis, and the real problem is Medicare/caid one is forced to keep both parties honest.  Something CNN doesn’t do for the Democrats and something Fox doesn’t do for the Republicans; and for that matter I don’t see much of anywhere.  I see either attacks on the Democrats or support for Republicans.  To me neither side is addressing the real issues; but it’s not any surprise when the Democrats present a socialized medicine unified front what is to be surprising about that.  Why attack jackasses for being jackasses? What did people expect when they voted the Democrats into power?  America is getting what it want’s.  I believe that socialized medicine should pass.  We are no longer a Republic and under the rules of Democracy people should be allowed to vote themselves the Treasury as they wish and as they have done.

What is a surprise is when the Republican’s say, “We must fix the health care crisis.”  Or when conservatives fail to address the anathema of entitlements.  At this point Republican’s have nothing to lose.  They can’t lose power they don’t have any!  They could individually lose their jobs, but if that is their concern then they deserve to lose them.  The Democrats are leading not the Republicans.  And if the Republican’s want my vote again they will need to become leaders.  It’s not happening though.  When election season comes around my question for the Republican candidates will be what was your proposal for health care reform during the debate.  Did you call it a crisis? Did you address the entitlement programs? What was your counter proposal to the Democrats proposal.  If their answer is…nothing.  Then that is the type of leader we can anticipate them being and those individuals will not have my vote.    Why vote for a Republican that acts like a jackass?  I thought this election would wake up the Republican party so far it hasn’t and I’m rather preturbed.

Quite ideological. I could agree that these entitlements are a drag on the economy and ideally should eventually be done away with. But you can’t simply cancel these systems. It isn’t feasible. While I am not a fan of these systems, they are in fact obligations that this country has promised. An outright cancel is akin to default on a debt. And while I do subscribe to the notion that the Government is not the savior of mankind, it is the duty of the government to provide the environment for commerce. Besides, if the government were to simply up and dump these three entitlements, it would not solve the current issues within the health care system. The issues being affordability of care and insurance.

- Tennessee Paul

Yes, ideological.  But I think this misses the point.  Medicare/Medicaid is in fact insolvent.  They cannot be paid for quite simply.  I realized I used the word cancel Medicare which applies something dramatic.  But I wouldn’t be the technocrat doing the canceling.  I’m sure it would be canceled in a slower planned and organized way.  However, it may be akin to default on debt as Tennessee Paul suggests.  A ugly word, default, and an ugly thought but not out of the realm of possibility.

The financial structure of the U.S. government currently has two nominal firewalls. The first, between Treasury debt and unfunded liabilities, is provided by the trust funds of Social Security, Medicare, and other, smaller federal insurance programs. These give investors the illusion that the shaky fiscal status of social insurance has no direct effect on the government’s formal debt. But according to the latest intermediate projections of the trustees, the Hospital Insurance (HI-Medicare Part A) trust fund will be out of money in 2017, whereas the Social Security (OASDI) trust funds will be empty by 2037. Although other parts of Medicare are already funded from general revenues, when HI and OASDI need to dip into general revenues, the first firewall is gone. If investors respond by requiring a risk premium on Treasuries, the unwinding could move very fast, much like the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. Politicians will be unable to react.
-Why Default on U.S. Treasuries is Likely
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel

Further, Tennessee Paul states that Medicare and Medicaid being dumped wouldn’t solve the health care crisis [CORRECTION: TP used the term "current issues" not crisis].  To which I respond, “What health care crisis?” [To which I should have responded, "What are the issues?"] There is no crisis yet the crisis will come when Medicare/Medicaid collapse.  The crisis to me is the impending economic, social and political chaos that will come when the world economy follows the U.S. economy into the abyss while the last bastions of freedom are surround by egoists and tyranny.

The solutions I have read, put forth by many conservative pundits are directed at creating just such an environment to facilitate more economically feasible solutions for health care reform.

- Tennessee Paul

I agree with Tennessee Paul there are many conservative pundits calling for better solutions out there.  The problem is the Republican party isn’t proposing them.  I know Tennessee Paul thinks I’m being to harsh on politicians.  But I think it’s time to be harsh.  It’s getting late in the game politicians feet need to be held to the fire.  It’s up to us the voters to do this.  So even more then the politicians we the American people need to come down on our respective parties and demand change.  The more we dilly-dally around the issues and fail to address those things which are pressing on our society, culture, and lives the greater risk we are in of losing it all.  Perhaps, Paul doesn’t have the same fears I have but I think things are going to get MUCH worse before they get better.

As for Tennessee Paul’s point about doing away with Medicare/Medicaid not being the end all solution I agree.  There needs to be deregulation and a decoupling of employer provided health care in concert with the cancel/phase out/end of Medicare.   These two points I know Tennessee Paul agrees with but a deregulation and a decoupling of employer health care but these are still to me meaningless without true reform of the system.  Medicare still places way to large a constraint on the U.S. health care system.  It is the elephant in the room and it’s growing way to fast.  And it’s not being debated, solutions aren’t being proposed and I still believe there has yet to be proposals from either sides towards true reform.

Again, let me say the truth there is no health care debate.  It’s all fictional.  Like the spoon in the movie the Matrix.  It is a straw man meant to grab our attention while the true fight lays behind the scenes.

The health care debate is two sides fighting over maintaining their entrenched status quo’s.  It is a power struggle that has nothing to do about costs, health care, insurance, taxes or anything remotely resembling what the American people actually would and should care about.

Democrats are arguing to expand the Medicare/caid status quo and further entrench this with other public pay or “co-op” options.  It’s nothing new it’s been around it is wasteful money sucking, completely insolvent and nearly bankrupt power harness on the American people.

Republican’s are arguing to “contain” costs with various deregulation schemes/tort reform/etc.  Which is really again just more of the same a mix of somewhat less regulated insurance companies and lower malpratice claims meaning more money for insurance companies and less for lawyers.  (i.e. the government still picks and chooses the winners and lossers)

Neither of these choices are change the GOP or the Dems are both selling snake oil and laughing all the way to the bank.  These are just power grabbing rockstar babies fighting over the territory of the average American taxpayer.

I KNOW a thing or two about TRUE leaders.  My father and grandfather are and were both TRUE leaders, I’ve study leaders, my second business mentor wrote books on leadership, and HISTORY is full of true leaders.   A true leader is one that is willing to give away their power. Look at Washington, Ghandi, Christ, King, etc. when offered power, money, fame, and thrones they gave it up. True change would be doing away with power Washington turned down the thrown to America.   The opposite of our modern day politicians who on both sides are SEEKING power.

Deregulating an industry 50% controlled by government is meaningless. Tort reform is something that can ebb a flow with swaying legislation and is meaningless.  These are temporary band-aids for an entrenched system of opperations.  It’s like a band-aid for a man with cancer.  While the Democrats are are calling for blood-letting by bleeding the already dying system.  Both sides are fighting for their own political and corrupted power.

So, what is the answer.  If the system is broken or dying what would a true leader do?  True reform will be ending the idiocy of Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security to name a few.  Cancel these systems tell the American people to solve their own problems government is not the savior of mankind.  It is time for the children of the elderaly to step up and care for their parents.  It’s time for the baby-boomers to wake-up and realize there isn’t going to be a free lunch.  And it’s time for American’s to demonstrate responsibility, earning ones way, and hardwork to younger generations.  I am not alone in my call for true reform and am not alone in seeking true leadership – as this article points out.  Although, along with that article I feel that I’m deeply in the minority.     The American people and for that matter the world are wading through a sea of lies, power hungry, egoists seldom seen in the course of human history.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

via The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today we know by basic common sense that non of these things are rights.  The concept that everybody should be given as a right a standard of living is of course completely illogical.  And that this standard of living should provide us with health and well-being is purely an excercise in make-believe.   Human beings recognize that they are responsible for their own health and well-being.  One would not try to argue from an intellectual standpoint that entertainment which can help one unwind and have a sense of fun and well-being is right and therefore, they have a right to cable TV, the latest video game, or a movie ticket.  Or that they enjoy a sip alcohol after a hard days work because it helps their well-being (Ben Franklin said that alcohol was proof God wanted us to be happy); therefore, all working American’s should be given a government stipend for alcohol purchases.  It is understood that our self-esteem/well-being and health are dictated by the choices that one makes in life. 

Furthermore, those situations addressed by the UN are not beyond our control they are ALL under are control because we can plan for every single one of them.  We ALL know we will one day get sick, be unemployed, disabled, widowed, and grow old.  We control how these things happen to us and what happens when they happen.  They are predicatable and therefore controlable.  They are not avoidable of course but control and inevitability are of course two different things.  In fact the very nature of something being inevitable increases it’s controlability to our lives.  For example, if you know that today you will die your day would suddenly become VERY controlled.  You’d treat your love ones differently, you probably wouldn’t go to work, you may even do a few extra deeds, and probably visit your church. 

So, where does the right for health care come from?  It comes from those that are followers repeating their leaders words. Those that lead today seek power and fame or the in the corporations greed.   It comes out of the corruption of what a right is - human, civic, or natural.  Read carefully TheRighttoHealthCare.org and how they define a right.  Notice they do not define a right instead saying that a right is undefined.  Read through the whole site and notice there is no philosophical, intellectual, or logical reason for health care as a right.  So, how then do they make the leap?  By saying that a right is ever changing and growing.  In other word there is no standard definition of a right. 

This is the root of the problem with the health care debate (and many other “debates”).

It seems that because somebody says, “Health care is a right” it becomes a right.  Just because I say, “The moon is made of cheese” does not make the moon actually made of cheese.  The only way way to make this “health care is a right” logical is to make a right anything and everything.  In other words if cheese could also mean dust and dirt and rock then I am right the moon is made of cheese.  This is what is being done. 

What does this mean to us as citizens and individuals?  What is something that is undefined? Something that is undefined has no meaning or value.  For example, 20 divided by zero is undefined it has no meaning and no value.  If we try to add something divided by zero to something it is meaningless.  This is of course mathmatical so let me simplify.  How much would you pay me (value) for something that I’m not going to tell you what it is (undefined)? If you’re smart it better not be much.

Those that are trying to make health care a right do not (cannot) understand the consquences of their actions and what is more they are devaluing the actual meaningful value of a right by not defininging it.

Both liberals and conservatives should take serious issue with our current politicians that are debating health care and treating it as a right. 

Liberal’s and liberalism’s defined core philosophies are supposed to center around human rights and individual freedom by definition.  The undefining of a right as evidenced in the health care debate makes by it’s nature human rights something of no value.

Conservatives by definition hold on to what is traditional and try to maintain old values.  The debate around health care is redefining rights and doing away with the traditional and old values to replace them with something undefined and of no value.

Both ideologies should be attacking this “health care” plan.  Instead the liberals are debating about the form it should be in and the conservatives are proposing alternatives.

Does anybody really believe that adding 50 million people to the public health-care rolls will not cost the government more money? About $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion more? At least.

So let’s be serious when evaluating President Obama’s goal of universal health care, and the idea that it’s a cost-cutter. Can’t happen. Won’t happen. Costs are going to explode.

Think of it: Can anyone name a federal program that ever cut costs for anything? Let’s not forget that the existing Medicare system is roughly $80 trillion in the hole.

And does anybody believe Obama’s new “public” health-insurance plan isn’t really a bridge to single-payer government-run health care? And does anyone think this plan won’t produce a government gatekeeper that will allocate health services and control prices and therefore crowd-out the private-insurance doctor/hospital system?

Federal boards are going to decide what’s good for you and me. And what’s not good for you and me. These boards will drive a wedge between doctors and patients.

The president, in his New York Times Magazine interview with David Leonhardt, said his elderly mother should not (in theory) have had a hip-replacement operation. Yes, Obama would have fought for that operation for his mother’s sake. But a federal board of so-called experts would have told the rest of us, “No way.”

And then there’s the charade of all those private health providers visiting the White House and promising $2 trillion in savings. Utter nonsense.

And even if you put aside the demerits of a government-run health system, Obama’s health-care “funding” plans are completely falling apart. Not only will Obama’s health program cost at least twice as much as his $650 billion estimate, but his original plan to fund the program by auctioning off carbon-emissions warrants (through the misbegotten cap-and-trade system) has fallen through. In an attempt to buy off hundreds of energy, industrial, and other companies, the White House is now going to give away those carbon-cap-emissions trading warrants. So all those revenues are out the window. Fictitious.

Anyway, the cap-and-tax system won’t pass Congress. The science is wrong. The economics are root-canal austerity — Malthusian limits to growth. And there are too many oil and coal senators who will vote against it.

All of this is why the national-health-care debate is so outrageous. At some point we have to get serious about solving Medicare by limiting middle-class benefits and funding the program properly. There is no other way out. We can grow our way out of the Social Security deficit if we pursue pro-growth policies that maintain low tax and inflation rates. Prospects for that don’t look any too good right now, though it could be done. But government health care is nothing but a massive, unfunded, middle-class entitlement problem. (The poor are already in Medicaid.)

Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) proposes to solve health care by limiting employer tax breaks. He’s on to something, but he’s only got half the story. All the tax breaks for health care should go to individuals and small businesses. Let them shop around for the best health deal wherever they can find it with essentially pre-tax dollars.

Additionally, insurance companies should be permitted to sell their products across state lines. And popular health savings accounts — which combine investor retirements with proper insurance by removing the smothering red tape — should be promoted. This approach of consumer choice and market competition will strengthen our private health-care system.

So private enterprise can coexist with public health care and not be crowded out by the heavy-handed overreach of government. But the Obama Democrats are determined to force through a state-run system that will bankrupt the country.

I’m not somebody who obsesses about the national debt or deficit. But I have to admit: Today’s spending-and-borrowing is blowing my mind. As a share of GDP, we’re looking at double-digit deficits as far as the eye can see. Over the next ten years, the CBO predicts federal debt in the hands of the public will absorb 80 percent of GDP. And that doesn’t include the real cost of state-run health care. Other than the temporary financial conditions surrounding WWII, we’ve never seen anything like this.

The president’s grandiose government-takeover-and-control strategies are going to make things worse and worse — that is, unless members of that tiny band known as the Republican party can stand on their hind legs and just say no. The Republicans must come up with some pro-competition, private-enterprise alternatives for health, energy, education, taxes, and trade that will meet the yearning of voter-taxpayers for a return to private-enterprise American prosperity and opportunity.

Free-market competition will lower costs in health care just as it has every place else. It also will grow the economy. The GOP must return to this basic conservative principle and reject Obama’s massive government assault.

~ Larry Kudlow

via Obama’s ‘Public’ Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation – Money and Politics Blog – CNBC.com.

Kudlow’s getting a little feisty these days.  What’s up with Mr. Goldilocks?

I believe we will have a slight recovery perhaps late 2009 or early 2010.  However, baby boomers are begining to retire which will strain the economy substantially of this once great nation.   This will create room in employement but only slowly (65 year old engineer can’t be replaced by a 25 year old straight out of college) but in the interm earnings may come back to Wall Street as companies rightsize (downsize or whatever).   However,  I doubt hiring will come back nearly as quickly as I’d hope and often not at all as companies focus on increasing efficiency first.

So, unemployeement will remain high for some time.  Even if you trend out the slowness of the decline in job cuts it will take literally months for this number to flat line and probably years for it to stabalize.  Meanwhile, the government is propping up an already over leveraged society.  This is why we’re  experiencing deflation now capitalism is trying to deflate the over leveraged nature of the economy.    The government is trying to halt deflation.  They are saying capitalism is dead before they even let capitalism do what it is meant to do and deflate when a bubble has gotten to big.  This is a very dangerous policy as capitalism opperates based on human and social nature.  The government has said that what man/nature naturally does is dead and they are stepping in as the State to do what nature shouldn’t be allowed to do (deflate an over inflated bubble).   So instead of letting natural capitalism work and an overleveraged society (business, government, and persons) deflate the government is trying to get an already over spent society to spend. 

Unfortunately we may start spending again.   As we get use to the following three key things:

• The bad news
• Realize unemployment has slowed
• Realize those of us that haven’t lost our jobs are probably ok 

Then we will start to leverage up again.  When this happens WATCH OUT because the foundation has been laid for big time inflation.  Now, the inflation can’t come until the deflation stops and the deflation can’t stop until jobs stabalize  late 2009/2010 (my prediction).  When this happens we will still be at high unemployement with stagnated ecomony.  Inflation is going to hurt bad if it comes in late 2010 and then by 2011 we’ll be hit with another serious depression VERY serious in my estimation.  This is my prediction and there are others out their that I’ve read have made the same prediction so I feel I’m in good company. 

With a government that is already MASSIVELY over leveraged and and is printing money like crazy we might have some serious troubles.  This will be more likely the real financial armageddon.   Further it will be spured as baby boomers continue to massivley pull their money out of the stock market and place it in treasuries and other more secure places.   What is worse is that this does not bode well for liberty and freedom.  Pain and fear will continue to spur the oppressive regimes alreay strongly supporting our government. 

But there are even more concerns.

In recent months, senior Chinese officials have expressed concern that the U.S. financial crisis and efforts by policymakers to lower lending rates by flooding the system with cash would impair the value of its massive U.S. bond holdings.  ~MarketWatch

As people move to treasuries a strong bubble is taking place here.  Something that concerns China as our largest debt holder.  It is something that should concern us here too and baby boomers that move their monies here as well.   Without our ability to take out treasuries the government will be forced into a true monetary crisis due to the serious nature of our now HUGE need for debt to fund this government and the current State power grab.  This is part of the move why so many liberals strongly support the oppression and slavery of the successful working business class with taxes.  If they can enslave us like the Jew or Black man in the past these liberals like Obama will have somebody they can tax to force the stablization of the government.  This is when I fear that revolution will become dangerous.  An indicator of what is taking place is well documented in most financial media today.

Having cut their key rates to close to zero, the Bank of England, U.S. Federal Reserve and Bank of Japan are now buying bonds, essentially printing money to reflate their economies in a policy known as quantitative easing.

“It is clear now that the ECB has set its sights on boosting inflation,” said Brian Kelly, chief executive officer of Kanundrum Research, a commodities and macroeconomic research firm.

“The worry in the market is that central bank tools are notoriously blunt instruments,” he added. “The central banks are trying to write a book with a can of spray paint. Investors are flocking to the soundness of gold in anticipation of a messy manuscript.”

Gold is seen as the ultimate protection against inflation and a better store of wealth than paper money. ~MarketWatch

The rapid expansion of gold prices over the years and recently is an indicator of this.  The fact that gold prices have remained high in a deflationary cycle is a further indicator of the EXTREME level of expectation for inflation and economic difficulty.  Even when the mainstream media continues to be largely bullish dont be fooled.  Fact is bad news sells when it’s not about you but when it’s about the stockmarket that effects EVERYBODY it doesn’t sell.  It’s sort of a strange corallary.  Everybody likes to watch a car crash unless it is a car crashing into you or your car.

What is of big concern to me is the position our federal government is putting us in as they begin to strengthen and shore up the oppression of the successful business class of our society while they make fascist moves to control segments of our society.  Jean-Baptiste say coined the phrase “supply creates demand”.

Unfortunately this phrase is very misinterpreted. Say is not telling us that when you supply something that demand will arise and consume it. In the case of exploding toilet paper, what demand will exist? There will be none. What Say is telling us is that if you supply something, you now become a demander of all other products in an economy. Say is telling us that our consumption comes from our production; our ability to demand comes from our ability to supply. This phrase outlines the very fundamental nature of trade.

via “Long-Term Bear Markets, Say’s Law, and the Bailout Frenzy” by Travis Steward, FSU Editorial 05/01/2009.

Supply occurs when members of society produce something of value.   Because to produce something of VALUE (that being the key word) they demand other goods.  As the government takes over banks, autos, health care, energy and now disgustingly credit cards and says what society will create they risk forcing us to create something of lesser value or no value (when it’s government beaurcratic paperwork or tax paperwork).  For example, I surely wouldn’t buy a Fiat.  Or they will force loans to be made that don’t have value because of the customers inability to pay.  They’ll push green energy policies that create further bubbles like in Spain.  It is a dangerous path to walk down.  Not only is it dangerous they’re doing it in a dangerous method with absolutely grotesque spending. 

Meanwhile the government is stress test testing our banks which I wrote about previously.   We’ve already suffered a collapse nearly as bad as the Great Depression and the government is testing our banks to see how much worse they can handle.  Nearly half the banks faild this test and most raise further capital which is another way of saying sell their debt and convert it to equity.   Who is holding these big banks debt? The government.  Now the government get’s more stock in the bank as their debt is converted into equity (covert nationalization).    What ELSE does that mean?  Half the banks will fail if things get worse!  But think about what I documented about the stress tests.   They used a 25 to 1 stress liquidity ratio.  During the Great Depression the ratio was more like 12 to 1 and I think things could get worse this time around maybe even 8 or 6 to 1.    Therefore, they made the test twice as easy as the most severe situation in our history which we’ve almost already nearly repeated and are now struggling to recover from.  If inflation comes, if the job market hasn’t recovered, if treasury bubble burst (no more debt), who will bail out the still overleveraged banks, business and individuals of course nobody.  Then who will pay taxes, who will bailout a government with a popped treasury market?  However, not only will nobody be able to be bailed out when the treasury bubble bursts the government will need to be bailed out.   This will be done through further oppression then the current oppressive policies Obama is now taking.

With regard to the way the tax burden is distributed across income cohorts, it is increasingly concentrated on upper-income taxpayers. Federal statistics show that the top-earning 25 percent of income taxpayers paid 73 percent of all federal income taxes in 1980. By 1988, that percentage had increased to nearly 78 percent. By 2000, after the Clinton tax hike, it hit 84 percent. And by 2006, the last year for which the data has been compiled, the top 25 percent of income taxpayers shouldered just over 86 percent of the federal income tax burden.

And Obama doesn’t plan to ease that burden—or so one might infer from the next $1.4 trillion over 10 years tax increase that was included as part of the budget he sent to Capitol Hill. To put it another way, the Obama budget included $3.61 in tax increases for every dollar of so-called tax cuts.  ~ US News

Here’s the rub. Now that he’ll be on his own (starting a private medical practice), what do we do about health insurance? We both hate the idea of supporting this inefficient, corrupt system, never mind the fact that most plans are prohibitively expensive, especially since we’re just starting out (or own medical practice). There is also the moral issue of us having some wonderful plan (if we can afford it) while many of his patients will have to be without.

Why should we buy into a system we’re trying to bring down?!

via West Virginia Blue:: What to do? Health insurance.

Did you catch that dumb dumb stuff?  ” There is also the moral issue of us having some wonderful plan while many of his patients will have to be without.”  I wonder if they live in a better house then many of their patients, drive nicer cars, take better vacations, use more electricity, or eat different food?    And if they don’t have things nicer but happen to make more money I wonder if they have a larger bank account.  Without knowing it this dumb dumb just advocated that it is morally wrong to have something that the average person might not have!!!  In other words it’s morally wrong to earn more money then average.  Ouch, guess if you make more then 27,000 a year your evil.  Somehow I doubt that they give away every penny more then they make above the national average (or even worse the local West Virginian average income).   Instead this person is just really a big time dumb dumb.

What system are they trying to bring down? One in which they might be able to choose something?  Replacing a horrible system with something akin to the DMV or post office (well run systems by any standards?!?!) that not even Obama nows how it will work?

But I actually think that there was always an unsustainable feel about what had happened on Wall Street over the last 10, 15 years, and it’s not that different from the unsustainable nature of what was happening during the dot-com boom, where people in Silicon Valley could make enormous sums of money, even though what they were peddling never really had any signs it would ever make a profit.

Um, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and the list goes on end up making a profit.  Oh, and nobody propped up the poorly run companies.  Obama is actually sustaining what has happened.   How he can say this with a straight face is beyond me?

We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design.

Now, Obama is talking about decideing what people study in college!!!  Jeez and right in the NYTimes???

Now, the fact that we had such poor regulation means — in some of these markets, particularly around the securitized mortgages — means that the pain has been democratized as well. And that’s a problem. But I think that overall there are ways in which people have been able to participate in our stock markets and our financial markets that are potentially healthy. Again, what you have to have, though, is an updating of the regulatory regimes comparable to what we did in the 1930s, when there were rules that were put in place that gave investors a little more assurance that they knew what they were buying.

Updated regulations (i.e. more regulation), yep that’s the solution.  Because all of the last centuries worth of regulations hasn’t been enough.  While your at it why not raise taxes some and spend more government money.  Yep, that’s the solution…

We set out a goal in my speech to the joint session that said everybody should have at least one year of post-high-school training. And I think it would be too rigid to say everybody needs a four-year-college degree. I think everybody needs enough post-high-school training that they are competent in fields that require technical expertise, because it’s very hard to imagine getting a job that pays a living wage without that — or it’s very hard at least to envision a steady job in the absence of that.

 Great, I was hoping my kids would have a choice in the type of education and career they wanted.  I guess they’re going to be to stupid to figure it out on their own.  Good thing the State has a plan for them

I don’t know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she’s my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn’t have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life — that would be pretty upsetting. And it’s going to be hard for people who don’t have the option of paying for it.

Even Obama admits the problem.   What’s his solution?  Private pay like he mentioned he’d have done for his Grandmother…

Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

Oh, he doesn’t have a solution.  I guess this issue then is a sideline issue?  Nope, it’s more like a top priority!

From dictating our children’s educations, to increasing legislation, to helping the “doctors, scientists, ethicists” decide the fates of our grandmothers it’s pretty interesting stuff.

What is Health Insurance? – Arnold Kling

Let me offer two choices:

(a) Health insurance is the collective provision of all health care.
(b) Health insurance is the sharing of extreme risk in health care spending.

In my view, (a) represents what most people think of as good health insurance. For example, I have a friend who says her health insurance is great because she can get new eyeglasses every year for everyone in her family for a co-payment of only $10.

We have never observed (b). (b) would mean something where you only make a claim when your expenses are going to run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Claims would be rare and large, as in fire insurance. Premiums would be low, as in fire insurance….

Peter Orszag (now Obama’s had of Office of Management and Budget), Jason Furman (an Obama adviser), and Shannon Brownlee (author of the book Overtreated) are among those who acknowledge that much of our health care spending (a standard estimate is about 30 percent) goes for medical procedures that are not cost-effective.

The foregoing are among those on the left who believe that government-run health care can save money. But if you believe that government can save significant money on health care, then by the same token you have to believe either:

(i) our current mix of medical services is optimal, and we could deliver it much more cheaply;
(ii) our current mix of medical services is far from optimal, with too many cost-ineffective services provided.

Most people who can do arithmetic realize that (i) is not the answer. The standard bogeymen of drug industry profits and insurance company overhead are not big enough to make a major difference. Moreover, the evidence for (ii) is broad and overwhelming.

The bottom line is that what we think of as health insurance is not going to survive if we are going to get control of health care costs. Either health insurance is going to become very intrusive about our choices of medical services (the top-down, government option, under the guise of “health care quality”), or we are going to see much higher deductibles and co-payments (the bottom-up option).

I fully agree with this analysis. But I also think it leaves out one of the scariest problems. I’ve read else where that the large majority of costs in health care are due to diseases and often times preventable diseases. If health insurance/care/etc. is going to be federally funded and the government is going to be responsible for health care costs then a true discussion of controlling health/medical care includes controling the activities that lead to bad health (our sex lives, the substances (cigs, alcohol, drugs) we consume or abuse, our diet, our physical levels of activity, etc.).

A discussion of government controling costs while providing the right health care sounds very scary to me. (Even if the current system could be improved.)

Who will be responsible for paying for the smoker that sits around and watches TV all day while eating (cheap) Big Macs?

UPDATE:

From TheHill.com

What is surprising for many to learn is the degree to which the rapid growth in chronic illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and arthritis, and related conditions such as obesity, are driving cost increases — and the implications this has for our national economy.

Today, nearly half of Americans suffer from one or more chronic diseases, and treatment of chronically ill Americans accounts for more than 75 percent of our nation’s healthcare spending. In Medicare and Medicaid, spending rates on the chronically ill are even higher: 96 percent and 83 percent of total spending, respectively.

TheHill.com article ends with a good point. But I ask one can only lead a horse to water, how do you incentivize somebody already on the “welfare” dollar to “get healthy” so their health care cost will lower?

UPDATE:

This post also seems to support my main concern about government intervention opening the door to oppression.

From MedScape.com

However, nearly two-thirds of the rise in health care spending is linked to a rise in treated disease prevalence (for example, diabetes) and innovations in medical treatment. Health behavior such as overconsumption of food, lack of exercise, smoking, and stress accounts for approximately 40-50 percent of morbidity and mortality Thus, a reliance solely on the consumer-driven model is not likely to solve the problem, since it would do little to address the key factors that underlie the rise in health care spending. Indeed, missing from the list of solutions for slow-ing health spending growth are public health and preventive interventions at the population level that target the rise in treated disease prevalence. Moreover, given the important role that medical innovations have assumed in expanding treatment, options for discouraging the diffusion of high-cost/low-benefit technologies also need exploration. To date, U.S. cost containment policy has focused too narrowly on demand-side interventions such as changing the design of insurance benefits and increasing cost sharing.