If these weren't serious times, last night's speech was almost silly. It was shockingly foolish ...
He spoke of fiscal responsibility and tightening their belts and freezing spending NEXT YEAR ...
Congress should be ashamed of itself for each and every paycheck they deposit. If I ran my company the way they run the government, I'd be in foreclosure. I say we foreclose on them.
He spoke of government creating jobs (and so do Republicans) …
Government doesn’t create anything.
He spoke in lofty terms and rising and soaring language ...
Government is infatuated with itself, and it's nauseating on both sides of the isle.
He said 95% of Americans got a tax cut and that the only increases will be on those making more than $250K annually ...
Taxing the so-called rich is redistributive by definition, and anyone who supports that kind of progressive policy is a Marxist by definition.
They jump to their feet in applause when Obama mentions tax cuts ...
Why do we get weepy over tax cuts as if the government is giving us something? It's our dadgum money to begin with for goodness sakes.
He says that insurance companies and banks are the problem ...
Government takes 40% of our incomes and has left crushing debt to our children, yet the insurance companies and banks are the problem?
He wants the government to solve the health care crisis ...
It's beyond folly to allow the same folks who bankrupted Medicare to get within a country mile of healthcare reform. Allowing a government bureaucrat to manage our health care system is like asking an alcoholic to manage a liquor store.
He gave examples of business growing because of government stimulus ...
Not one client of mine clamors for a second stimulus, and no one has suggested that the Reinvestment Act did anything for them. They must not have been invited to the pork party.
He spoke of government solving our problems ...
Government isn't the answer. Yet there is a generation that prefers to suckle at the government teat, and liberals know that.
My thoughts ... I say freedom. Get the government out of our lives. Give us the freedom to succeed or fail. I hope there are enough people to reject this affront to freedom and the Constitution.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Human Nature vs Single Payer? Human nature wins.
Over the past few weeks, I have been communicating via blog post on liberal website with those in favor of Single Payer. I am amazed at how differently they think, and it’s caused me to rethink my beliefs. But, as I have done that, I come back to the undeniable, and that is it’s simply human nature to protect our self interests:
At some point, the individuals within the collective will always ... always seek to self preserve and look to their best interest over the collective. ALWAYS.
And that is why Single Payer is doomed to fail, and do so miserably. The following is a post I made on that site …
“Sir” - I have read your posts and the article about Single Payer. It's not news. I'm not shocked to see that there is corruption in politics. Where there is money there is power.
All the articles in the world can't change the human condition. At some point, even a Marx follower ... not suggesting you or anyone else is, just going to the extreme to make a point ... one that actually believes that government should provide economic equality, at some point that person will become self aware. And the collective is no longer of any interest whatsoever.
According to the article (and countless others): "Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do."
You stated: "Your Doctor will be the only deciding factor with yourself in what you can get...after the groundwork for procedure limits are set. That would not be a ever changing daily argument like it is today."
Bud (and to any others that may support Single Payer), do you really believe this? Do you actually believe that it's the doctors making treatment decisions for their patients when the only way to fund the services is Medicare or Medicaid? Furthermore, does anyone believe that doctors make the decisions when an insurer is paying? Really?
In many cases no, and even with an insurer, the entity that has the MONEY has the ULITMATE CONTROL. We see this in business, politics, government, and history. This is human nature.
Single Payer is NOT the answer to all our problems. And I'll prove it to you, very simply...
If you had the money to pay for your medical needs, then you would get the services that you desired. The same for your neighbor, your friends, me, and every single person alive. We would have total CONTROL. The problem is we don't have the money! We willingly gave it all away to insurers and government!
Over the generations, we have transferred our money and CONTROL to 3rd party payers (insurers and government) via premiums and taxes.
With all due respect, to believe that single payer, whether a government or a private insurer, is the only answer denies the undeniable:
At some point, the individuals within the collective will always ... always seek to self preserve and look to their best interest over the collective. ALWAYS.
Single Payer is not and cannot then be the answer. It might be a way to provide limited coverage to the masses. But to provide the best quality care at the best price, the only answer is good old fashioned multi-payer supply and demand, where individuals have the CONTROL over their own lives.
At some point, the individuals within the collective will always ... always seek to self preserve and look to their best interest over the collective. ALWAYS.
And that is why Single Payer is doomed to fail, and do so miserably. The following is a post I made on that site …
“Sir” - I have read your posts and the article about Single Payer. It's not news. I'm not shocked to see that there is corruption in politics. Where there is money there is power.
All the articles in the world can't change the human condition. At some point, even a Marx follower ... not suggesting you or anyone else is, just going to the extreme to make a point ... one that actually believes that government should provide economic equality, at some point that person will become self aware. And the collective is no longer of any interest whatsoever.
According to the article (and countless others): "Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do."
You stated: "Your Doctor will be the only deciding factor with yourself in what you can get...after the groundwork for procedure limits are set. That would not be a ever changing daily argument like it is today."
Bud (and to any others that may support Single Payer), do you really believe this? Do you actually believe that it's the doctors making treatment decisions for their patients when the only way to fund the services is Medicare or Medicaid? Furthermore, does anyone believe that doctors make the decisions when an insurer is paying? Really?
In many cases no, and even with an insurer, the entity that has the MONEY has the ULITMATE CONTROL. We see this in business, politics, government, and history. This is human nature.
Single Payer is NOT the answer to all our problems. And I'll prove it to you, very simply...
If you had the money to pay for your medical needs, then you would get the services that you desired. The same for your neighbor, your friends, me, and every single person alive. We would have total CONTROL. The problem is we don't have the money! We willingly gave it all away to insurers and government!
Over the generations, we have transferred our money and CONTROL to 3rd party payers (insurers and government) via premiums and taxes.
With all due respect, to believe that single payer, whether a government or a private insurer, is the only answer denies the undeniable:
At some point, the individuals within the collective will always ... always seek to self preserve and look to their best interest over the collective. ALWAYS.
Single Payer is not and cannot then be the answer. It might be a way to provide limited coverage to the masses. But to provide the best quality care at the best price, the only answer is good old fashioned multi-payer supply and demand, where individuals have the CONTROL over their own lives.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
What incentive does Congress have to pay your health costs?
I am a licensed CPA, practicing in the expertise of small business. I tell you that so you know that I fully understand economics, both macro and micro, and how it relates to Joe the Plumber to a CEO of a major corporation.
Very few seem to see this issue from it's most important view, and the reason why a nationalized health plan, single payer if you will, will not and cannot work in this country nor in any country. The reason has been touched in many blogs and posts, but from a negative perspective. Three words ...
Incentive. Incentive. incentive.
The reason why health insurers don't want to pay claims is the same reason readers of my post don't want to pay my family's medical expenses. You have no incentive to do so as it doesn't benefit you, in fact takes your resources and transfers them to me. I sincerely doubt that any reader personally pays the expenses of another that they do not know, some stranger. Yes, you may contribute to United Way or the like, but not directly to those you don't know ... because you have no incentive to do it.
So you think the government has an incentive to pay your health expenses? How so? I submit to you they have less incentive than an insurer. The government has fewer resources than the private sector, as they are already in debt $12 Trillion. If an insurer denies a claim they should pay, they get their pants sued off and horrible press coverage. What if the government
doesn’t pay, then what? We can’t sue them, and WE HAVE NO RECOURSE.
We must remember that whether the government or an insurer pays the claim, that agency sees us as a policyholder or taxpayer, not a human being. Stop telling yourself otherwise, because you know deep down in your heart it's true.
It simply is NOT possible for a third party, whether a government agency or insurer, to care about our health more than we ourselves do.
We must stop transferring our resources to the insurers and have high deductible plans, saving our money each and every year for our own health expenses. I personally have a $10,000 deductible, and increase it each year, saving the necessary money in a health savings account to pay my family’s medical costs.
What if everyone did that over their lifetime, starting young and saving throughout their lives? Over the next 2 generations we could create a society that has developed their own health wealth instead of transferring it to an insurer or agency that is some third party that only views us as a claim, taking their resources from them.
Incentive. Insurance companies AND the Federal Government have NONE to pay claims. France is not the answer, government is not the answer ... other than getting your vote, what incentive does Washington DC have to take care of your health?
None.
Very few seem to see this issue from it's most important view, and the reason why a nationalized health plan, single payer if you will, will not and cannot work in this country nor in any country. The reason has been touched in many blogs and posts, but from a negative perspective. Three words ...
Incentive. Incentive. incentive.
The reason why health insurers don't want to pay claims is the same reason readers of my post don't want to pay my family's medical expenses. You have no incentive to do so as it doesn't benefit you, in fact takes your resources and transfers them to me. I sincerely doubt that any reader personally pays the expenses of another that they do not know, some stranger. Yes, you may contribute to United Way or the like, but not directly to those you don't know ... because you have no incentive to do it.
So you think the government has an incentive to pay your health expenses? How so? I submit to you they have less incentive than an insurer. The government has fewer resources than the private sector, as they are already in debt $12 Trillion. If an insurer denies a claim they should pay, they get their pants sued off and horrible press coverage. What if the government
doesn’t pay, then what? We can’t sue them, and WE HAVE NO RECOURSE.
We must remember that whether the government or an insurer pays the claim, that agency sees us as a policyholder or taxpayer, not a human being. Stop telling yourself otherwise, because you know deep down in your heart it's true.
It simply is NOT possible for a third party, whether a government agency or insurer, to care about our health more than we ourselves do.
We must stop transferring our resources to the insurers and have high deductible plans, saving our money each and every year for our own health expenses. I personally have a $10,000 deductible, and increase it each year, saving the necessary money in a health savings account to pay my family’s medical costs.
What if everyone did that over their lifetime, starting young and saving throughout their lives? Over the next 2 generations we could create a society that has developed their own health wealth instead of transferring it to an insurer or agency that is some third party that only views us as a claim, taking their resources from them.
Incentive. Insurance companies AND the Federal Government have NONE to pay claims. France is not the answer, government is not the answer ... other than getting your vote, what incentive does Washington DC have to take care of your health?
None.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Is Media Bias dangerous ... even if one agrees with it? OH YES.
A friend asked me if Obama was still on the golf course for his Christmas vacation. I don't know, but I sure wish that I were still golfing. Since I don't have a private 747 jet and staff to attend to me, I went back to work. But this reminded me of something I hope everyone keeps in their minds for 2010: The liberal bias is alive and well, and everyone should be on guard against it, especially liberals. Yes, it's dangerous for those that agree with the bias, maybe even more so.
President Barack Obama had only been in office for just over nine months, but he's already hit the links as much as President Bush did in over two years. CBS' Mark Knoller — an unofficial documentarian and statistician of all things White House-related — wrote on his Twitter feed that, "Today - Obama ties Pres. Bush in the number of rounds of golf played in office: 24. Took Bush 2 yrs & 10 months."
Honestly, I don’t care, because I like golf. But that’s not the story, whether we care about his golfing. The story is the biased media and our forgetfulness.
On Aug. 5, 2002, The Washington Post wrote about President Bush golfing near his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine. Under the headline “Before Golf, Bush Decries Latest Deaths in Mideast,” staff writer Mike Allen described Bush as he “sprang from his golf cart at 6:15 a.m. and said he was "... distressed to hear about the latest suicide bombers in Israel.”
The article went further, “Bush, wearing khakis and a knit shirt, was holding a driver in his gloved left hand,” Allen wrote. “However incongruous the setting, the president plunged ahead. He then quoted Bush, "There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have started, and we must not let them. I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers.” Allen then went on to state, “His business out of the way, Bush barely paused for breath before saying, ‘Thank you. Now watch this drive.'” (Many of you may remember this exchange in video in the Michael Moore film “Fahrenheit 911,” as this story was part of the movie trailer.)
Why did Bush take just 2 years and 10 months to play 24 rounds of golf? Wasn’t he President for 8 years? Yes. Bush QUIT playing golf on October 13, 2003. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander-in-chief playing golf," Bush said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them." See http://afp.google.com/arti
So, what did the media report when he quit golfing? Bush was criticized for giving up golf. After Bush quit playing, Presidential Historian Robert Dallek said (May 14, 2008 in The Washington Post) Bush’s remarks about Iraq [and quitting golf] “speak to his shallowness.” Dallek added: “That's his idea of sacrifice, to give up golf?” Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, also was criticized for golfing in a time of war. Need more? Consider this video of Keith Olbermann http://www.youtube.com/wat
THE REST OF THE STORY - What has the media reported on Obama’s golf? The same Washington Post that criticized Bush, on June 9, 2009, published an article on Obama with the headline “Just the Sport for A Leader Most Driven.” That article in the Post offered the following report:
“What’s the deal? Why golf?” Post staff writer Richard Leiby wrote. “The attraction seems to be simple. It’s a great escape; the game demands such attention that nothing else matters. It’s time spent with friends, an unhurried afternoon in loose clothing (shorts seem to be Obama’s preference).”
The same paper that blasted Bush for golfing during a time of war describes the same activity of Obama – presidential golfing during a time at war – “a great escape; the game demands such attention that nothing else matters.” Friends, there is no debate, and there is no possible way to explain this other than intentional and unashamed BIAS.
My commentary – I don’t care if our Presidents play golf. I know that it is a great release of pressure, and it’s wonderful to get away from the pressures of life. So if the President wants to play golf during war time (all in moderation I suppose) then go for it. It’s probably better for the country and his marriage to take some time for the links. The time away might make him a better president. BUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT GOLF or presidential vacations. It is about the unashamed bias of the media and how foolish they must think we are.
If they will be so bold in their bias on a story such as this (presidential golf), what else are they shading? What other parts of the story are being withheld, protected, or what propaganda are they trying to push? One must be ignorant or a fool to think there is no bias.
And, to those who might have no problem with this bias, who agree with the media’s slant (we all have our opinions and free speech), are you really willing to allow news agencies to form your opinions? Do you not just want the facts, and you can shade them however you want? Media bias toward the left is just as dangerous for those on the left as it is for everyone else. Yes, it is just as perilous for those who agree with the slant than for those who don’t. Even if one leans to the left and likes the bias in the media, it is not in one’s best interest, nor is it intellectually sound, to allow those in the media to form opinions. We all – on all sides of the issues, whether left or right, Marxist or Free Capitalist – WE MUST THINK FOR OURSELVES.
To my friends that vote Democrat that are regular Americans, I ask you to think. Ask yourself the tough questions that this requires. Does this not cause you to ask yourself, “Was Bush really that bad? Maybe I need to do some research and find out more information. Is Obama really as wonderful as he is reported to be? Is he pure as the driven snow? Is Obama’s golfing somehow more virtuous than Bush’s?” If those questions don’t come to your mind, or, if you are offended by the thought of such questions, then it is possible that you too have been overtaken by the bias, and I ask you to rethink your positions, but rethink them with FACTS and not opinion.
There is little hope for the fringe left, as there is little hope for the fringe right, but the overwhelming majority of Americans will think. Let us all think just for a minute about this.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Texarkana: A lesson in Economics for 2010
Texarkana: A lesson in Economics for 2010
“Come on!” I moaned while driving southwest through Texarkana on the way home from Christmas this year. Construction was a mess and traffic was horrible.
New roads are underway as the south side of Texarkana booms with business growth … then it hit me … this just might be the best example of real economics I have ever seen. My frustration lifted for just a bit as I fought my way back to I-30, the cement artery that provides life to this city on which I have driven many times over the years.
Texarkana, a city located in both Texas and Arkansas, represents change we can believe in, believable because we can see it. In the last fifteen years, shopping centers, restaurants, merchandisers, and a regional hospital have sprung to life, to the point that major road construction was a necessity. So what’s the big huge lesson, one that you never learned in college or is taught in today’s universities?
The answer to that economic question is revealed in simple geography: Most – if not all – of the economic development is on the Texas side of the city, not Arkansas. The reason? Texas, unlike Arkansas, has no state income tax.
Entrepreneurs, when faced with the decision as to where to locate their businesses in this city, simply chose the dirt that offered them the best opportunity to keep more of their risk capital. Even though Texas does have higher property taxes and a state business franchise tax, Arkansas’ state income tax would confiscate more of their profits than that of Texas. As a practicing CPA in Texas, I have learned that a business’s tax burden is relatively fixed in the Lone Star State, whereas in Arkansas it’s a percentage of income. Ya’ll, Texas is just more business friendly, no two ways about it.
And, on a side note (a very important note at that), which part of Texarkana is experiencing job growth, Texas or Arkansas? Of course the answer is obvious, as the Lone Star shines quite bright over these fruited plains.
Now, my Arkansas friends need not think I am down on the Natural State, as I lived there for some 20 years and vacation in it’s God blessed beauty most every year. I cannot, however, turn a blind eye to the truth about its current economy as compared to a less taxed state such as neighboring Texas.
It is a universal, undeniable, irrefutable truth of life, that economic development and job growth is birthed from the risk capital of entrepreneurs seeking the greatest return on their money. Liberals can do their best to silence the truth, but they cannot refute it. It can be mocked, but it cannot be disproved. It can be crushed to pieces by a biased media, but that will only spread the particles of economic truth to grow to new life in innovative places.
Job growth in 2010 and beyond rests solely in the hands of our entrepreneurs, and a government that encourages profits rather than one that confiscates profits will better serve those seeking jobs.
I hope that those who don’t believe me, either from their liberal views or a poor education, will simply get in their transportation vehicle (Hybrid or Hummer, bicycle or Benz) and navigate through Texarkana via Interstate 30 and look around. The truth is obvious to the point of being blinding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)