Part 1: Healthcare Factoids, not Fearmongering

The left (D-Michigan, Debbie Stabenow) says that conservatives have been proven wrong. Medicare has not destroyed the american society and has not bankrupted America. However, if America is fine and those arguments have been proven false, then why do costs continue to rise?

Medicare was demonized from 1945 to 1965. LBJ put it into play. Opponents argued that medicare would be a fiscal blackhole. This has proven true. Medicare is predicted to go bankrupt if it does not receive more funding in 2017. (Source: HealthPA) Furthermore, we're having a healthcare debate because medicare (however not solely) has caused prices to rise.



Medicare pays set reduced rates for services. These services result in a financial loss for the hospital who makes up for it by charging higher rates to those who have private insurance. (Source: Washington Post)

This is the 'hidden' tax Obama tells us that we're already paying.

I know some people argue that it's because of the profit motive that prices have risen. While this makes sense, especially when there is incentive not to treat patients, there is data showing that 48% of insured americans are currently under non-profit programs. (Source: Alliance for Non-Profit Healthcare). Most programs out today are non-profit programs, however, hmmm, this doesn't prove that the profit motive isn't responsible for rising costs.

So what are the sources of rising costs?

1. Cost shifting from Medicare and Medicaid, as stated earlier.
2. Americans are getting heavier, therefore we are more prone to diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and various other illnesses and disabilities.
   
3. Defensive Medicine. Doctors have to cover their own tails, so they order extra procedures. It makes sense since one lawsuit will hit you really really hard on medical malpractice insurance.
4. Profit Motive. If insurance companies took lower profit margins, then prices would go down, however, lets take a look at the profit margins.
   

   HMO - 3.8%
   Life Insurance - 8.2%
   Health Insurance - 5.5%
   Property & Casualty - 8.3%
   (Source: Paduda/Weiss Ratings)
   

   So healthcare is making very low profit margins. 3.8% to 5.5%. Sure, they can cut their profits even lower or reduce salaries, but I think the effect is very minimal.

   Melissa Gannon, Weiss VP, notes: "Although the industry has enjoyed an increase in revenues by raising premiums, insurers have also had to deal with the rising cost of medical care as a result of more open networks, an aging population, expensive medical advances, and an inefficient healthcare system.

Part 2: Conservative Economic Solutions that don't involve misinformation or religion.

Primer Prompt

"Why do you value your failures more than your successes?"
"Successes only last until someone screws them up. Failures are forever."

Maybe it's our failures that make our fate. House's comment made me wonder, if I failed, would Big be there to catch me when I fall? Or would he just screw me? ^_^

All kidding aside, the season premiere of House was 5 out of 5 for me. Unlike a lot of dramas, it doesn't let you off the hook with cheap shortcuts or divine intervention. I don't want to spoil anything, but do watch this episode ASAFP. It's episodes like this that redeem psychology-major screenplay writers.

The Best Pep Talk!

Lance Armstrong: Could I get a bottle of water. - - Hey, aren't you Peter La Fleur?
Peter La Fleur: Lance Armstrong!

Lance Armstrong: Yeah, that's me. But I'm a big fan of yours.
Peter La Fleur: Really?

Lance Armstrong: Yeah, I've been watching the dodgeball tournament on the Ocho. ESPN 8. I just can't get enough of it. But, good luck in the tournament. I'm really pulling for you against those jerks from Globo Gym. I think you better hurry up or you're gonna be late.
Peter La Fleur: Uh, actually I decided to quit... Lance.

Lance Armstrong: Quit? You know, once I was thinking about quitting when I was diagnosed with brain, lung and testicular cancer, all at the same time. But with the love and support of my friends and family, I got back on the bike and I won the Tour de France five times in a row. But I'm sure you have a good reason to quit. So what are you dying from that's keeping you from the finals?

Peter La Fleur: ....right now it feels a little bit like... shame.

Lance Armstrong: Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't have anything to regret for the rest of their life. But good luck to you Peter. I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever.

SPAM

I get lots of it. Once you register as a Realtor, your email gets flooded with spam from residential developers and certification gurus who all want to give you something for free or at a great deal of $blahblah.99! I'm going to see if unsubscribing from all these mailing lists will work. Beginning today, September 24, I will click on the 'unsubscribe me' option at the bottom of the list of every email and track my progress on spam reduction. Normally, I just tag the file as spam on gmail, but this isn't producing any results.

A Critical Conservative Dissent...?

You see all those videos lambasting tea parties across America showcasing the ignorance of several participants. These videos are taking a small sample of 5-8 people and selecting the yahoos and using it to represent the rest of the protestors. I dare say that this kind of news reporting runs on the same vein as Glen Beck. It's pathetic and it's like playing full court basketball against kids with down-syndrome. Let's challenge the issues, not just the handicapped out there, shall we? Today, I want to examine the claims of socialist OBAMACAREEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Socialism -- refers to various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterised by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. (Source: Wikipedia)

This is a wordy definition so I'll break it out in easier terms. It means the public (government) or worker (employee) ownership of economic organization (businesses). It also means that the government or employee has control of where that production gets allocated. Lastly, it means that everybody should get equal access to what is produced regardless of social class. So when you have people saying that Obamacare is socialism, they're actually not far from the definition of socialism.

The proposed public option is a government-run health care business. It's government/public ownership and administration of health care (which are economic goods & services) that will be allocated (given) to anybody who wants it regardless of social class or capacity to afford it (egalitarian).

Am I wrong here? Does that not fit the definition of socialism? Maybe wikipedia is wrong? This looks like it nails it right on the nose. Is there room for interpretation here?

Lots of liberals want to call this bill capitalistic since it encourages competition, but free market capitalism requires ownership to be private and production allocation to be discriminatory to those who can afford it. Free market capitalism also requires no government advantages.

Ever since the government intervened in the 40s and 50s and made health care insurance tax-free to employers, that paved to way to employer-based health care. Why? Well, it's a tax deduction! Employer-based health care has a tax shield that gives it a financial competitive advantage, hence why the private health care market is marginalized.

Vindictive Vindication

Michael Jordan was arguably the best basketball player of all time. He was recently inducted into the Hall of Fame for his prowess on the basketball court. While most people were expecting a positive speech where he'd thank his coaches, fellow basketball players, and family, they got the exact opposite. He was getting even. Jordan touched on something I learned a long time ago in high school.

"You motivated me not through love but because you challenged me. You put another log on the fire." - Jordan

Many people are motivated by many things, and in this respect, I can relate to Jordan. My first taste of sweet revenge was on the game board. I enjoyed playing a World War II game called Axis & Allies. A classmate of mine brought the game to school and we played before classes began, during lunch, and after school. He was determined that he would outplay me, and many times over, he'd tell me he was going to crush me. For those that knows me, I remember. Not because I'm petty, but because I know it's another log in the fire.

When I go for a run, the extra mile doesn't isn't compelled by the fuel of love and benevolence. It's out of competitive spirit. It's out of the same thing Jordan said. It's because of those who doubted my resolve, my promise, my ability to succeed. Many of Jordan's commentators stated that his speech was petty. It was vindictive in what should've been a benevolent speech. Listening to them makes me wonder how many of them are at the top of their field? Do they actually know the motivate fuel it takes to get on top? Or are they just the majority of mediocrity that gets their kicks from shit slinging on the sidelines?

While I'm no higher echelon of accomplishment or success, I can relate to what Jordan goes through.

I know how powerfully motivating it is to be rejected and doubted. To turn the negativity of disappointment into one's greatest strength.

I know how a desperate rage creates combustion better Christmas morning.

I also know how that combustion is difficult to sustain when you've won. How you cannot thrive unless you constantly have enemies nipping you at the heels.

And perhaps most important, I know how you become a sycophant to the plebs' acknowledgment of your 'success'. How you mortgage your self-worth onto the subjective scales of the general populace.

Success at what cost? All this for what?

To be inducted into the hall of fame. To become a 6 time NBA champion. To become a 6 time Finals MVP. To become a multi-millionaire. To become a Hollywood celebrity. To have a model of shoes named after you. To earn two olympic gold medals. To own his own steakhouse in NYC.

But these are just things and boy scout badges, no?

The real worth of a human being is not so much how good he is at his craft, but how much water he can carry for those who can only drink it.

Two Steps Back

"how is life on the better side of the pond???? you miss London at all?"

What a question... Life is good over here. I get to eat good food on a daily basis, I have a bed that doesn't attempt to dislodge my 5th & 6th vertebrae, and I can casually lock my bike without fear of theft. Very close to my parent's house, I have a fully loaded gym where I can reclaim a year of lost strength training and perhaps most importantly, I can sing track #3 in my car at the top of my lungs without fear of retaliation. As I said, life is good.

Concerning London, I would be remiss to say that I don't miss that riparian metropolis. I think I just needed some time back home to recharge. I liked the fact that I could hop onto one of the buses full of degenerates and stroll the downtown streets of antiquity within 20 minutes. I like the fact that I know every landmark scene that the movies use from London. I miss walking the span of the millennium bridge. I miss seeing the hubris of St. Paul's cathedral as it contests with the gods for reverence. I miss absorbing vitamin D (and P!) with friends at Clissold park or gallivanting the wayward streets in search of a good pub to spend our money. I also miss having my own place, my own leasehold, my own terms.

But for once, I can say that I've had no regrets in London. I've lived and breathed a foreign country for a year, and I've come to love the US that much more for it. I've come back to a place where citizens acknowledge that it is their civic duty to question and challenge their leaders. I'm back in a place where wealth and entrepreneurial zest are admirable, not castigated and viewed as a source of tax revenue. I'm back in the first modern republic.

I will go back to London, but not yet!

Cash for Clunkers Fallacy

I came upon an interesting little fallacy that fits the cash for clunkers stimulus. It's also known as the broken window fallacy.

1. Say a shopkeeper's son breaks the shop windows.
2. The shopkeeper who originally saved the money to purchase wares pays the brazier $100 instead to fix it.
3. The brazier thanks the shopkeeper's son and repairs the window for $100.
4. The brazier's business benefits in capital while the shopkeeper's loses capital.
   

Is destruction good for business? Some would say yes! Of course, the brazier just made a hundy!

However, this doesn't sit right with us though. If this were true, then we should be thanking an assailant for putting me in the hospital. I mean, if I go to the ER, tons of people in the hospital get paid! This is good for the economy, no? Heck, let's thank the serial rapist because psychologists get at least a year's worth of visits to help the victim work through the psychosis.

I used rather dramatic examples but they all share the same common denominator. It's the destruction of something or somebody for the benefit of others.

Let's consider cash for clunkers.

The government gives us a cash credit so that they can 'recycle' the clunkers. Recycle is misleading since the engine and drive train for the clunkers must be destroyed (source: CNN's Time). Essentially, the government gives us $3,500-4,500, to destroy a working (albiet inefficient) asset. This stimulates the automobile sector of the economy, just like how window breakers stimulate the brazier's business, the rapist stimulates the psychology business.

The difference is that the government is giving us money to help pay for the new car, the new glass window, and the shrink sessions. Let's break it out simpler:

1. Government gives you $3,500-$4,500 to have 60% of your car's value destroyed.
2. You 'trade in' your car and have it 'recycled'.
   
3. You buy a new gas efficient car with the credit.
   
4. Car companies thank you for the patronage. Their business flourishes.

But I got a new car out of it! Where do you think the government got the $3,500-4,500? They either got it from taxes, or they sold bonds to other countries -- most likely the latter. Basically, the government took a car loan out for you to destroy your own car so you could buy a better one.

Could you have put that $3,500-4,500 plus whatever else you paid on the new car to a better use? Perhaps invested in a business/education/certifications?

Basically, the government wanted to pour funds into the automobile industry. It's a zero-sum game. Wealth just got redistributed to the automobile industry. Same as the shopkeeper with the broken window. The money went back to Americans.

Lastly, I introduce opportunity cost and the creation of wealth.

The shopkeeper, the rape victim, and the American who 'recycled' his car all could've spent that money somewhere else. Education is probably the best since this leads to innovation, which creates new wealth (ie: RCA, Bell labs, other R&D). Those three people could've invested it into a business which could generate new wealth and taken market share from other countries (Ie: Apple, Google, etc). Essentially, the government wanted to funnel money into the American car industry which demands more pay than the Japanese and produces an inferior product. Thank you Obama.