The people of Connecticut get it, Justin Kloczko, staff reporter for the Middletown Press doesn’t. His article reports that in Connecticut, the number of people requesting gun permits is up 50%. This trend is similar across the nation. Law abiding citizens are arming themselves more than in the past. Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Glock, Kal-Tec, and all the other firearm manufacturers are making record sales. Ammunition manufactures cannot keep up with demand.
Kloczko is typical of liberal reporters. This short news piece is laced with anti-gun opinion, of both the reporter and government officials.
He quotes Department of Public Safety Office Supervisor Diane Morrel saying, “Gun sales and permitting has hiked up since Obama took office. These people are worrying needlessly”. Needlessly? Obama has the most anti-gun voting record in the Senate, and his administration has said it will reinstate the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 and will look into putting stricter regulations on gun ownership. How is believing that the President and liberal congress doing what they have repeatedly said they would try to do worrying needlessly?
Even though it has been well documented, Kloczko is amazed at what the data in Connecticut tells him. His article concludes, “Despite the increases in pistol permits, the state is significantly safer than it was 25 years ago. According to Connecticut’s Uniform Crime Report, which indexes murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft in the state, offenses have been on a downward spiral since 1985, dropping around 30 percent in recent years.” Crime did not drop despite the increase pistol ownership; it dropped because the increase pistol ownership is a significant contributing factor to decreased crime.
In the book More Guns Less Crime, John Lott documents the fact that where more regular people arm themselves and take responsibility for their own security the less overall crime exists for those people.
The people of this country, even the people of the liberal northeast, get it. They know that as the unemployment increases, crime generally increases, and that taking the responsibility to defend yourself is demonstrably more effective than depending on the government. They also know that a handgun is the single most effective self protection tool available. They also believe Obama and company when they say that they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. Since the people of Connecticut get it there is an increase in firearm purchases. Why doesn’t the liberal press get it?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!
The climatologists exposed for manipulating data, and colluding to exclude and scientific research that didn't agree with their pre-conceived conclusions, are now saying that it doesn't matter.
"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails - confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."
Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues."
That is of course a lie. Steve Millory exposed the fact that the emails and data were not stolen.
In his email dated May 2008 Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report he said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?", I guess he would want to word that differently so it reads better if he knew it would be exposed. Trouble is how do you word "hide the evidence" better?
Obviously from the documents and messages, Mann and Jones and others rigged the climate-tracking game from the start. According to them, only those, whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. Challenges from critics outside this cabal are dismissed and disparaged.
Stephen McIntyre's web site, Climateaudit.org, checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds. The result of this exposure has resulted in Mr. Mann being force to publish a correction to one of his papers. Mann had this to say to the New York Times about the leaked emails "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."
In a march 2003 email Mann noted "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal!" This came out after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, and went so far as to say "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." This Cabal has tried and is more or less successful at excluding acceptance of any publication that publishes views of which they don't approve.
Vincent Gray IPCC expert reviewer, documents how proof of fraud and exclusion of critical data has been endemic in climate research for over a decade in his Nov.27 article CLICK HERE TO READ
Mann's cabal uses the excuse that because their view is the most published most accepted that it is fact, when they control the peer review system and exclude and disparage any data that doesn't support their pre-conceived conclusions. Seems like the logical fallacy, Circular Reasoning, to me.
If their data is indisputable, why do they have to rig the system?
"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails - confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."
Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues."
That is of course a lie. Steve Millory exposed the fact that the emails and data were not stolen.
Since news of embarrassing, if not incriminating emails broke last Friday, it has become clear that the CRU computer system was not “hacked” and the emails were not stolen. In fact, the file containing the emails had been assembled by CRU staff in preparation for compliance with a Freedom of Information request. The file was then stored in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer network — making it just a matter of time before someone discovered it. Why the file was so stored may never be known, but that’s not really what’s important.
Nothing illegal or unethical was done to affect the file’s release.
In his email dated May 2008 Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report he said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?", I guess he would want to word that differently so it reads better if he knew it would be exposed. Trouble is how do you word "hide the evidence" better?
Obviously from the documents and messages, Mann and Jones and others rigged the climate-tracking game from the start. According to them, only those, whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. Challenges from critics outside this cabal are dismissed and disparaged.
Stephen McIntyre's web site, Climateaudit.org, checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds. The result of this exposure has resulted in Mr. Mann being force to publish a correction to one of his papers. Mann had this to say to the New York Times about the leaked emails "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."
In a march 2003 email Mann noted "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal!" This came out after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, and went so far as to say "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." This Cabal has tried and is more or less successful at excluding acceptance of any publication that publishes views of which they don't approve.
Vincent Gray IPCC expert reviewer, documents how proof of fraud and exclusion of critical data has been endemic in climate research for over a decade in his Nov.27 article CLICK HERE TO READ
Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.
I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.
Mann's cabal uses the excuse that because their view is the most published most accepted that it is fact, when they control the peer review system and exclude and disparage any data that doesn't support their pre-conceived conclusions. Seems like the logical fallacy, Circular Reasoning, to me.
If their data is indisputable, why do they have to rig the system?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What Does It All Mean?
We live in a constitutional republic, created by men who believed that the government was and could be the biggest source of oppression to the people. They made it difficult to change, and severely restricted it. Specifically they only granted the government enumerated powers.
The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.
Thee classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:
“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”
“ This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland
“ We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez
US constitution, Ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
US constitution, Tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So we have a government with limited powers, and we have rights that are reserved to the people or the states not the federal government, and requirements that all men be given equal protection of the laws.
What do we call a ruler or government that works without restrictions, and the state of being where power of government is exercised with disregard to its enumerated powers?
ty•rant n. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant
tyr•an•ny n. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
Since by law I am not allowed to purchase health insurance from beyond my states borders, my purchase of Health insurance cannot affect Interstate Commerce. Since whether or not I purchase insurance within my state cannot affect commerce between the states, by what other enumerated power can the federal government tell me or my insurance provider what my insurance must or must not cover. As a single man, I really don’t need insurance that covers pregnancies and mammograms, and should be allowed to purchase insurance which doesn’t cover these conditions. It would be like my wanting to purchase a pickup truck. I need a light duty truck for occasional hauling like a Ford Ranger, but the government says it knows better what I need and insists I purchase a truck with minimal features like being able to carry a ton, and tow a 7000 pound trailer, and I’m not allowed to purchase anything less than a SuperDuty F250, going so far as to legislate that Ford not sell any trucks that can’t tow less than 7000 pounds. It doesn’t matter that I don’t have a trailer that big, and never plan on having one, I have to purchase a truck than can tow one.
If I choose to self insure, instead of purchasing insurance I should be able to do that. What specific enumerated power grants the federal government the right to force citizens to purchase a service as a condition of living in the USA. This has never before happened in the history of this country. This is not only, not an enumerated power, it is the unrestrained exercise of power. By definition Tyranny.
Florida Health Care Freedom Act says any "law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system," and specifies people and employers can’t be fined for not buying insurance. When Florida passes this law, which then specifically prohibits the federal government from the power to force people to buy insurance, what will the feds do?
If the 2000 page monstrosity of “health care reform” passes the senate and becomes law, then we are no better than Cuba, the USSR, or North Korea, where ruling juntas determine what the people can and cannot do without restrictions. We will be living in a state of Tyranny.
The enumerated powers are a list of specific responsibilities found in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which iterates the authority granted to the United States Congress. Congress may exercise only those powers that are granted to it by the Constitution, limited by the Bill of Rights and the other protections found in the Constitutional text.
Thee classical statement of a government of enumerated powers is that by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland:
“This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent, to have required to be enforced by all those arguments, which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge; that principle is now universally admitted.”
“ This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland
“ We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers.”
—Chief Justice William Rehnquist in United States v. Lopez
US constitution, Ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
US constitution, Tenth amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So we have a government with limited powers, and we have rights that are reserved to the people or the states not the federal government, and requirements that all men be given equal protection of the laws.
What do we call a ruler or government that works without restrictions, and the state of being where power of government is exercised with disregard to its enumerated powers?
ty•rant n. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant
tyr•an•ny n. 1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power
Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
Since by law I am not allowed to purchase health insurance from beyond my states borders, my purchase of Health insurance cannot affect Interstate Commerce. Since whether or not I purchase insurance within my state cannot affect commerce between the states, by what other enumerated power can the federal government tell me or my insurance provider what my insurance must or must not cover. As a single man, I really don’t need insurance that covers pregnancies and mammograms, and should be allowed to purchase insurance which doesn’t cover these conditions. It would be like my wanting to purchase a pickup truck. I need a light duty truck for occasional hauling like a Ford Ranger, but the government says it knows better what I need and insists I purchase a truck with minimal features like being able to carry a ton, and tow a 7000 pound trailer, and I’m not allowed to purchase anything less than a SuperDuty F250, going so far as to legislate that Ford not sell any trucks that can’t tow less than 7000 pounds. It doesn’t matter that I don’t have a trailer that big, and never plan on having one, I have to purchase a truck than can tow one.
If I choose to self insure, instead of purchasing insurance I should be able to do that. What specific enumerated power grants the federal government the right to force citizens to purchase a service as a condition of living in the USA. This has never before happened in the history of this country. This is not only, not an enumerated power, it is the unrestrained exercise of power. By definition Tyranny.
Florida Health Care Freedom Act says any "law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system," and specifies people and employers can’t be fined for not buying insurance. When Florida passes this law, which then specifically prohibits the federal government from the power to force people to buy insurance, what will the feds do?
If the 2000 page monstrosity of “health care reform” passes the senate and becomes law, then we are no better than Cuba, the USSR, or North Korea, where ruling juntas determine what the people can and cannot do without restrictions. We will be living in a state of Tyranny.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Fallacy of College Education
I've had several interesting conversations on the value of a college education. In virtually all of those conversations I've heard the old argument, currently pushed by Obama, and backed by statistics, "College Graduates make more money therefore we must ensure everybody can go to college."
This is based on a logical fallacy called an Inductive Argument. Since people who earn more are more likely to have a degree, college education results in higher incomes.
It's like saying people who live homes where insulin is found are more likely to have diabetes, therefore insulin causes diabetes.
The fact is if we look at college dropouts like Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire founder of Facebook, or Bill Gates, billionaire founder of Microsoft we see that being smart and savvy made them rich. If we look at just about any professional athlete, they make obscene amounts of money, not all are smart but all are talented. Smart, talented and ambitious people earn more money.
Ask any fifth grader two weeks into the school year who the smart kids are, who the dumb kids are, who the athletic kids are, who the funny kids are, and who the bullies (criminals) are, and the fifth grader can tell you. It’s just not politically correct (PC) to recognize those facts. There are simple facts, a smart person is more likely to earn a degree than a dumb one, and an ambitious person is more likely to earn a degree than a lazy person. It doesn’t take a genius to know that smart and/or ambitious people are more likely to have higher incomes than dumb and/or lazy people.
Not everyone is equal, some are smart, some are athletic, some are talented, and some are not. In a free enterprise system, society voluntarily rewards those who provide their fellow man with service more than those who don't. The reward is proportional to what others are willing to pay for the service. Bill Clinton makes tens of thousands of dollars to give a one hour speech, because others in society believe his speech has value and are willing to pay for it. The bag boy at the grocery store earns less than $8 an hour. The discrepancy is because society doesn’t value bagging groceries as much as an ex-president’s speech.
Because of his talent in the ring Mike Tyson made millions of dollars. Because of his lack of financial aptitude he has not been able to retain the wealth his fellow man has voluntarily given him in exchange for the entertainment he provided. Somebody like Steve Forbes would have leveraged those millions into more millions.
Providing everybody with equal opportunity, the most talented will inescapably rise, and the less talented will fall behind. This will follow a Bell curve. Whether athletically, artistically, academically, charismatically, or creatively, people with more talent will be rewarded by their fellow man more than people with less talent. It wouldn’t matter how hard I worked, or what coaches I had, how much access to the best facilities were made available to me, or how much I spent on having Michael Jordon teach me one on one, my fellow members of society would never pay to see me play basketball. There just isn’t much entertainment value in short dorky asthmatic white nerds with little natural basketball ability shootin’ hoops.
It is insane to think that everybody can and should receive a college education. It’s also a lie to tell every student if they get a degree they will earn more money. I know college graduates working at Walmart, under managers who have no college education but worked their way up through the company. Most jobs (outside of engineering type jobs) that require a college education, the employer doesn’t really care what the college degree is in, just that you have one. A degree is used by businesses as a screening tool to weed out dumb, less talented, less ambitious people. It is one of the few screening tools they are allowed to use. The government has caused this problem because if a business offered a job that required smarts, but didn’t require a college education, and ended up giving the job to a higher number of degreed people than non-degreed people, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) would take them to court for discrimination. According the EEOC, "If this job does not require a college degree, then any favoritism shown to college graduates is a disguised form of racial discrimination and illegal." Sense smart talented people are more likely to acquire a college degree than dumb people; business in order to be allowed to hire a smarter more talented employee must require a degree, even if a degree is irrelevant to the job. They don’t hire PhD’s, MBA’s, BA’s, and BS’s because of the arcane drivel that these students have learned. They are buying the brain power that was required earn those degrees.
Among other stupidity, this fallacy has lead to No Child Left Behind. Most teachers off the record will tell you that NCLB to mean No Child Gets Ahead. All of the money and effort is forced to be spent on and bringing the lowest performing students up to a minimum standard (a standard that is too low to be accepted to a university) at the expense of gifted students, whose programs have been cut back or eliminated. Imagine a Florida high school with 1000 students, where 400 earn full academic scholarships to universities across the nation, and 200 more were accepted with partial scholarships, but 250 failed the FCAT. It wouldn’t matter that 75% passed the FCAT, that 60% of the students were college bound and two thirds of those on full academic scholarships; it would be a failing school under NCLB. This is political correctness run amuck, and socialism at its worst. This is the typical leftist thought that equality is more important than success. It’s not “fair” that the smart kids get to go to college, earn degrees and earn more; so we’re going to put more of our resources into academically marginal students hoping that they can get the benefits of a college degree the same as a smart kid. This is stupid illogical thinking. Everybody should be provided the same opportunity and the best should be offered more challenges and opportunities to help them excel, and the less talented should be offered more realistic opportunities (trade schools, apprenticeships, etc.) that will better prepare them to be self sufficient. Telling everybody they should have a college education is a PC lie and hurts everybody. Less than half of students who start college earn a four year degree. They waste a huge amount of money because of a PC lie. It is a disservice to both the universities and the students to push academically marginal students into academic situations beyond their abilities.
Half the well paying jobs in this country don’t require a degree. Electrician, plumber, welder, pipefitter, iron worker, carpenter, machinist, operator, and a plethora of technical positions pay very well. Most of our high school students don’t even know what most of these jobs are, or what it takes to do them. Why are we not preparing our students for these jobs?
It’s acceptable for a coach to tell students who don’t perform on the court that they aren’t cut out for basketball, that they need to pursue something else, and it’s even acceptable to cut them from the team. Why isn’t it acceptable to tell students who don’t perform well academically that they aren’t cut out for college, and that they need to pursue something else?
This is based on a logical fallacy called an Inductive Argument. Since people who earn more are more likely to have a degree, college education results in higher incomes.
It's like saying people who live homes where insulin is found are more likely to have diabetes, therefore insulin causes diabetes.
The fact is if we look at college dropouts like Mark Zuckerberg, billionaire founder of Facebook, or Bill Gates, billionaire founder of Microsoft we see that being smart and savvy made them rich. If we look at just about any professional athlete, they make obscene amounts of money, not all are smart but all are talented. Smart, talented and ambitious people earn more money.
Ask any fifth grader two weeks into the school year who the smart kids are, who the dumb kids are, who the athletic kids are, who the funny kids are, and who the bullies (criminals) are, and the fifth grader can tell you. It’s just not politically correct (PC) to recognize those facts. There are simple facts, a smart person is more likely to earn a degree than a dumb one, and an ambitious person is more likely to earn a degree than a lazy person. It doesn’t take a genius to know that smart and/or ambitious people are more likely to have higher incomes than dumb and/or lazy people.
Not everyone is equal, some are smart, some are athletic, some are talented, and some are not. In a free enterprise system, society voluntarily rewards those who provide their fellow man with service more than those who don't. The reward is proportional to what others are willing to pay for the service. Bill Clinton makes tens of thousands of dollars to give a one hour speech, because others in society believe his speech has value and are willing to pay for it. The bag boy at the grocery store earns less than $8 an hour. The discrepancy is because society doesn’t value bagging groceries as much as an ex-president’s speech.
Because of his talent in the ring Mike Tyson made millions of dollars. Because of his lack of financial aptitude he has not been able to retain the wealth his fellow man has voluntarily given him in exchange for the entertainment he provided. Somebody like Steve Forbes would have leveraged those millions into more millions.
Providing everybody with equal opportunity, the most talented will inescapably rise, and the less talented will fall behind. This will follow a Bell curve. Whether athletically, artistically, academically, charismatically, or creatively, people with more talent will be rewarded by their fellow man more than people with less talent. It wouldn’t matter how hard I worked, or what coaches I had, how much access to the best facilities were made available to me, or how much I spent on having Michael Jordon teach me one on one, my fellow members of society would never pay to see me play basketball. There just isn’t much entertainment value in short dorky asthmatic white nerds with little natural basketball ability shootin’ hoops.
It is insane to think that everybody can and should receive a college education. It’s also a lie to tell every student if they get a degree they will earn more money. I know college graduates working at Walmart, under managers who have no college education but worked their way up through the company. Most jobs (outside of engineering type jobs) that require a college education, the employer doesn’t really care what the college degree is in, just that you have one. A degree is used by businesses as a screening tool to weed out dumb, less talented, less ambitious people. It is one of the few screening tools they are allowed to use. The government has caused this problem because if a business offered a job that required smarts, but didn’t require a college education, and ended up giving the job to a higher number of degreed people than non-degreed people, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) would take them to court for discrimination. According the EEOC, "If this job does not require a college degree, then any favoritism shown to college graduates is a disguised form of racial discrimination and illegal." Sense smart talented people are more likely to acquire a college degree than dumb people; business in order to be allowed to hire a smarter more talented employee must require a degree, even if a degree is irrelevant to the job. They don’t hire PhD’s, MBA’s, BA’s, and BS’s because of the arcane drivel that these students have learned. They are buying the brain power that was required earn those degrees.
Among other stupidity, this fallacy has lead to No Child Left Behind. Most teachers off the record will tell you that NCLB to mean No Child Gets Ahead. All of the money and effort is forced to be spent on and bringing the lowest performing students up to a minimum standard (a standard that is too low to be accepted to a university) at the expense of gifted students, whose programs have been cut back or eliminated. Imagine a Florida high school with 1000 students, where 400 earn full academic scholarships to universities across the nation, and 200 more were accepted with partial scholarships, but 250 failed the FCAT. It wouldn’t matter that 75% passed the FCAT, that 60% of the students were college bound and two thirds of those on full academic scholarships; it would be a failing school under NCLB. This is political correctness run amuck, and socialism at its worst. This is the typical leftist thought that equality is more important than success. It’s not “fair” that the smart kids get to go to college, earn degrees and earn more; so we’re going to put more of our resources into academically marginal students hoping that they can get the benefits of a college degree the same as a smart kid. This is stupid illogical thinking. Everybody should be provided the same opportunity and the best should be offered more challenges and opportunities to help them excel, and the less talented should be offered more realistic opportunities (trade schools, apprenticeships, etc.) that will better prepare them to be self sufficient. Telling everybody they should have a college education is a PC lie and hurts everybody. Less than half of students who start college earn a four year degree. They waste a huge amount of money because of a PC lie. It is a disservice to both the universities and the students to push academically marginal students into academic situations beyond their abilities.
Half the well paying jobs in this country don’t require a degree. Electrician, plumber, welder, pipefitter, iron worker, carpenter, machinist, operator, and a plethora of technical positions pay very well. Most of our high school students don’t even know what most of these jobs are, or what it takes to do them. Why are we not preparing our students for these jobs?
It’s acceptable for a coach to tell students who don’t perform on the court that they aren’t cut out for basketball, that they need to pursue something else, and it’s even acceptable to cut them from the team. Why isn’t it acceptable to tell students who don’t perform well academically that they aren’t cut out for college, and that they need to pursue something else?
Scientists Discover Heaviest Element Ever
Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science: (Gv)
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv) , has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons , which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv) , has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons , which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.
This characteristic of morons promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Where is the money?
.... Where is all the stimulus money? Where is the TARP money? Consider the non-defense Federal expenditures plus Federal investments in the most recent GDP report.
3Q08 $344.7 billion
4Q08 $355.4 billion
1Q09 $356.0 billion
2Q09 $362.1 billion
3Q09 $368.4 billion
So, according to the GDP reports, non-defense government spending has increased only $23.7 billion despite the fact that we know $700 billion was spent in the banking and automotive bailouts and at least $336 billion was spent in the Bush and Obama stimuli to date. Where is it? Why does it not show up in the GDP reports as government expenditures or anything else? Even if items such as the automotive bailouts are considered loans, it should have showed up as expenditures by Chrysler and GM. And moreover, the $100 billion in TARP loans to bailed-out corporations that went bankrupt should be written off as an expenditure since they're never going to be repaid.
posted by Vox @ 11/17/2009 06:23:00 at voxday.blogspot.com
[Bloggers note: This is another one I wish I could claim as my own, but more importantly wish was screamed from every news organization in the country.]
3Q08 $344.7 billion
4Q08 $355.4 billion
1Q09 $356.0 billion
2Q09 $362.1 billion
3Q09 $368.4 billion
So, according to the GDP reports, non-defense government spending has increased only $23.7 billion despite the fact that we know $700 billion was spent in the banking and automotive bailouts and at least $336 billion was spent in the Bush and Obama stimuli to date. Where is it? Why does it not show up in the GDP reports as government expenditures or anything else? Even if items such as the automotive bailouts are considered loans, it should have showed up as expenditures by Chrysler and GM. And moreover, the $100 billion in TARP loans to bailed-out corporations that went bankrupt should be written off as an expenditure since they're never going to be repaid.
posted by Vox @ 11/17/2009 06:23:00 at voxday.blogspot.com
[Bloggers note: This is another one I wish I could claim as my own, but more importantly wish was screamed from every news organization in the country.]
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Coming of Caesar
The Coming of Caesar
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
November 16, 2009
[Bloggers note: This is an article that I wish I could claim I wrote. I didn't, but I'm glad somebody did.]
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
November 16, 2009
[Bloggers note: This is an article that I wish I could claim I wrote. I didn't, but I'm glad somebody did.]
We have a problem. This could be “the big one”—bigger than coping with the Ahmadinejads, Kims, and Chavezes of the world and bigger than our current economic woes. Our republic, our society, may be heading for a crackup. We are bankrupt, both financially and politically.
The source of the problem is democracy. Decades of so-called “progressive” thought have led us to abandon the limited-government, constitutional republic established by our founding fathers. In the name of putting more power into the hands of "the people," the government has arrogated sweeping powers.
There is a famous passage (possibly cobbled together from several separate statements and authors) that explains democracy’s fatal flaw, the inherently self-destructive element that caused our founding fathers to distrust democracy (google “James Madison on democracy” for more):
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Crude, majoritarian democracy (as in, “there are more of us than there are of you, so we’re going to redistribute your wealth”) inevitably undermines the harmony of society. A free market, as competitive as it is, is based on peaceful, voluntary cooperation. When commerce is free and unfettered by government interference, both sides to a transaction normally gain, thereby promoting social harmony.
Democracy, by contrast, engenders social conflict. Money changes hands by force of the taxman and the threat of imprisonment, not voluntarily. Democracy pits citizens against each other in a sordid squabble whereby many strive to have the state confer benefits seized from their fellow citizens.
Today, Washington redistributes trillions of dollars annually, so the capital is swarmed by battalions of lobbyists, representing myriad special interests, each trying to secure more political rent from government than what government takes from them. As the late, great economist Hans Sennholz described it, the democratic "transfer society" resembles the absurd spectacle of a circle of people, each trying to pick his neighbor’s pocket. How can there be social harmony when everyone is trying to rip off someone else?
This process of using government to extract wealth from other citizens (dubbed “legal plunder” by the 19th-century French economist Frederic Bastiat in his brilliant essay, “The Law”) has reached the point where Uncle Sam is essentially bankrupt. (See “We’re Broke.”) With government spending and deficits soaring under the present administration, the day of reckoning approaches. If foreigners should decide to cut their losses and balk at financing any more of our debt, either interest rates will soar, collapsing the economy, or the Fed will monetize all the debt, collapsing the dollar and the economy.
Can that day of cataclysm be postponed? Perhaps the wealth-redistribution system can be kept on life support a while longer, if government can confiscate a much larger share of the middle class’ wealth (yes, the middle class, because there aren’t enough rich people to finance all of Uncle Sam’s promises) or by dramatically slashing benefits.
When that momentous day arrives, there will be a lot of angry Americans. One might say that the so-called “social contract” will be broken, but the problem is, there isn’t just one such “contract.” There are two, and they are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed to each other.
One “contract” is the government’s long-standing promise to support those in need. Many Americans have been taught to believe that they are entitled to a share of other people’s property, even if they have contributed nothing of value to society themselves and have made poor choices. The other social “contract” is the traditional implicit promise of America: namely, that if you work hard, you are entitled to the fruits of your labor.
When a financial crackup occurs, those who have been taught to depend on government will demand continued government benefits. If government fails to provide them, those demands could turn violent. On the other hand, if government moves to confiscate a significant chunk of whatever wealth remains in the hands of an already-hurting middle class, then millions of peaceful, law-abiding, hard-working Americans may finally reach the breaking point and rebel, as our forebears did in the 1770s, against a government viewed as abusive and oppressive.
How bad could it get? If the social order breaks down, civil unrest could disrupt markets and shortages of essential goods could occur. The resulting chaos could trigger martial law. A strong leader—a Caesar—could institute some sort of command order. Millions would resent it, but it would be accepted, because the alternative—civil conflict, chronic disorder, and impending starvation—would be intolerable. In such a calamity, Caesar would be the lesser of two evils. The American Republic and Constitution would join earlier democracies in the ashbin of history.
God help us.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Responsibility of Government?
Citrus County Chronicle - Coyote Menace.
The Citrus County Chronicle is disappointed that the government isn’t taking action to eliminate a “Coyote Menace” in rural Pine Ridge. Their reasoning is that "public safety is the principal responsibility of government". I’m appalled at the opinion of the Chronicle, that people taking responsibility for themselves “should set off public safety alarm bells because it is fraught with the potential for harm.”
When and where did public safety get to be the principal responsibility of government?
Our state constitution preamble:
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
I don't see anything in the state constitution that says the government is responsible for our safety from wild animals; securing our liberty and freedoms - yes, our safety - no.
From the FWC's mission is "Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people."
Nothing in the FWC's mission statement says it's supposed to keep people or their pets safe from wildlife?
From the Citrus County Animal Services web page; "The primary mission of the Animal Services is to educate the public about responsible pet ownership and to enforce the Animal Services Ordinance, while providing shelter for impounded animals."
Nothing in Citrus County's Animal Services has anything to do with wildlife.
Our laws secure the liberty and freedom so that the residents are free to protect themselves using Bow, Gun, or Snare. The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that the government is not responsible to protect individual citizens.
This is a rural county, with thousands and thousands of acres of forest. The citizens of Pine Ridge chose to live in a forest. Forests have wild animals including coyotes. So taking care of the coyote problem in Pine Ridge should be something that the individual citizens of Pine Ridge are responsible for, not the citizens of the state, nor the citizens of Citrus County who don't live in Pine Ridge. Why should people who didn’t choose to live in a forest with wildlife, have the responsibility of protecting the people who did from that wildlife. You don’t read about the citizens living in Naches Washington, Basalt Colorado, or Medicine Bowl Wyoming, calling on the government to protect them from bears, wolves, coyotes, or mountain lions.
The people of Pine Ridge need to learn to live with the wildlife, take care of the problem themselves, or move to where there isn’t a wildlife problem. It is not the responsibility of the government to insure the safety of people who choose to live with wildlife.
The Citrus County Chronicle is disappointed that the government isn’t taking action to eliminate a “Coyote Menace” in rural Pine Ridge. Their reasoning is that "public safety is the principal responsibility of government". I’m appalled at the opinion of the Chronicle, that people taking responsibility for themselves “should set off public safety alarm bells because it is fraught with the potential for harm.”
When and where did public safety get to be the principal responsibility of government?
Our state constitution preamble:
We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.
I don't see anything in the state constitution that says the government is responsible for our safety from wild animals; securing our liberty and freedoms - yes, our safety - no.
From the FWC's mission is "Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people."
Nothing in the FWC's mission statement says it's supposed to keep people or their pets safe from wildlife?
From the Citrus County Animal Services web page; "The primary mission of the Animal Services is to educate the public about responsible pet ownership and to enforce the Animal Services Ordinance, while providing shelter for impounded animals."
Nothing in Citrus County's Animal Services has anything to do with wildlife.
Our laws secure the liberty and freedom so that the residents are free to protect themselves using Bow, Gun, or Snare. The US Supreme court has repeatedly found that the government is not responsible to protect individual citizens.
This is a rural county, with thousands and thousands of acres of forest. The citizens of Pine Ridge chose to live in a forest. Forests have wild animals including coyotes. So taking care of the coyote problem in Pine Ridge should be something that the individual citizens of Pine Ridge are responsible for, not the citizens of the state, nor the citizens of Citrus County who don't live in Pine Ridge. Why should people who didn’t choose to live in a forest with wildlife, have the responsibility of protecting the people who did from that wildlife. You don’t read about the citizens living in Naches Washington, Basalt Colorado, or Medicine Bowl Wyoming, calling on the government to protect them from bears, wolves, coyotes, or mountain lions.
The people of Pine Ridge need to learn to live with the wildlife, take care of the problem themselves, or move to where there isn’t a wildlife problem. It is not the responsibility of the government to insure the safety of people who choose to live with wildlife.
Monday, November 9, 2009
The constitution is dead.
West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller declared the constitution dead. Totally ignoring the 10th amendment, in a recent Commerce Committee hearing, when the constitutionality and principle of federalism were raised, Jay Rockefeller, chair of the committee, proclaimed “I don’t really give a hoot about states’ rights or federal rights on this one. I care about results.” Rockefeller is proposing federal legislation to ban “texting” while driving. Aren’t there laws that allow civil suits and criminal prosecutions of persons who cause accidents while driving negligently?
PC is Killing us
Political correctness and a failure to accept the fact that not ideologies are equal will destroy this country. Some cultures and beliefs are better than others.
Socialist ideology is a prime example; whether Marxist, Maoist, Fascist, Communist, or pure Socialism. The Fact is that last century the world witnessed the deaths of well over 100 million people because of these ideas put into practice. From starvation to genocide, millions of people died implementing socialist ideas. It is a failed idea and model for society. Even in the US, implementation of socialist ideas has failed miserably. Johnson’s Great Society, rather than helping the poor out of poverty, has kept them in poverty and made things worse. It’s drained the economy of trillions of dollars resulting in the poor being worse off than before the program was started.
Like it or not religion drives our social systems, be it Secular Humanism (aka Darwinism), Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, Judaism, or Christianity. From all these religions the ideas from the Christian ethos, seem to be the best overall system for people to live and thrive. From this ethos we get ideas like: separation of church and state, all people are equal, the rule of law, freedom of choice, just punishment, individual responsibility, private property rights, and even our work ethic. Those ideas don’t come from other religious ethos.
Modern western culture based on a Christian ethos, stressing individual liberty and individual responsibility, and individuals giving charitably as they see fit, has produced the highest overall standard of living, security, and freedom for the individuals in that system. From religions like Hinduism we end up with a cast system where the poor are poor, they stay poor and can’t do anything about it. From the secular humanists we get socialism which resulted in more deaths in the last century than all the wars in all of history, and except for the ruling elite everybody is poor. From Islam we get oppression of women, and non-believers, acceptance of slavery, unjust punishment, and constant war. Islam leaves only three choices; convert and become a Muslim, become subservient or slave to Muslims, or be killed for you infidelity.
The results of the relatively recent liberal notion of accepting all ideas, faiths, etc. as equal, called political correctness, were evident over the weekend. Major Hasan followed his religion over modern western education, his psychiatric training, his military discipline — his entire American identity. In the name of his Allah he murdered 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood. Faleh Hassan Almaleki of Glendale, Ariz., was arrested last week after fatally running over his “too Westernized” daughter Noor in an American honor killing. Then we can include the two U.S. residents, one American, one Canadian, who were arrested a few days earlier for plotting to fly to Denmark for the purposes of murdering the editor who commissioned the famous Mohammed cartoons. Not all Muslims conspire to kill cartoonists or murder their daughters or shoot dozens of their fellow soldiers, enough do to make it clear that Islamic culture is not equal to modern western culture. It produces suicide bombers, oppresses women and non-believers, and is the basis for most of the current violent conflicts on the planet. The problem is Islam.
We have let political correctness run amuck. The murder and injury to our soldiers at Fort Hood is symbolic: A Muslim who said wild things, was not taken seriously, but was advanced and allowed to continue in our armed services, all because to question his beliefs would not be politically correct. This is diversity run amok. Until we are willing to address the fact that not all cultures are equal, that yes some cultures and ideas are superior to others, and continue to accept and not denounce ideas which lead to death and destruction, we will have more Islamic murders, more starvation and suffering, and less freedom and liberty.
Obviously we cannot and should not stop people from believing what they want. But we cannot let political correctness stop us from talking about and exposing the evils that other systems of beliefs create. Immigrates from the past were expected to learn the language, and adopt the ideas of this country, that all people are created equal and have unalienable rights. The results were the greatest nation this world has ever known. After the Korean War and Vietnam, the idea of American Exceptionalism seems to have waned. For some reason we’ve began to accept the fact that immigrates do not need to become American and part of our society, but we actually encourage them not to become American and remain separate. This is counterproductive to both immigrates and our society.
The price of liberty is vigilance and blood. We will have more Ft. Hoods, in some ways there is nothing we can do about it short of sacrificing the very freedom and liberty that made this country; the very freedom and liberty that is why Islamists want to destroy this country. As long as others are willing to die to end liberty and freedom, we must accept the fact that Liberty is not something that can be had, acquired or kept without blood. We cannot be vigilant nor protect ourselves, if we maintain this PC attitude that all cultures and beliefs have equal value. They don’t. Traditional American culture is superior to others, that’s why people from oppressed cultures around the world flock to the USA. We see less of that now than in the past, because of PC ideas, allowing liberals and others to spread the false idea that all cultures are equal and to be valued equally.
Be thankful that there are Americans who still believe that liberty, freedom and the American idea are valuable. Some think it is so valuable that they volunteer to defend it. They volunteer to fight and die to protect our liberty. This PC liberal notion of diversity, that all cultures are equally valuable is a spit in the face of every American service man and woman, who fights and dies to defend our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Fundamental Questions
I started out with this morning wanting to post a quick status to my FB wall. “….wonders why liberals won't answer the question. What is the purpose of government?” This lead to me to contemplate other questions liberals avoid, and how they actually respond to fundamental questions.
Although asked several times over the past year or so, both on line and in person, these questions are like poison to a liberal: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? They are simple yes or no questions but the answers have powerful implications. Liberals are evasive usually say that it all depends.
Liberals also don't want to answer basic questions of morality.
Do individuals have private property rights? Does an individual own himself/herself or does the government own some portion of that individual? More simply, is there such a thing as self-ownership? If we accept the idea of self ownership the determining acts as moral or immoral is simple. Rape, murder, assault are all immoral because they violate my private property rights, just as vandalism or theft of my stuff violates my property rights.
So why won't liberals answer morality questions, or fundamental questions about liberty, the government, or the constitution? Most often the liberal replies with an ad hominid attack, tries to deflect to another subject, or sarcastic comment trying to dismiss discussion of fundamentals.
I’d asked lots of other questions that liberals deflect or won’t answer like: Are rights unalienable and natural, or are they gifts from government? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? and Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about?
Questions like these are not complicated; answers can and should be short and direct. I believe liberals do not like to answer these kinds of questions because it leads to voicing ideas that are contradictory to what they would like to have others believe.
I’ll leave you with some fundamental questions of moral and political beliefs that are good for discussion, but I believe liberals will avoid (and most right wing conservatives):
Although asked several times over the past year or so, both on line and in person, these questions are like poison to a liberal: Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? They are simple yes or no questions but the answers have powerful implications. Liberals are evasive usually say that it all depends.
Liberals also don't want to answer basic questions of morality.
Do individuals have private property rights? Does an individual own himself/herself or does the government own some portion of that individual? More simply, is there such a thing as self-ownership? If we accept the idea of self ownership the determining acts as moral or immoral is simple. Rape, murder, assault are all immoral because they violate my private property rights, just as vandalism or theft of my stuff violates my property rights.
So why won't liberals answer morality questions, or fundamental questions about liberty, the government, or the constitution? Most often the liberal replies with an ad hominid attack, tries to deflect to another subject, or sarcastic comment trying to dismiss discussion of fundamentals.
I’d asked lots of other questions that liberals deflect or won’t answer like: Are rights unalienable and natural, or are they gifts from government? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? and Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about?
Questions like these are not complicated; answers can and should be short and direct. I believe liberals do not like to answer these kinds of questions because it leads to voicing ideas that are contradictory to what they would like to have others believe.
I’ll leave you with some fundamental questions of moral and political beliefs that are good for discussion, but I believe liberals will avoid (and most right wing conservatives):
What is the purpose of government? Does the government have limited or unlimited powers? and where does it get those powers? Is there such a thing as self-ownership? Do individuals have private property rights? So long as the use of your private property doesn’t infringe on the rights of another, should you be able do with your private property as you see fit? Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Where do rights come from? Do groups have rights that supersede individual’s rights? If so, then what is the basis of those rights and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? Where do rights end? Does society have rights? If so what are society’s rights, and what part of the constitution instructs the government to make no laws violating those rights? Do you have a right to force somebody else to fund a charity which you believe and are passionate about? Do you have a right to self defense?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Economics 101
Obama ’s idea is to provide more health care to more people and have it cost less.
At its core Health care is a service, it depends directly on labor of doctors, nurses, lab techs, clerks, administrators, and so on. To provide it at less cost you must either service more people in the same time, or pay the labor less. Insurance companies make between 2 and 5% so they are not taking huge parts of health care money as profits.
If we pay doctors and nurses any less they will (and do) leave the profession. The stress and work to dollar ratio is such that you cannot get quality doctors and nurses for any less money. They are also already seeing more patients per hour than they should. Lab techs, LPNs, Nurses aids, and other less skilled labor at hospitals are already paid so little cutting their wages makes no sense, having them process more paperwork/hr or samples/hr etc. is going to take either capital investment in faster better tools for them to use, or somehow getting them to be more productive. Good luck getting them to do more work for what they get paid.
Clerks, now here is an interesting place to save money. We have and need a large number of clerks in the medical field, not just transposing doctor’s orders but processing insurance company and government mandated paper work. When I was a kid the doctor we went to had 2 nurses, our insurance didn't pay for routine visits it only kicked in if you needed surgery etc, one of the nurses took care of scheduling and colleting office visit fees. Last week I took my kid to the doctor there are 2 nurses, and at least 6 people running around doing paperwork, and when you look into the office area 3 or 4 are always on the phone to insurance/government offices doing or fixing paperwork. I asked about this to the young lady taking my co-pay ($25). She loved the new computer system as it now only took around 15 min to process all the paper work associated with a patients visit. I only saw the doctor and nurse for a little less than 10 min. (he sees an average of 6 people per hour). Since I've been seeing him for a while I asked him about this, and he said that for every hour seeing a patient there is a little over two hours of paperwork, of which 90 min is for government and insurance paperwork and 30 min doing charting. He said if he didn't have to do all the government paperwork and insurance paperwork for routine visits he could charge the $35 a visit, and would only need 1 office person instead of 6. He said he could also provide better service as the rules insurance and government force him to do unnecessary tests, and don't allow him the flexibility to treat people, he has to treat symptoms. He didn't let his son become a doctor, because engineering can provide a higher quality of life.
So how is having more government going to reduce the cost of health care? If they force lower wages (reduce what they pay doctors and hospitals) they will lose doctors and we will have service shortages (long lines and wait times like in UK and Canada). What has the same government who's been known to buy $1000 toilet seats and $600 hammers, done to be trusted with doing the impossible? The only way they can provide health care to more people at lower cost is to not allow people to reduce services. Your 80 years old and need a new hip, today if you have the insurance or the cash, you get a new hip. Under the government, in order to reduce overall costs, they will say, too bad, the cost/benefit to offering this service to somebody of your age isn't there, here's a wheelchair and some pain meds. This is what is going to happen, restrictions on available services for specific groups/classes of people. The rich will still be able to pay cash for what they want, but regular people depending on insurance will have their services limited. It will be in the details of the health care bill, how else do you explain the government exempting itself for the law, and not allowing the people to see what they are doing until after it’s already passed.
You cannot cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. If there is that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system then a lot of civil servants should be going to jail, that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot be an accident. That big a cut will have to result in reduction of services.
The reasoning for having the government takeover of health care is a lie in the first place. Right now, uninsured can and do walk into any emergency room and get care, no they don't get the best oncology treatment if they don't have insurance but they don't go without basic health care. The cost of this is passed on to the rest of us; it's not that much and doesn't add significantly to our current health care costs. George Mason University economist Jack Hadley and three co-authors, in a 2008 Health Affairs article calculated that "uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008." Why would we want a total restructuring of health care to save a mere 2.2% to cover the uncompensated expenses?
If you look at the health care "crisis" critically it's clearly a government caused crisis. They don't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (limiting competition and protecting big business). They add large amounts of admin costs thru huge amounts of regulation to both insurance and health providers (again because of economy of scale this protects big business). The government doesn't allow health providers to advertise prices except is small niche markets like eye care (again protecting established businesses and making it harder for competition). They know tort reform will reduce health care costs, but because most politicians are lawyers, who make their living from law suits, they continue the stupid system which has caused malpractice insurance and health care costs to skyrocket. Here’s an easy fix that won’t cost taxpayers a dime, get rid of regulations for licensing and prescription drugs they add layers of un-necessary doctors visits, paperwork, and artificially reduce the labor pool adding to health care costs.
I can't think of anything that doesn't get worse and cost more with additional government involvement. Cars are a great example, In India for around $2500 you can buy a car that gets 60mpg. That car will never be available in the USA as configured at that cost; it cannot meet our regulatory requirements. They are trying to make it meet our regulations but expect it to cost an additional $1500 if they can modify the car enough (and it will less than 50mpg configured for US). Shouldn’t individuals be able to judge safety, comfort, economy, quality for themselves and purchase what they think is best for their circumstances, and exactly how does the purchase of a car for private transport effect interstate commerce.
Massachusetts has already done what the president and congress are now proposing. Since 2006 it has mandatory insurance requirements, resulting in their health care rising disproportionately to the rest of the country. We have a model of what the Obama is trying to force everybody to do, Massachusetts; it does exactly the opposite of what he claims it will accomplish. Simple observation and understanding basic economics shows that more government involvement always leads to higher costs. There is not one regulatory requirement that doesn't add to the cost of what is being regulated.
At its core Health care is a service, it depends directly on labor of doctors, nurses, lab techs, clerks, administrators, and so on. To provide it at less cost you must either service more people in the same time, or pay the labor less. Insurance companies make between 2 and 5% so they are not taking huge parts of health care money as profits.
If we pay doctors and nurses any less they will (and do) leave the profession. The stress and work to dollar ratio is such that you cannot get quality doctors and nurses for any less money. They are also already seeing more patients per hour than they should. Lab techs, LPNs, Nurses aids, and other less skilled labor at hospitals are already paid so little cutting their wages makes no sense, having them process more paperwork/hr or samples/hr etc. is going to take either capital investment in faster better tools for them to use, or somehow getting them to be more productive. Good luck getting them to do more work for what they get paid.
Clerks, now here is an interesting place to save money. We have and need a large number of clerks in the medical field, not just transposing doctor’s orders but processing insurance company and government mandated paper work. When I was a kid the doctor we went to had 2 nurses, our insurance didn't pay for routine visits it only kicked in if you needed surgery etc, one of the nurses took care of scheduling and colleting office visit fees. Last week I took my kid to the doctor there are 2 nurses, and at least 6 people running around doing paperwork, and when you look into the office area 3 or 4 are always on the phone to insurance/government offices doing or fixing paperwork. I asked about this to the young lady taking my co-pay ($25). She loved the new computer system as it now only took around 15 min to process all the paper work associated with a patients visit. I only saw the doctor and nurse for a little less than 10 min. (he sees an average of 6 people per hour). Since I've been seeing him for a while I asked him about this, and he said that for every hour seeing a patient there is a little over two hours of paperwork, of which 90 min is for government and insurance paperwork and 30 min doing charting. He said if he didn't have to do all the government paperwork and insurance paperwork for routine visits he could charge the $35 a visit, and would only need 1 office person instead of 6. He said he could also provide better service as the rules insurance and government force him to do unnecessary tests, and don't allow him the flexibility to treat people, he has to treat symptoms. He didn't let his son become a doctor, because engineering can provide a higher quality of life.
So how is having more government going to reduce the cost of health care? If they force lower wages (reduce what they pay doctors and hospitals) they will lose doctors and we will have service shortages (long lines and wait times like in UK and Canada). What has the same government who's been known to buy $1000 toilet seats and $600 hammers, done to be trusted with doing the impossible? The only way they can provide health care to more people at lower cost is to not allow people to reduce services. Your 80 years old and need a new hip, today if you have the insurance or the cash, you get a new hip. Under the government, in order to reduce overall costs, they will say, too bad, the cost/benefit to offering this service to somebody of your age isn't there, here's a wheelchair and some pain meds. This is what is going to happen, restrictions on available services for specific groups/classes of people. The rich will still be able to pay cash for what they want, but regular people depending on insurance will have their services limited. It will be in the details of the health care bill, how else do you explain the government exempting itself for the law, and not allowing the people to see what they are doing until after it’s already passed.
You cannot cut $500 billion from Medicare spending over the next 10 years without anyone getting less of anything. If there is that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” in the system then a lot of civil servants should be going to jail, that much “fraud, waste, and abuse” cannot be an accident. That big a cut will have to result in reduction of services.
The reasoning for having the government takeover of health care is a lie in the first place. Right now, uninsured can and do walk into any emergency room and get care, no they don't get the best oncology treatment if they don't have insurance but they don't go without basic health care. The cost of this is passed on to the rest of us; it's not that much and doesn't add significantly to our current health care costs. George Mason University economist Jack Hadley and three co-authors, in a 2008 Health Affairs article calculated that "uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008." Why would we want a total restructuring of health care to save a mere 2.2% to cover the uncompensated expenses?
If you look at the health care "crisis" critically it's clearly a government caused crisis. They don't allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (limiting competition and protecting big business). They add large amounts of admin costs thru huge amounts of regulation to both insurance and health providers (again because of economy of scale this protects big business). The government doesn't allow health providers to advertise prices except is small niche markets like eye care (again protecting established businesses and making it harder for competition). They know tort reform will reduce health care costs, but because most politicians are lawyers, who make their living from law suits, they continue the stupid system which has caused malpractice insurance and health care costs to skyrocket. Here’s an easy fix that won’t cost taxpayers a dime, get rid of regulations for licensing and prescription drugs they add layers of un-necessary doctors visits, paperwork, and artificially reduce the labor pool adding to health care costs.
I can't think of anything that doesn't get worse and cost more with additional government involvement. Cars are a great example, In India for around $2500 you can buy a car that gets 60mpg. That car will never be available in the USA as configured at that cost; it cannot meet our regulatory requirements. They are trying to make it meet our regulations but expect it to cost an additional $1500 if they can modify the car enough (and it will less than 50mpg configured for US). Shouldn’t individuals be able to judge safety, comfort, economy, quality for themselves and purchase what they think is best for their circumstances, and exactly how does the purchase of a car for private transport effect interstate commerce.
Massachusetts has already done what the president and congress are now proposing. Since 2006 it has mandatory insurance requirements, resulting in their health care rising disproportionately to the rest of the country. We have a model of what the Obama is trying to force everybody to do, Massachusetts; it does exactly the opposite of what he claims it will accomplish. Simple observation and understanding basic economics shows that more government involvement always leads to higher costs. There is not one regulatory requirement that doesn't add to the cost of what is being regulated.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Government Performance
Let's see, the current version H1N1 (swine flu), was detected over a year ago and the government promised us that hundreds of millions of vaccinations would be available. Over the summer they promised 40 million by today. September they dropped that down to 28 million, and actually there was less than 12 million vaccinations produced.
The government is promising us that they can reform health care and deliver more people with service for less money?
I don't know. They promised to reduce poverty with the Great Society. It failed. They promised the Patriot act would only be used to track terrorists. FBI and IRS use it to spy on US citizens. Obama promised "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it". Stimulus package was signed in less than 5 hours. Obama said "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." White house is filled with around 24 exceptions to this rule. To top the cake, we were promised open and honest debate on health care to be televised on CSPAN. Instead we are presented a the newest Democrat only creation a 1990 page bill created behind closed doors, with lots of back door deals.
I don't trust the government; they have repeatedly proven they are untrustworthy. Their performance on implementing programs to actually help people is dismal. The adherence to what they say they will do is worse.
On its face this sounds impossible to provide 50 million people with insurance without spending “one more dime”. Could we add 50 million students to our education system and not spend one more dime?
How can anybody believe that it will actually improve health care, and not do for all of the USA what the Great Society did for inner city minorities?
The government is promising us that they can reform health care and deliver more people with service for less money?
I don't know. They promised to reduce poverty with the Great Society. It failed. They promised the Patriot act would only be used to track terrorists. FBI and IRS use it to spy on US citizens. Obama promised "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it". Stimulus package was signed in less than 5 hours. Obama said "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." White house is filled with around 24 exceptions to this rule. To top the cake, we were promised open and honest debate on health care to be televised on CSPAN. Instead we are presented a the newest Democrat only creation a 1990 page bill created behind closed doors, with lots of back door deals.
I don't trust the government; they have repeatedly proven they are untrustworthy. Their performance on implementing programs to actually help people is dismal. The adherence to what they say they will do is worse.
On its face this sounds impossible to provide 50 million people with insurance without spending “one more dime”. Could we add 50 million students to our education system and not spend one more dime?
How can anybody believe that it will actually improve health care, and not do for all of the USA what the Great Society did for inner city minorities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
