Ron Paul on Bill Maher

Heres a clip from the Bill Maher show. How in the world does a person like Dr. Ron Paul, who makes so much sense, not get much coverage or taken seriously?



Ron Paul for President!

The National Debt Road Trip

Courtesy of the Daily Bail.

This is a visual / graphical depiction of the way the National Debt has been growing over the years under different Presidents and administrations. Very intriguing!!

Ron Paul Vs. Michael Moore (On Larry King Live)

Here's a clip of Congressman Ron Paul who was on Larry King Live last week. I believe he was called on the show to respond to some statement(s) from Michael Moore. Oh yeah, the very ultra-liberal hack who makes boatloads of his cash through the capitalist system of movie-making. I don't know why do people even take this guy seriously anyway??.

Ron Paul here touches a lot of topics starting with health care. He then talks about "Capitalism vs Corporatism", making his point that our economy is more Corporatist than Capitalist, and that is the root cause for a lot of problems we have today. He also touches on the following topics: lobbying's influence on legislation, our 1-party system, the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Wall Street's Capture of Washington, the Federal Reserve, bailouts, liberty and the forgotten Constitution.

If you watch the entire clip (about 10 minutes), you will realize how much common sense this man makes. Why isn't this guy not in main-stream politics is beyond me. Imagine a President who not only has the right ideas, but also the gonads to do what he believes in, least bothered of what his party or his opposition thinks.



Bites from the clip:

• "We have lost our faith and confidence and understanding in how free markets work," he said. "We turned it upside-down by saying that any time corporations get benefits, we call it capitalism and freedom, and it's corporatism. It's the military industrial complex. It's all the special interests."
• "This is where Michael Moore gets it all wrong. He believes diligently in free markets because he believes in the First Amendment. He believes in making films. He doesn't believe in prior restraints. So, why should he condemn capitalism? He's condemning corporatism. I condemn it too. Special privileges for corporations is a big problem."
• "I think I complain about it as much as he does, but I think I understand it differently. When a country embarks on deficit financing and inflation-ism, you wipe out the middle class and wealth is transferred from the poor and middle class to the rich. When we get into trouble, the corporations -- once again, who are in control -- they come for their bailout and they get the benefits and the little people don't."

A politician making sense......

Finally, there's someone in politics using common sense. Although Bill Lockyer is only a State Treasurer (of California), his testimony before the Senate and Assembly on improving State Government is a blue-print that could also help this country out of debt. Hard to find a politician (Republican or Democrat) who has the stones to call his own party folks out..... and Lockyer does it here. Lockyer, a Democrat himself, says he is tired of "all the junk legislation and out of control spending coming from fellow Democrats and issues a stern warning about looming bankruptcy.

Check out this clip (only about 2 minutes):



Some Powerful stuff eh? Compare his level-headedness to the bailout-loving people we have/had at the federal level, Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner.

Liberal Hypocrisy Test

Hypocrisy has always been a part and parcel of politics and the main stream media. Whoever is in power always try to use the mainstream media to not only spread their propaganda and to spin the daily news to suit their needs, but to also try silence any opposing views and opinions by discrediting and decrying the source or facts that may be out there. Moreover, over the past couple of decades or so, it is an undeniable fact that most of the mainstream media outlets are left-leaning. The initial left-leaning sentiments of the media has of late turned to liberal bias and unfair coverage and mis-representation of current affairs.

The current administration has taken this a notch over, of course with the help of the media. It's been a symbiotic relationship. The politicians get their propaganda spread, while the news media get their ratings with the help of the "American Idol" celebrity President gracing their shows. One of the many ways the current administration has used to distract people from actual issues is playing the blame game or using the 'race' card. To the extent that, if you asked,

Q: Why hasn't the stimulus package worked as you said it would? Why hasn't it created jobs like you said that it would?
A: It is all because of the previous 8 years of the Bush administration

Q: Do you think the President is faltering in domestic issues?
A: You are a racist.

Rewind back a little to the previous administration. They were as irresponsible if not more than the current administration in dealing with issues. But the left and the media had similar things said about them like what is being said about the current state of affairs by the right. But the media is going berserk calling everyone who offer criticism a racist or an extremist.

I do not condone some of the harsh criticism and comments. In fact, some of them are outright ridiculous. But putting things in perspective, the hoopla over "unfair" criticism is just a boatload of you know what. It is just an effort to discount the criticism, whose intentions are valid, but methods are crude. The same bunch of people used similar criticism tactics against the previous administration.

Here's a video I ran into recently. It depicts the hypocrisy involved in how the liberal media covers the criticism of the current President. You've got to watch it. If you do not see the hypocrisy (hard not too), then you are officially a liberal hack like the ones on MSNBC. Enjoy.....

The Balloon Boy effect

The hoax fever is catching up eh? Last week it was the balloon boy. This week it's a liberal activist group called 'The Yes Men' who managed to stage a fraudulent press conference within the premises of the US Chamber of Commerce, with one of their members posing as a spokesperson of the Chamber of Commerce. According to Politico, the reason for the attempted hoax was to undermine the Chamber and fake the Chamber's support to the Cap and Trade Bill, coming up for vote in the Senate.

In the clip (below), the poser is taking questions from the press. Soon, the Chamber's actual spokesman and communications director Eric Wohlschlegel, interjects the proceeding and shuts down the show. When you watch the video (below), initially you are kind of confused as to who the poser is. But towards the end you will find the hoaxer admit to it. It is kind of ridiculous that some notable press corps fell for this including Reuters, New York Times, CNBC, FBN and Washington Post. They initially ran the story as "Breaking News" in their newscast / web sites. But then had to retract their stories.



Excerpt from Politico:
(begin excerpt)
In a story posted Monday morning, Reuters declared: “The Chamber of Commerce said on Monday it will no longer opposes climate change legislation, but wants the bill to include a carbon tax.” Reuters then updated the story to acknowledge the hoax, but it was too late. "Reuters has an obligation to its clients to publish news and information that could move financial markets, and this story had the potential to do that,” said a Thomson Reuters spokesperson. “Once we had confirmed the release was a hoax, we immediately issued a correction, and in keeping with Reuters policy, the story was subsequently withdrawn and an advisory sent to readers."
(end excerpt)

The Chamber of Commerce officially does not support the bill because their analysis of the bill shows that the essence of the bill have more to do with paying off corporations who have invested in areas that will fiscally benefit from the bill, rather than actually help in reducing green house gases or saving the environment.

"Corporate Communists are killing us"

This is a "must watch" (or "must listen" rather) for people who are naive enough to fall for all the "Capitalism is evil" chants by people like Micheal Moore. You point out to the flaws of the current system and say: Capitalism failed us. But the real question to ask yourself is : Is the current system really Capitalism?

Here is a clip about how CNBC analyst Dylan Ratigan coins the current flawed system: 'Corporate Communism'. It might sound harsh to people, but if you really look into it, it has some truth to it. Would you agree these are a few of the problems that exist in the current system: Lack of choice, lazy, unresponsive customer service, a culture of exploitation and a small powerbase formed by bureaucrats, cronyism and nepotism? These are the very features in a Communist society. And the similarities do not end there.

In the clip he starts with Health Care (insurance companies etc), then banking and all the bailouts. Here is a summary of facts highlighted by Ratigan that makes his point:

• "The beneficiaries of an ongoing $24 trillion taxpayer-funded bailout...$24 trillion dollars."
• "That is national capital that is being sucked into a broken banking system at the expense of the rest of our country. They continue to use "Too Big To Fail" as blackmail to the taxpayer in order to get us to provide capital to them."
• "It is a system that takes resources from the citizenry and redistributes it to a tiny elite."
• "A handful of weak, un-competitive, outdated companies and industries are purchasing control of the American political system in order to stay in business using their cronyism.
• "It is coming at the direct expense of the rest of us in this nation. And it's a total betrayal of everything that represents America."
  

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

SNL: The Obama address!!

Of late, the late night comics (Leno et al) have started poking into how to do funny comic pieces on Obama, without offending all the Obama-philes out there. They typically start doing it when they believe the majority of their viewers actually get what's going there. This skit by Saturday Night Live may only be the beginning:



Turns out, it is indeed pretty funny eh?

Listen to "Overpaid Celebrities"!!

Here is a satiric video mocking the use of celebrities in some health care advertisements (or PSAs as they are termed). It is a parody of how people think "overpaid celebrities" are geniuses and always know what is right. Especially on this debate, how can you take the word of these "celebrities" over genuine doctors and health care workers, who actually deal with problems everyday? Pretty ridiculous eh?

Watch it and enjoy!!!.....and always listen to "overpaid celebrities"!!

"The Fed has a little thing called a counterfeit machine." - Ron Paul

The following is an interview of Congressman Ron Paul, one of the few truly intelligent guys on Capitol Hill. Although he is officially a member of the Republican Party, he is a Libertarian in beliefs. Here he is on the Jon Stewart show to promote his new book. BTW ......looking forward to reading it.

In short, Ron Paul, like most Libertarians, including yours truly, believes in small government. In this interview he clearly articulates how the Federal Reserve is the biggest unidentified problem and how a free market system should actually work, with the government responsible for just what it's supposed to do - "govern" (and not compete in the market place).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Also note how he handles the question about "evil" corporations vs "small guy" (a popular bogus left wing talking point). As he says, the government should protect people by enforcing the law written by elected politicians rather than those politicians becoming bureaucrats looting money from the people while in bed with corporate lobbyists. Instead, they choose to fool us common people misleading us in a debate about regulation Vs de-regulation.

Real Health Care Reform.......

If you haven't had a chance to read my previous post about Health Care, here it is. To re-iterate my position, in short, I absolutely believe Health Care Reform is necessary. But my opinion is that changes should be made so that the private sector is cleaned up reducing costs malpractices (Tort and medical), making health care more affordable without sacrificing the current quality of care (which is excellent). And by private sector, I mean operations of Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies and NOT government.

In my previous post, I have detailed the reasons why I am skeptical about a public option in health care reform. Which is a Trojan Horse to eventually switch to a single payer system. The video below shows Jacob Hacker, one of the architects of the Obama Health Care plan talking about it. He blatantly admits to the statement just made.



Further reading about the bills and policies proposed thus far, it only reinforces my beliefs. In this post, I am going to concentrate more on the cost - benefit aspects. There are other more serious concerns like health care rationing and decline in quality of care that comes with having a single player system (refer my previous post again).

The status quo

Let's be honest. What is the biggest problem this country faces right now? It is getting out of this economic funk and making those job numbers go up. In the process of doing it, a lot of people's money has already been spent. The national depth is at an all time high, and is ever increasing; with the unnecessary war (debatable of course) and all the necessary and unnecessary stimuli including some very questionable bailouts of Wall Street and Mo-town. In the process, money was borrowed from other countries, but most importantly, the government printing press has been on over-drive printing currency like never before. We are seeing the fall out of that with the drop in the Dollar value, which could spiral down to new lows in the near future. In a situation like this, what is the most sensible thing to do? Cut government spending and try slashing that deficit as soon as you can.

At the same time, you have to steady the domestic ship. Of the many things on the "to do" list for this is health care reform. It is indisputable that health care costs have been exploding and adding to the strain of the economy of the country. This is seen and felt most only at tough times like this. During prosperous times, when most people have jobs, they have insurance and the pinch isn't felt as the common man's pockets aren't emptied. Even when we recover from this economic turmoil, it's inevitable that the economy will take a similar downturn sometime down the line. Essential things have to be fixed before that, and that includes health care reform.


(more) Issues with current proposals

It is universally accepted that health care needs to be fixed. At the same time, common (and economic) sense dictates that the government cannot afford to spend more of the tax payers cash. Now, the White House and some politicians try to twist and parse words indicating that the proposals put forth by them will not add the the federal debt. But, to the contrary, how in the world will it not? The numbers going around after research and analysis by independent firms and organizations is in the order of Trillions of dollars (with a capital T). Just to put things in perspective a Trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 .....that's with 12 zeros. And let's not fool ourselves, has any government program ever ended up sticking to their budgets, let alone spending less than estimated costs?....ever?

One of the most detailed analysis has been done by the reputed CATO Institute. You can look at their complete policy analysis report here. Here are the conclusions they have come up with based on all the policy proposals going around Capitol Hill:

• Contrary to the Obama administration's repeated assurances, millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.
• Some Americans may find themselves forced into a new insurance plan that no longer includes their current doctor.
• Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years, and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.
• The current health care bills will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years, and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.
• While the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless increase the likelihood of government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
• Contrary to assertions of some opponents, the bills contain no provision for euthanasia or mandatory end-of-life counseling. The bills' provisions on abortion coverage are far murkier.
  

Now aren't these numbers mind-boggling??

Another reputed Institute, The Heritage Foundation, has done some independent analysis of their own. Their study shows how the current health care reform proposals are going to complicate things and create more problems than solution for America. Here are just a few of their findings by their Center for Data Analysis (CDA):

• Job losses would mount over time as potential high-income earners forgo job-creating endeavors. By 2019, the economy would offer 452,000 fewer jobs than it would have without the reforms.
• Self-employed individuals as a group would have $16 billion less income in 2019 (nominal dollars).
• The surtax would impose a deadweight cost of $12.8 billion in lost gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, rising to $68.2 billion by 2019 and costing taxpayers an average of $46.7 billion per year.
• A typical family of four would have $995 less in disposable income in 2019 -- enough to pay for routine annual checkups for the four individuals.

Their article also suggests how "True reform would change outdated rules and regulations to give consumers greater choice and autonomy in their health care spending. Such reforms would lead to a more efficient and more effective health care system without harming the economy".

Apart from the cost and other factors that will affect the already ailing economy, there could be more regulation and mandates passed into law which will make things worse. Here's a NY Post article that talks about the impacts of certain mandates and regulations that could back fire and make the system more inefficient and/or drive up costs: coverage of "pre-existing" conditions and mandating preventive procedures in every plan. This article also weighs in on the drawbacks of a "public option" and how it will eventually lead to a "single payer system", which in turn is going to lead to higher taxes, long never ending waiting lists and rationed care.

And when the Obama administration and Democrats try to hoodwink people by saying "It will not add a single penny to the deficit" or "It will not require you to change you existing plan or doctor", it simply is untrue, or to be fair, vague in all legislative language thus far. The following video depicts the difference in language when the President talks to the people and when the law is explained on the house floor. Note the use of the term "requires".



If they are serious about "people keeping their current health plans", why did they vote against legislation that will guarantee it? And the most preposterous mandate of all is that everyone should buy health insurance .....or pay a fine. It is not a usual tax hike where the major burden is carried by the higher income folks (which is not fair by any means anyways). But, this is a tax on every individual in the country. It is funny how the President still tries to twist words to try convince people that it is NOT a tax increase. Read more about this here.

Here's another article by the CATO Institute explaining how mandatory health care is also a form of government take over of the system. Here's another one from the Wall Street Journal about how "ObamaCare is hazardous to your health". This article covers a lot of ground including cost, current system benefits and some very valid suggestions for health care reform.


Red or Blue?? ....Pick your own poison!!

As an individual it is hard for me to trust either party on this issue. The Democrats demonize the insurance companies and are somehow fond of Pharmaceuticals (hmm....wonder if it has to do with all the lobbyists??). And vice-versa with the Republicans whose campaigns are financed with a lot of insurance money. There are a number of shady things going on behind the scenes that needs to be followed to avoid backroom deals detrimental to true health care reform. Like the lobbying blitz of the medical-device makers and the sudden fawning of insurance companies by the Vice-President.


Debunking "for government health care" arguments

The most common argument I hear from people who still want the proposed reforms to take place, knowing all the facts is: "Well something has to be done!". I beg to differ on this. Just because the system is flawed, it doesn't mean you just go ahead and try change something without carefully considering the consequences. There are a number of things that can be done to improve the system and reduce cost without too much government spending. Why don't we start with that. Here are some:

• Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines.

• Eliminate mandates from health insurance policies.

• Allow employees to actually own the policies their employers pay for ... which would mean they could take those policies with them.

• Tort Reform and Medical Malpractice Reform

Also, in spite of the GOP being pretty much an opponent and detractor to reform than actually proposing changes, they too have some ideas that may work. Not all of them are great, but it is a start to try help the private sector clean itself up and get the health care reform on track, without deepening the pockets of Uncle Sam.

The weakest argument I have come across so far is that "the poor are suffering and cannot afford health care". While I can relate to the state of affairs, I do not quite agree that is a good enough reason for government care. Legislation should always be done with an objective mind, not letting emotions and empathy get in the way. As individuals we can carry out philanthropic deeds for the betterment of the downtrodden. But if you try to include that into health care reform law (or any reform law for that matter), we are eventually going to increase the national debt, reduce the quality of care and make health care as a whole universally suffering for everyone. True progress of society is not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, making everything sub-standard and strenuous for everyone, but to try make the system as a whole work so that everyone in society can afford to have the same great high quality of health care.

I finish this post with this funny cartoon by Rob Smith Jr.:

George Carlin Video: The Truth About Wall Street And Washington

He's my favorite stand-up performer of all time. Funny and insightful. This is a great bit with some serious thought behind it.


George Carlin - Do You Have Freedom Of Choice? - Amazing videos are here

Makes you think eh?? Too bad he's no more.

'The Present' predicted 50 years ago

Here is a cartoon made about 50 years ago. The creator(s) of this cartoon have predicted the future fairly accurately. It is very relevant to today's state of affairs. Deals with values of freedom, capitalism, labor unions etc., as well as other social / economic dynamics.



Its a must watch!!

What is a tax increase??

This is an interesting exchange between George Stephanopoulos and President Obama debating "Is Health Care Mandate a Tax increase?". This interview took place on Sunday 9/21/2009.



It is a no-brainer to me that it counts as a tax increase. While it may be a responsibility of a model citizen to buy insurance that covers himself / herself, the mandate part of it makes it a tax. It essentially says: Spend money on insurance, or pay the fine. So one way or the other the government is making you spend money. There's no choice. Not calling it a "tax" or spinning it as "responsibility" does not make this an exception. For that matter, any tax that is paid is supposedly a "responsibility", for the betterment of society as a whole. In the clip, the part where Stephanopoulos quotes from Webster's dictionary, although weird to pull off in an interview, is interesting.

It's one of the few times the President has been challenged (in the mildest of ways possible)by the main-stream media and rightly so. I am sure not many people with a thoughtful mind will fall for the President's spin on the issue. And towards the end, just as usual, the moment he gets a chance to blame others, he blames his critics for "mis-representing" his views and policies.....good strategy: when cornered, blame it on others.

Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal about this issue.

Looks like he did not have a great day like he hoped to in his media blitz on Sunday. Here's a review of all the five shows he was on Sunday. Yup, you heard that right......5 shows in a day by a President. Do I hear "desperate" and "over exposed"??

Left-Speech Translator!!

Here's a video of one of the many media hacks (Linda Douglas, formerly of ABC news and currently a WH spokesperson) trying to justify one of Obama's double talks. Someone has taken the time to edit the video adding "translation" in the form of captioned text. Only that the "translation" tells the truth of the whole ordeal rather than the spin the WH spokesperson is trying to hoodwink people with. Check it out:



Doesn't it just crack you up???

Charming Liar ??

The video below is just another indication that its politics as usual in Washington. It also depicts the hypocrisy in how a typical politician campaigns as a good guy, but reveals his true colors making back room deals.



And I guess you get a free pass as long as you are "Charming". They really do think people are "sheeple", don't they?

NOTE: Refer to one of my previous posts to understand why I think Big Pharma is actually one of the enemies in the Health Care Reform front.

Obama Vs Car Dealer: A hypothetical verbal exchange

I found this interesting bit from the TMQ article this week. It is a supposed dialogue / negotiation between Obama and a Dealer who tries to get the federal rebate of $4500 (as a part of the cash for clunkers program) already credited to his customers. Very funny...thought I should share it here.

Excerpt from the article:

(start transcript)

Auto dealers who credited customers with $4,500 for clunker deals are discovering federal rebate checks have not yet arrived. What's the matter, dealers -- didn't you read the fine print? Perhaps auto dealers have fallen for a bait-and-switch! Here, a dealer negotiates with Barack Obama:

AUTO DEALER: Where's my check for $4,500? You said it was in the mail.

OBAMA: [Waves thick contract] Look right here, subparagraph 14d. It clearly states the money will be paid on the third Tuesday of a month that begins with a waning gibbous moon. You read subparagraph 14d, didn't you?

DEALER: No -- I was tired -- you assured me it was just paperwork.

OBAMA: Well! Maybe I can still get you the discount, if you buy rustproofing and splashguards.

DEALER: Your ads didn't say anything about rustproofing.

OBAMA: [Waves printout] Look, I am giving you everything below my cost. See, here's my factory invoice. My revenue is $2.2 trillion, yet I am spending $3.9 trillion. [Note: actual federal budget figures for current fiscal year]

DEALER: Wait a minute -- if you're really selling below cost, how do you stay in business?

OBAMA: We make it up in volume.

DEALER: Just give me my $4,500!

OBAMA: OK. I have to ask my manager. [Disappears into back]

DEALER: I wonder if he's really checking with his manager.

OBAMA: [Returns] Tell you what, you can use the $4,500 as a down payment on the $11 trillion debt your children will owe. While you're here, would you like free health care? It's going to cost you.

(end of transcript)

Makes you think eh?

The Health Care Debate

I am sure there will be no argument to the premise that the current health care system in the US is pretty screwed up. Its a no-brainer that there have to be changes to the system. But not all changes to the current system is bound to make it better. There are some things which could make things worse than it is in the current state, although the intentions of the change maybe to make things better, it very well could transpire on the contrary. Here I am going to try give my views on what is wrong and what I think should be done. And also, more importantly, what could go wrong with some of the changes being considered right now.


Problems with current system:

There are problems galore, but I am just going to mention a few main ones. I am no big expert on this (all I know is from reading and self-enlightenment) and so I might leave out a few other major problems. First things first .....its all about the money. Why is health insurance so expensive? Why is it not affordable to people with a less than substantial income? If you ever looked at the bills from a hospital (even if it is paid by your insurance) you would notice that the numbers on them are so high, you can even call it obscene. The reason is not just the "big" insurance corporations or the "unfair" pharmaceuticals or the "selfish" hospitals like we may have been made to believe. It goes a little deeper than that.

Its like a vicious circle. Why do insurance companies price their insurances so high? Its because they have to pay those high bills from hospitals when we are treated for anything (and sometimes nothing). It seems like the buck passes on to the hospitals, but if we try to understand why are their costs so escalated to bill insurances so much, its mind-boggling. You can find so many reasons, of which their selfishness or greediness is probably way down on the list (I do not contend that it is non-existent, but it is less significant considering the bigger picture).

One problem is the cost from pharmaceuticals. I do not mean to say big pharma is "evil" by any means. I strongly believe that one of the main reasons for the great quality of health care in this country (considering some contributions to medicine, it is to the whole world) is big pharma. The amount of research and money (through investments) thrown into them warrants more than But, there is so much of beurocracies involved in it including escalated costs due to patents etc. We are definitely indebted to these people not only for what they have contributed in saving lives but also in sustaining a great quality of life in this country. But sometimes, they really do get greedy, trying to patent some achievements which may not warrant a patent for the simple improvement in the product, thus increasing the length of the patent and hence the length of time when they can overcharge for that product. This is a real touchy area, and it is hard to control the patenting system in a generic way. And it is going to be too laborious to deal with this on a case by case basis. But at least you have to cater to this as an issue and do something about it.

Another less spoken about issue is Tort lawsuits. It is a well known fact that tort lawsuits is a big problem in the civil justice system. A lot of them pertain to the field of medicine. Doctors do not have immunity to these tort lawsuits, which is understandable, as the people have to be protected against negligence and malpractices. But the line has to be drawn somewhere to give more immunity to doctors and hospitals. Let me explain this with an example. Mr. X goes to a doctor complaining about chest pain. The doctor diagnoses it as being just gas and gives him medication without further tests. But Mr.X has a smart lawyer who knows how to work the loopholes in the justice system (yup...one of those tort lawyers...or "Extortion" lawyers). So he sues the doctor / hospital saying that the doctor was negligent not to test his heart when he complains about chest pain. He argues that the doctor / hospital should have taken ECG nd other tests to make sure it was nothing else. The settlement is in the seven figures. So what do doctors/hospitals do to counter this (protect themselves). Mr. Y goes complaining chest pain. Now, although the doctor knows it is simple gas, he does all the tests possible on Mr.Y to avoid getting sued. Now who gets billed for all these tests? The insurance company of Mr.Y. Imagine the same happening to tens or maybe hundreds of people at each hospital everyday. That is quite some expense the insurance company has to spend. So who picks up the tab? We all do in the form of higher premiums for our insurances.... which is sometimes not even affordable to people at the lower income group.

Things that can be done (but wont be done) to improve:

This is where politics enters the picture. Either politicians (both democrats and republicans) do not identify these as the major problems or they just do not want to cater to them due to conflicting interests. I sincerely believe it is the latter. In the case of big pharma, they have lobbyists and donors in hoards lining outside all congressmen and senator's offices irrespective of party. It is hard to fathom that this does not imply clear conflict of interest when politicians have to satisfy all the special interest groups and donors who are responsible for getting them elected. When it comes to tort reform, politicians simply would not do it because it would seem to cast them in bad light in the view of voters. By granting more immunity to doctors or by limiting the avenues to sue hospitals, they would come off as supporting the rich and against the small person, which we all know they would never even go near.

So what is the fall out here? Trying to provide other solutions to the problem, which aren't real solutions (explained later in this post). All they are trying to do is hoodwink people into believing that they have identified the problem (which might be a problem, but has lesser significance) and try to propose alternatives that on the top seems like will make the system better, but in effect brings more control of government over the system, thus crippling it in the long run.


What is being proposed:

There are many proposals on the table right now for health care reform. The ones that seem to have the administration support and seems most likely to be legislated are all for public health care options (although they do not want to call it that). In essence, what is being proposed is that there is going to be a public insurance to be offered by the government. Its a tall order to try cover the 45 million or so who are estimated to be uninsured in this country. So how is it going to be paid? Do I hear tax increases? There are more to this proposal than just calling it a public option.


What is really in it and some consequences:

First, let me explain how this is in essence going to turn into a full fledged government controlled public health care system and not just an option. To begin with, to pay for the public option apart from general tax hikes, private insurances offered by employers are going to be taxed. So why would a company or any employer take the extra monetary burden? They would do one of the following: 1. pass on the extra tax to the employees (in effect more deductions in our paychecks) or 2. just outright stop offering a employer health insurance program. The second option would add more people into the public health insurance option raising it significantly from the estimated 45 million people under it, which again in turn increases cost and burden on tax payers.

Now another thing to keep in mind is the government is going to run the health care program. Unlike the private sector, they have no need to sustain profits year after year. And so are going to phase out private insurance providers one by one through unfair competitive advantages, starting with the small guys and eventually the big ones too. So over time, we will have only the government offered public option in the market. So there we are in the liberal euphoria of public health care system in the country. One example of such phasing out of competition by government can be found by just looking at the medicare system. Medicare was put in place with good intentions of helping the senior citizens of the country. But over time, the system has through unfair competitive advantage of not having to make profits has put away all competition for insurances for seniors, and so unless a senior citizen can afford a private insurance, they are tied to the mediocre services of Medicare facilities. We can expect the same to happen with the entire health care system all through.

Public health care system on the surface may appear to be a good idea. No doubt in theory, it should work like a charm. But in theory, so are a number of systems that should have worked, but were devastating like socialism or marxism. There are a number of reasons for my apprehensions with a public health care system. You can learn quite a few lessons from history and also looking at current state of affairs in countries with public health care systems right now. You may hear people who are proponents of a public health care system pointing out countries where it has been a success. But if you stop them and ask, mention a few, they will either stutter or try getting out mentioning countries like France and Canada, where its been well documented that the people there are unhappy with the system, in most cases even more unhappy than here.

The most scary thing about a public health care system is the rationing of health. The system has to take care of over 300 million people. It can easily get out of hand, as it has so often in even smaller countries, and the services offered to patients can wary demographically or according to age or on the basis of any other imaginable yardstick. (Here's a video depicting what could happen in the US based on the state of public health care in Canada) What ends up happening is rationing of health. To see proof of this, all you have to do is look at the public health system in Britain. If a person needs a minor ligament surgery on his leg, he cannot do it right away like here. There will be a waiting time, depending on the type of ailment, pushing people with minor ailments like a leg injury to wait of a few weeks before they can be worked on. Imagine having a color based alert system at hospitals like a security alert system. Hypothetically, If a hospital has a orange level alert, you can go there only for emergencies. A yellow level may allow a wider range of ailing patients, but you cannot go to get treatment for a minor sprain or migraines; you have to go hunting for a clinic with green level to get treatment for that. Those are the kind of hassles we maybe facing with a public health care system. Not to think of the frightening stories you hear about people rejected for treatment because they are too old for it. It happens in a lot, if not all, public health care systems worldwide. An older patient who needs a surgery may be denied because of limited resources, and priority given to younger people who have a longer lifespan at stake. Yup, the system can be as cold as it sounds.

Some of these things are not discussed publicly by people proposing the changes, as it is detrimental to their case of a public health care system. People are going to be taken by surprise, without warning. And it is bound to get worse with time and not better. In fact, there have been legislations in Canada, France and Britain to privatize some sectors of their health care systems. There is a push in lot of those countries to move away from a public care system. How ironic is it that we are going in the opposite direction. Why can't we learn from others' mistakes, before we commit a blunder?

UPDATE: Here are some interesting links about current health care proposal and recent developments in other countries with public health care systems:

Interesting funny video about public health care in Canada.

Canada switching to private health care?

State of public health care in European countries

Read about British Public Health care concerns: here and here

Interesting chart depicting the complexity of new bill

The (supposedly non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office has this to say about current health care plan on the table in the House

And it would make individual private medical insurance illegal

What about tax hikes to pay for it. Or Tax the wealthy to keep everyone healthy.

Talking about taxes, unrelated to health care, I thought I should post the link to this article too.

Discovering my political identity....

I learned a lot about myself over the last 2 years. It is no coincidence that it overlapped with the election season of 2008. It is really important for everyone to realize what you believe in. It was not an easy task for me. I used to think I was a liberal and hence I should have shared democrat views. But I was being short sighted. I realized I was looking only at the social issues (which I still am fairly liberal about) couple that with the general dissatisfaction with the government under Bush. And there you go: I thought I was a liberal democrat!! Little did I know that I was completely wrong on this one. The following are some truths I uncovered that brought me to reality:


Fiscal Conservatism and Capitalism

One reason we are in this financial mess, apart from all the irresponsible politicians and financial firms', is that the country is in debt. How did we get there? In simple terms, we were spending more than we were supposed to. This could have been avoided by following true fiscal conservative principles. Most fiscal conservatives believe in the trickle down economy, including yours truly.

To explain my understanding of it in a nutshell, rather than the government tax the crap out of you and spend the people's money (in its own utterly inefficient way), the more "conservative" way to do this is drastically reduce spending by the government and reduce taxes. Reduced taxes for businesses (both small and large) means that these businesses now make more money (which is not "evil" as many liberals will like us to think) and can now grow. This translates into more jobs created, meaning more people having jobs. People having jobs spend some of that money which is pumped into the economy and the viscous cycle continues, which indicates a good and healthy economy.

On the contrary, lets see how the fiscal liberals would want the economy to function. They would increase taxes, which is going to reduce profits made by businesses. Then use these tax dollars to create more public sector jobs. First, who wouldn't want to work in the government (yep I'm being sarcastic)?? Imagine life working at the post office or the DMV rather than say at Fedex or Shell Oil (or any other private sector corporation). Clearly the quality of private sector trumps public sector jobs created. Moreover, what about the increased taxes? Lesser profits for businesses not only reduces private sector jobs that offset the public sector jobs created, but the businesses are not going to take the losses in their balance sheet. They are going to pass them down to us in the form of increased prices for their products and services. So the tax increases for businesses (or "evil corporations" as liberals like to call them), in actuality, are tax increases for every consumer. The only thing that the liberals get out of this is that it creates some amount of social equality, because they control lot of the jobs now.

I would any day pick a good chance to have a prosperous life (capitalism through conservatism) than a guarantee of a mediocre life for everybody (socialism through liberalism). After all, isn't life supposed to reward the people that work hard. Or would you rather have every adult in society lazing around, sitting on benches playing domino all day (what's up, Cuba?).


Individualism Vs Collectivism

Individualism holds that the individual is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value. This view does not deny that societies exist or that people benefit from living in them, but it sees society as a collection of individuals, not something over and above them. Each individual in this country is independent and unique and should know his/her responsibilities. The individual is sovereign in the society. Every person/individual is an end in himself and no one should be sacrificed for the sake of another. The unit of achievement is the individual himself. It is not that one person cannot build on the success or achievements of another, but it is in stark contrast to the theory of collectivism, which is a very liberal idea. Collectivism holds that society or a group of people is the primary unit of reality and the goals and needs of the individual are subordinate to the bigger group. Extremists of this idea believe in social equality by forced redistribution of an individual's success or achievements to others in that group as they believe success is a product of society and not individuals. So under collectivism, the state becomes the instrument to organize people to meet the needs of what they dream : "ideal society".

Of course, of the two, I would rather live in a society based on individualism, where I am independent and am accountable for myself than in a society based on collectivism. In an individualist society, if I work hard and do what is necessary, I will be rewarded and my achievements, if and when I do have some, will belong to me and owned by me. But, in a collectivist society where whatever I achieve will be snatched forcefully out of my hands and given to others who may or may not deserve it. Also, reward for work (as in individualism) motivates people to achieve something and do their thing rather than, as in collectivism, where you are indirectly encouraged to be irresponsible by rewarding laziness and lethargy. Collectivism leads to leaches in society that survive on the blood of other responsible individuals without being responsible enough to survive on their own.


What really is Free Market Capitalism?

The following phrase says a lot: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Again the afore mentioned phrase applies to individuals and not the society as a whole. Again, it does not mean that society doesn't have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it rather applies to every individual in society. As you see, this subtle difference has a lot of meaning and implications. Capitalism is the only political system that is compatible with individualism and recognizes the entity of the "individual". It is a social system that recognizes rights of the individual and in which all property is privately owned.

Unfortunately, today, capitalism has been misunderstood, with the help of the smear machine of all "so-called capitalists" and socialists (including the current articulate President) who publicly blame capitalism for a lot of the problems we currently face. It is imperative to understand that State intervention in the economy, which is the root cause for all problems, was not a result of Capitalism. In a true capitalist system, the State and Economics are separated (just like separation of State and Church and for similar reasons). Free Market Capitalism is a system based on the notion that every individual is a trader and is free to act or do trade on his own. He can "voluntarily" decide to interact with whomever he chooses. The role of the State is to make sure that the "voluntary" part of the above definition remains truly voluntary, meaning, both sides chose freely to deal with each other and there are no other third party forces that add constraints. No doubt in reality, this is easier said than done. But, it is this part of the Capitalist soceity that failed us - the State failed in its duty. The government has time and again interfered with the capitalist system by meddling with the financial system through their own implicilty backed ntities (eg: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) or through irresponsible law making (Eg: Community Re-investment Act of 1977 and especially its changes in the 1990s, which had great and noble intentions, but very poorly implemented). There are examples galore of unjust acts committed under the banner of law and justice, for example, when the government takes from one person to feed another, or when government takes taxpayer money to bail out foolhardy bankers. It pains me to here these politicians (being politicians) talking that Capitalism has failed us, when in truth it is their establishment in Washington that has failed us.

I do not mean to say that capitalism is perfect. There are always going to be rogue corporation and heads of corporations (like Enron) who do not play by the rules and ethics that once existed in business in this country. But that is another story altogether. I also do not mean to say that there should be no regulation (as the pure form of capitalism requires, which I got to admit is ridiculous) of the economic system. You are damn right that the current regulatory policy of the State is ineffective. It doesn't mean you increase regulation. It rather means you need a more effective regulation policy. But, sadly, efficiency and government can never go hand in hand. Which leads us to the only hope that people in general revert back to morals and ethics in society.

Under capitalism, the government protects rights, including the right to property. Without the right to use and dispose what one has produced, one has no liberty. If individuals can't work and produce towards goals they can't pursue happiness. If one can't consume the product of one's effort, one cannot live. That is how Capitalism protects one's right to "Life Liberty and pursuit of Happiness". Capitalism is not a system under which unproductive individuals can leach off the productive ones, whether the ``unproductive'' are the unambitious or politically-connected businessmen. Nor is capitalism a system in which the government acts not as a protector, but as a coercer of productive individuals.


Bush - Not a Fiscal Conservative!!

Having understood what Capitalism really means, When you look at the Bush years, one has to wonder how the embodiment of capitalism and conservatism failed? The truth is, contrary to what he said, or was portrayed as, he was not a fiscal conservative. The age old political trick of saying one thing and doing the opposite was what was happening (which is also one of the notorious traits of the current President). If at all anything Bush and his policies were fiscally liberal. The evidence for this - all the spending and legislature for welfare (like the prescription drug law for medicare etc). The only things he was conservative about were social issues (not a big fan) and national security (which I tend to agree on a some and not on others). So, in essence, democrats are obviously not conservative and republicans (at least the leaders of the party) aren't conservative either. They are all liberals or (I would rather call them) "progressives". This is probably why the republicans lost the 2008 elections - because they did not have a conservative face (except for their hypocritical talk) and by recent estimates, around 40% of Americans are conservative (including about 22% of registered Democrats).


Conservative Libertarianism!!

Putting all these things together I realized - if I did not like Bush's policies, I am not what he is - not a fiscal liberal (or progressive. I am centrist-left on social issues - definitely pro-choice. Again not a fan of Bush's social policies - not a Social Conservative! So what category do I fall into?

Voila ..... I am a Conservative Libertarian! Actually, not totally, as I still do not accept some of the policies of the Libertarian Party here in the US. They have some ideas that are outlandish to me.

Libertarianism is another very misunderstood term. I was myself surprised to learn about the origins of the word, which is from communist - anarchist groups from the late 19th century. Over time there have been changes and newer meanings had started to evolve. But in the US, Libertarianism has, for a while been used with a pro-individualism / pro-property ideas and movements, mainly used to promote free market, economic freedom and anti-communism. Individual liberty is the utmost important thing in this school of thought. Libertarianism also brings in the liberal thinking of social issues into it, kind of making it a fusion of a conservative economic beliefs with liberal social makeup, which very much coincides to the way I think. But some of the ideologies and sub-groups that branch out of this basic idea do have some strange ways of thinking in terms of national security etc. So I don't think I can ever call myself a true Libertarian. But Conservative Libertarian is probably to the best way to describe myself of all political groups that I know of that exist.

Hence it should be no surprise that I am in no way happy about how the new administration is handling things. Its not only that there is a clear difference in philosophies, but I also find all the double talk, misleading and chicanery cheap and dirty. I guess, its politics as usual in Washington, with the administration trying to payback all the different groups that got them elected (especially labor unions and organizations like ACORN), catering to the needs of all the blow-hard leftist liberals, being indifferent to the majority of the people who have a big growing check waiting to be paid off in the near and distance futures. Not to mention the slow nationalization of financial industry and then the auto industry (who knows what's next??) and all the national security and border security lapses / weaknesses (intended or unintended) due to philosophical policies and nepotism. And the media is not yet out of it's Bush bashing and (so called) conservative hating mode, mix in the fairytale of the underdog minority candidate challenging the incumbent in last years "American Idol" elections, the Obama - fawning (after all he's the "chosen one") has not only not come down to Earth, but it has blind-folded the media from doing their duty as a watch dog. They are more like a lap-dog with no credibility what so ever. I never thought I would think there could be a worse candidate for President than President Bush .....that view lasted just a few weeks after he left office.