I do not know any more about a new federal government law that has just been implemented than what has been reported in this article. According to that article, this law prohibits health insurance companies from restricting patients’ access to mental health and substance use disorders by limiting benefits and imposing higher patients’ out of pocket costs. The law only applies to group coverages offered by employers with 50 or more employees whose health care plans offer mental health or substance use disorder benefits. I do not fully understand that law as explained in that article, and I do not plan to do any research on it. However, I only mention it here to point out that health insurance companies have had to adhere to various laws and regulations, most of these latter provided by the states, but also a few by the federal government. All of these laws and regulations have contributed to increases in health insurance premiums, so to blame health insurance companies for the high cost of “health care” is often ridiculous. Now here we have the federal government putting into practice yet another law regulating health insurance companies. When will this stop? (Yeh, I know. It will stop when “ObamaCare” finally becomes law.)
Concerning this new law, I found one reader’s comment about it funny if it were not so potentially harmful to our pocketbooks. This reader wrote that apparently a wide variety of “mental disorders” will now be covered, and the reader furnished a list of nearly two dozen “mental disorders”. These included such things as “Academic Problem”, “Acculturation Problem”, “Borderline Intellectual Functioning”,”Child or Adolescent Antisocial Behavior”, “Conduct Disorder”, “Disruptive Behavior Disorder” and “Oppositional Defiant Disorder”. This reader writes that “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” means a kid who defies his parents. According to a manual published by the American Psychiatric Association, this kid is mentally ill and will cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to be “treated” when a spanking might work. I have to agree that at least it is possible that a spanking might work. (By the way, I did find this reference from the Mayo Clinic on “Oppositional Defiant Disorder”, and I have to agree with that reader’s comments. I also did a quick Google search on a few of the other “mental disorders” that reader mentioned, and sure enough they are listed as real “mental disorders” in thousands and thousands of web sites.)
My message to the American public is: Get a grip ! Stop thinking that so many “problems” that you have with your children, spouse or whomever are possibly some kind of psychological disorders that can be successfully “treated” by psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors and/or other “professional” experts! These latter cost money ! In most cases you can solve your own damn problems, or at least make them less of a problem. Get a grip !
Archive for January, 2010
This law will help us
Sunday, January 31st, 2010What is it with this guy?
Saturday, January 30th, 2010I have always been somewhat puzzled by those well-educated and intelligent people who are clearly liberals. The economist Paul Krugman is one of them. He won the Nobel Prize in economics, mostly for his work on the economics of international trade. In his work he went beyond the economic concepts of absolute advantage and comparative advantage and introduced some new concepts, with supporting data, which added to our knowledge of international trade. All well and good. So why is this guy so much in favor of some kind of “universal health care system” in the United States, as are most liberals?
Even before the election of the Republican Scott Brown this month, Krugman wrote columns in which he made it clear that he wants, as a minimum, some kind of federal “health care reform” legislation in the United States. Just before the Senate finally passed their version of a “health care” bill, Krugman wrote: « With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail » . Oh really? With all its flaws you still want it passed? Why? Are you really sure that it will greatly improve the lives of millions? I most certainly think not.
Just after the election of Scott Brown as the new Senator for Massachusetts, Krugman still stuck to his guns, this time writing:
A message to House Democrats: This is your moment of truth. You can do the right thing and pass the Senate health-care bill. Or you can make excuses and fail the test of history. Tuesday’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can’t send a modified health-care bill back to the Senate. That’s a shame, because the bill that would have emerged from House-Senate negotiations would have been better than the bill the Senate already has passed. But the Senate bill is much, much better than nothing.
Much, much better than nothing? Oh really? How ? Why? From reading Krugman’s various columns, it is clear that he does not at all like our existing health and medical care sector (often deceptively called a “health care system”). He believes that it is inefficient. He does not at all like health insurance companies, one piece of evidence for that being his comment: « Bear in mind that the horrors of health insurance — outrageous premiums, coverage denied to those who need it most and dropped when you actually get sick — will get only worse if reform fails » . [My emphases] Horrors? Outrageous? Those are mighty strong words! He says that insurance companies discriminate when they deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. He writes that “America desperately needs health-care reform”. Desperately? Really?
What America needs almost desperately is a citizenry that better understands economics, to include the strengths and weaknesses of the free-market system. It needs a citizenry that better understands the faults and weaknesses of politics, politicians and the federal and state governments that politicians mostly control. It also needs a citizenry that learns to spend its money wisely, to spend less money on non-essentials, to avoid “easy” credit and borrow less, and to save more money. A more responsible citizenry would also help – citizens who depend less on government, luck and prayers, and depend more on their own work and efforts. I think that Krugman really wants government-run health insurance, although failing that he wants government regulation of the health insurance industry. He does not want anyone to be denied health insurance due to pre-existing conditions. And in order for premiums to not go up, he wants everyone to buy health insurance, with the poor being heavily subsidized by the government (taxpayers).
What is amazing to me is that Paul Krugman is one of the very, very few people whom I have found who seems to understand the major reason for the present high cost of medical care in the United States, a reason which I have pointed out on my web site. He and a co-author wrote in this book review article that “new medical technology is the major factor in rising spending: we spend more on medicine because there’s more that medicine can do. . . . in medical care, ‘technological advances have generally raised costs rather than lowered them’: although new technology surely produces cost savings in medicine, as elsewhere, the additional spending that takes place as a result of the expansion of medical possibilities outweighs those savings“. I agree with that. So? Are we then supposed to have the federal government come in and help pay for all this? But the government can not pay for anything because just about all the money that it has it first has to get from taxpayers. Failing that, it must borrow the money, money which must of course eventually be repaid by taxpayers. (The federal government can also “print” money by monetizing the debt – “buying” its own bonds – but that practice usually contributes to inflation. It has been doing that recently.)
In a very limited sense, I agree with some of Krugman’s thoughts on health insurance, since health insurance itself provides no actual medical care. Health insurance just pools financial resources and acts as a third-party payer. As I have pointed out on my web site this leads to some waste. But I do not go so far as to call health insurance premiums “outrageous” and use the word “horrors” in describing health insurance. I do go so far as to describe what I called an excellent single payer plan, which I wrote would probably be an improvement. However, I also pointed out that an excellent single payer plan is politically untenable, and so it has proven to be. Furthermore, the federal government with its huge programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is just getting us deeper and deeper into debtor’s hell, and that will not improve given the nature of politics. But apparently Paul Krugman does not believe that those programs are doing that because in this article I referenced above Krugman wrote:
Social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.
Mister Krugman, Social Security is only the bedrock for many Americans; it is certainly not the bedrock for the “vast majority”, and it never will be. In fact, this year or next, Social Security payroll taxes are expected to finally be insufficient to pay current retirees. So to say that Social Security is the bedrock for the vast majority is not only a falsehood, but something which makes me wonder just what the heck your motives are. With the baby-boomers now reaching retirement age, almost every thinking person knows that Social Security will soon be in big trouble, unable to provide the retirement funds that have been promised by the federal government. And the same goes for Medicare. Why does Mister Krugman not see that? Or, if he does see that, why does he not admit to it? Also, what’s the point here of his reference to “a majority of African-Americans”? Was he playing the “race card” in an attempt to score points? What is it with this guy?
I’ve frequently heard the phrase “liberal élite”, thinking that it is overblown. But I am no longer so sure. There are just too many liberals, such as Paul Krugman, who call for actions which are sometimes described as “social engineering”. It seems to me that these people, who admittedly often do know more than the “common man”, then believe that, with the power of government, they can improve things and thus help most of us. What audacity! However, I also believe that some of these people call for “social engineering” programs because they make money out of them !
Yes Mister Krugman, there are inefficiencies in our health and medical care sector. But there are inefficiencies in all of our economic sectors – housing, transportation, food, finance, entertainment and so on. However, it is clear to me that the “sector” with the greatest inefficiencies is the government sector with its own deceptive advertising, propaganda, partisan bickering, waste, some corruption, and near countless laws, regulations and boondoggles.
(My observations, comments and opinions on this entire “health care reform” business start with this web page.)
Free Trade
Thursday, January 28th, 2010I just read that the United States has set preliminary anti-dumping duties ranging from 90 to nearly 175 percent on about $30 million worth of electric blankets from China. The ruling is a victory for Jarden Consumer Solutions, a Florida-based subsidiary of consumer products company Jarden Corp. It filed a petition earlier this year asking for protection against its Chinese competitors. It was reported that, “The relatively small case is of one several ongoing U.S. investigations into charges that Chinese companies are selling their goods in the United States at unfairly low prices and benefit from unfair government subsidies“.
Gosh, I wonder just exactly what makes low prices unfair? I would expect consumers in the United States to want low prices, and the lower the better. Surely in the case I mentioned above it could not be because the company Jarden Consumer Solutions donated money to some politician’s re-election campaign! Or could a price be “unfair” if it reduces manufacturing employment in the United States, or has the potential to do so?
The following paragraph in an article by Walter Williams makes some interesting points:
Politicians, businessmen and labor union spokesmen have whined about the decline in U.S. manufacturing. Before looking into what they say is the sad decline in U.S. manufacturing, let’s examine what has happened in agriculture. In 1790, farmers were 90 percent of the U.S. labor force. By 1900, only about 41 percent of our labor force was employed in agriculture. By 2008, less than 3 percent of Americans are employed in agriculture. What would you have Congress do in the face of this precipitous loss of agricultural jobs? One thing Congress could do is outlaw all of the technological advances and machinery that have made our farmers the world’s most productive. Our farmers are so productive that if needed, they could feed the entire world. Let’s look at manufacturing. According to Dr. Mark Perry’s Department of Labor employment data, in his article “Manufacturing’s Death Greatly Exaggerated”, U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 19.5 million jobs in 1979. Since 1979, the manufacturing workforce has shrunk by 40 percent and there’s every indication that manufacturing employment will continue to shrink. Before you buy into the call for Congress to do something about manufacturing job loss, there are some other facts to be considered. According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars). Today’s manufacturing worker is so productive that the value of his average output is $234,220. Output per worker is three times as high as it was in 1980 and twice as high as it was in 1990. For the year 2008, the Federal Reserve estimates that the value of U.S. manufacturing output was about $3.7 trillion (in 2008 dollars). If the U.S. manufacturing sector were a separate economy, with its own GDP, it would be tied with Germany as the world’s fourth richest economy. The GDPs are: U.S. ($14.2 trillion), Japan ($4.9 trillion), China ($4.3 trillion), U.S. manufacturing ($3.7 trillion), Germany ($3.7 trillion), France ($2.9 trillion) and the United Kingdom ($2.7 trillion). These facts put a lie to claims we hear about how we are a country that “doesn’t produce anything anymore,” and how we have “outsourced our production to China,” and there’s been a “demise of U.S. manufacturing.” U.S. manufacturing has gone through the same kind of labor-saving technological innovation as agriculture. Should we discard that innovation in the name of saving jobs?
Free trade among countries usually increases the standard of living in those countries. Why? Because of the economic principles of absolute advantage and comparative advantage. With very few exceptions, (if any), only government subsidies and/or government import/export taxes can distort this benefit of free trade. In this case the “distortion” usually means granting benefits to a select few at the expense of many others.
By the way, this latest salvo against free trade by the Obama administration is not the first. Shortly after Obama became president, the first “stimulus” bill that he signed contained provisions which required that money be spent only on products “made in America”. And in Obama’s State of the Union Speech yesterday, he said, “And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it’s time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America“. [My emphasis]
We must provide for our public servants !
Sunday, January 24th, 2010Gosh, it is nice to know that many if not most public servants get very good pensions. After all, most have worked for at least 20 years, working hard for us, the public. Wny in California, at least according to this article, many public servants are police officers, firefighters, and prison guards who can retire at age 50 with a pension that equals 90% of their final year’s pay. The pensions for these (and almost all other State retirees) increase each year with inflation and are guaranteed by taxpayers. Although I really do not know, I suspect that many of these public servants are not eligible for Social Security, so they need all the help they can get when they retire. So to those Californians who are not public servants, please do not leave California for “greener pastures”. Remain in California, and do your best to stay employed so that you can continue to pay more taxes.
Although I refuse to do the research at this time in order to provide an Internet reference, I do know that many policemen and firefighters in New York City retired within a year after 9/11. Many more of them retired than would otherwise be normal. Why? Well, the pension that these people get is based on their total pay during their last year or two of work. Most of those who retired made much more money than normal during the months right after 9/11. That’s because they worked many more hours of overtime than normal, getting 1½ times their normal wage for each hour of overtime. Due to the heavy workload in the months after 9/11 – site cleanup, fill-in work for those killed during 9/11, and increased duty time simply to increase security throughout the city, most police and firemen racked up very large wages during their last year. So by retiring soon after all that work, they increased the amount of their pensions by more than just a couple of percent. If they had not retired but instead waited just two or three more years, despite the increased time of service their pensions would have been less. So they realized that and took advantage of it. Well, why not? They have been public servants have they not? And all that extra work after 9/11 must have been very hard on them, emotionally and physically.
The Dumbing Down of America
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010It is sometimes said that the quality of education that children receive in the United States has declined over the years. This is manifested by the supposed fact that fewer teenagers study science, foreign languages and math in high school, and also by the supposed fact that subjects that are being taught are more and more “politically correct”. For example, I have heard it said that United States history is now being taught with less emphasis on the good things in our past history and more emphasis on the bad, such as slavery and the subjugation and even slaughter of American Indians. I think there is some truth to this based on all the articles I have read over the years. This is not good for the future of our country. But now I just read something that is also not good, something which I previously suspected.
Children between the ages of 8 and 18 now spend just over 7 and 1/2 hours per day on entertainment, on average. By “entertainment” is meant mostly playing games, watching videos, listening to music on mobile devices and using other consumer electronic devices. I myself too often see teenagers out in public with audio plugs in their ears, plugs which are attached to iPods and other portable music-playing devices. The article which I referenced says that the impact of all this is unclear. Oh yeah? How about less time spent on school homework and study, followed by lower school grades, and thus less knowledge? What does that tell you about the future of our country? Just how productive will these teenagers be when they beome adults and have to earn a living? Just how knowledgeable will these teenagers be when they become voters? Not very. (Oh, I keep forgetting. Obama is our President. With Obama in charge he will of course take care of things for us. Gosh, I sure hope that he gets re-elected.)
Obama and Social Justice
Tuesday, January 19th, 2010While still a presidential candidate, Obama gave a speech on June 4, 2008, before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The speech came the day after he secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and become the first African-American candidate for president. Among other things, he said, “there is a commitment embedded in the Jewish faith and tradition: to freedom and fairness; to social justice and equal opportunity”.
Obama gave a speech to a joint session of Congree on September 9 of last year, a speech largely devoted to Obama’s push for “health care reform” legislation. One of the things he said near the end of this speech was, “At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country”. Those words were taken from a letter sent to Obama by Ted Kennedy. Nevertheless, Obama spoke those words since he obviously agreed with them.
Just over a week ago, it was revealed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had apparently made some racially insensitive remarks about Barack Obama during the presidential campaign. Reid apologized, and part of Obama’s reply was as follows: « I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years, I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice and I know what’s in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed » .
In the above quotes from Obama I deliberately emphasized the words “social justice”. That’s because that phrase is not only vague and ill-defined, but almost always harmful when it is used. It is especially harmful when it is used by politicians with political power. A somewhat detailed description of this phrase can be found on this page on my web site. If you don’t have the time to read that page, then just consider this quotation attributed to Thomas Sowell - « Some of the most popular words and phrases in politics are undefined and undefinable. That is what makes them popular and what makes them politically effective in rallying support. People who mean wholly different things by “fairness” or “social justice” can be brought together by politicians to serve their own ends » . Exactly !
It is cold !
Sunday, January 10th, 2010Six days in a row now the temperature in Houston got down below 30 degrees during the night. The lowest temperature reached, officially, was 21 degrees. This is not supposed to be happening! I do not know what the temperatures were last winter at this time, but they were certainly not this cold. My electricity consumption last winter was actually quite low according to my electric bills. But my electricity consumption during the last several weeks has clearly been very high. (My central heat is all electric.)
Well, I guess I should be thankful that it is not as cold here as it is up North.
This will be historic !
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010Recent news reports said that there were signficant differences between the “health care” bill passed by the House and the one passed by the Senate. Well, the White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer commented on this. He reportedly said:
The reality is that the two versions of reform legislation are vastly similar — built upon a shared foundation that will provide stability and security for Americans with insurance, affordable options for those without, and lower costs for families, businesses, and the government. . . . . . So as you follow the health reform debate in the media, don’t fall prey to the cynicism and pessimism of a lot of the chattering class and remember that we are on the precipice of a historic accomplishment that will make a real difference in the lives of American families.
What a bunch of bull! Yep, this legislation is built upon a shared foundation. Not only will it provide stability and security for Americans with insurance and affordable options for those without, it will also lower costs for everybody – families, businesses and even the government ! Does anybody in their right mind believe that bull? We are on the precipice of a historic accomplishment all right, one from which we will fall down into an ever deeper hole of debt, deficits and increased government costs and bureaucracies.
California continues to lead the nation !
Saturday, January 2nd, 2010Wow ! I find it hard to believe! Even though the State of California is broke, and going deeper into debt every day, that wonderful State still manages to lead the nation by taking care of its people! Why, I just read that a California law that limits trans fat in restaurant food takes effect this year. In fact, it took effect yesterday, January 1, 2009. This law requires restaurants to use oils, margarines and shortenings that have less than half a gram of trans fat per serving. Isn’t that nice? Those California legislators are sure taking care of their people! Why I also read that a similar provision will apply to baked goods in 2011. Well, I do note that the law was not actually passed last year, but the year before – in 2008. Back in 2008 California’s budget troubles, although bad, were not quite as bad as they are today. In any event, this law will not use any tax money, except of course any that might be required to actually enforce the law. Perhaps Californians will help out and report any transgressions of this law to the appropriate authorities.
Purely as a side note, that same article also reported that legislatures in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico enacted 40,697 laws in 2009. (But not all of them take effect this year; only many of them.) That sure seems like a heck of a lot of laws! But then that only amounts to an average of about 800 laws per state. That is not too much per state. Also, I am certain that most of those laws are truly necessary and beneficial ! (Yeh, right.)