I really wish I completely understood what it is with many well-educated and supposedly intelligent people who are liberals, such as Paul Krugman. In this recent article, Mister Krugman again demonstrates his inability to properly use his brain. He gives the article the title “California Death Spiral“, which would certainly be appropriate if he were writing about the high-spending and high-taxing California State government which is almost bankrupt. But no, he is not at all referring to that. Instead he is referring to the recently announced increase in some health insurance premiums charged by an insurance company in California.
As expected from Mister Krugman, his opinion piece castigates insurance companies, implying that they are “villains” and “greedy”. His answer? At the very least, everybody should be “required” to purchase health insurance, and federal subsidies should be provided for the poor who can not afford to pay the full premiums. Don’t you just love the word he uses – “require“? Hey, Mister Krugman, how about using the phrase ‘”forced to buy, under penalty of law“? But oh no. Not when talking about liberal politics of the government which are favored by Mister Krugman. Oh, and of course “we” need much tighter and better regulation of all health insurance companies in order to keep those “greedy” companies under control. Mister Krugman does make it clear that he prefers the so-called “public option” – a health insurance program managed and controlled by the government.
Mister Krugman ends by saying that our “health care system is unraveling” and that “inaction isn’t an option”. Oh really? Why isn’t it an option? Let’s get real. There has never been a health care “system” in the United States. Instead there exists a health and medical care sector. Furthermore, what’s with this word “unraveling”? Oh, I guess by that he means that medical care is constantly getting more expensive. Well, what can really be done to stop that? Not much ! People just need to learn to spend less on non-essentials, spend their money more wisely, and save more. Next, they need to accept the bare fact that in order for them to benefit from all of the past advances in medical care, and those which will continue into the future, then they need to pay for it. The government can’t pay for a damn thing since the only money that it has is that which comes from the people (taxpayers) and from borrowing money which eventually has to be repaid by the people (taxpayers). As for the poor, we already have Medicaid and SCHIP; Medicare exists for most retirees. But those government-run programs are running up huge deficits. Yep, those deficits show you just how well the government knows how to handle our medical care sector.
For more information on Paul Krugman’s “opinions” about medical care, see this previous blog post of mine.
Archive for February, 2010
This guy is at it again
Friday, February 19th, 2010This guy is a disaster and a con man !
Tuesday, February 16th, 2010According to this recent article, Obama will present a healthcare reform package in advance of the Feb. 25 healthcare summit. Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders, inviting them to this health care summit. According to the referenced article, the letter includes the following statements:
Since this meeting will be most productive if information is widely available before the meeting, we will post online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package. This legislation would put a stop to insurance company abuses, extend coverage to millions of Americans, get control of skyrocketing premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reduce the deficit.
Is Obama kidding me ? How in hell can any legislation do all that, while at the same time reducing the deficit? It can not ! And if anyone really believes that it can, then that person is either ignorant, an unthinking idealogue, an idiot, or an otherwise dysfunctional person. I want such people to stay out of my face, and out of my life. And what’s with these strong words “abuses” and “skyrocketing”? Oh right. I forgot. There are too many insurance company “abuses”, and their premiums are “skyrocketing”. Yep, way to go Obama. Use the insurance companies as scapegoats for the high cost of medical care. After all, they just made record profits, and “profits” are not that good, especially if they are “record” profits. Federal legislation, as crafted by Obama and his administration, will of course have almost no abuses, and not add one dime to the deficit, while, of course, covering many more people with quality medical care.
I got so mad reading those words in that letter that I can no longer refrain from calling Obama a dangerous man and a disaster for our country. What frightens me is that Obama himself is so full of self-confidence, self-esteem and hubris that he probably believes that what he wants done is in fact not only doable but also good. Well, Obama may be intelligent, but he is too full of it and he is not at all a wise man.
If the reader thinks that I need to justify my remarks about Obama and this “health care reform” business, I have already done so on my web site, with this page serving as a starting point.
Thank God big brother is taking care of us
Sunday, February 14th, 2010Gosh, it sure is nice to know that our governments – local, state and federal – are doing more and more to take care of us – to keep us safe, to keep us healthy and to otherwise make life easier for us. Over the past year or so, I’ve read accounts of several new laws which do such things. Well, I just found this article which mentions a few of them. No need to search the Internet for examples.
It’s good to see that San Francisco is not falling behind here. Being such a liberal city, I would not expect it to fall behind. So San Francisco recently passed a “composting” ordinance making it illegal to throw certain things in the trash, such as orange peels, coffee grounds and greasy pizza boxes. Infactions carry fines of up to $500 per violation. Several days ago I read somewhere else what is also mentioned in the referenced article – the state of Massachusetts will soon require thousands of restaurant workers to undergo state-designed training on handling food allergies, and every restaurant menu will have to be revised to include a new message: “Before placing your order, please inform your server if a person in your party has a food allergy.’’ Ain’t that great? I also read that in Oregon an eight-year-old boy was suspended from his public school because he came to class with a tiny plastic toy gun from his G.I. Joe action figure. Good! Several times I have looked for toys for my two-year old grandson, and I have noticed that toy guns are still available. Naturally I never bought him one of those, since I do not want him to learn that guns can be a normal part of one’s life. Sure wish my city or state would pass a law banning toy guns. The same goes for plastic bags at supermarkets; I hate those plastic bags because you can’t put too much in them, and even so a lot of the time things fall out of those plastic bags when I carry them to and from my car. I much prefer paper sacks. They are much easier for me to handle, and you can put more stuff in them. And of course, paper sacks or bags are environmentally-friendly, whereas those plastic bags are not. Walmart never has paper sacks, instead always using plastic bags. And I sure hate those plastic bags. Pass a law !
Alright, who the heck leaked ?
Friday, February 12th, 2010One of the problems in large businesses and governments is that information that is supposed to remain confidential is sometimes “leaked” to the press. In the past, reporters who publicized such information never named the person who “leaked” the information by saying such things as, “The source wishes to remain unnamed” or “The source remains confidential” and “The name of my source remains privileged”. Perhaps the person who “leaked” the Watergate information is one of the most noticeable.
Anyway, recently I have become aware of a new way in which reporters now describe the “source” of confidential information. They now say the following, or something close to it:
The source spoke only on the condition that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak about the matter.
Well, that certainly sounds nicer, does it not? There is now no obvious implication that the “source” was doing something “out of bounds” such as, horror or horrors, “leaking” secret information ! The most recent example of this I found on this web page where it was reported that Representative Patrick Kennedy will not seek re-election. The applicable sentence read as follows:
The official spoke to The Associated Press only on the condition that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak ahead of the official announcement.
Ain’t that great? Here we have another wonderful way to use the English language, this time using it to tell us citizens of things we really need to know, even though these are considered confidential, or even “top-secret”! Note that the key phrase is “not authorized to speak“. Of course in this particular example, the “leaked” information could not really harm anybody, especially since the “leaked” information was officially announced shortly thereafter.
Frugal citizens are the injured parties
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010Well, someone finally published an article which pointed out something which I have known for over one year. Most of those people living in America who have not spent beyond their means and who have not gone into much debt have been unmentioned casualties of the financial crisis. And they continue to be. You see, most of those people have saved money, and except for those who have lost some or most of their money in bad investments, such as in the stock market, they have lost out nonetheless and continue to lose out. That’s because they have invested little or none of their money in anything risky, and instead invested their money in very safe places, such as United States Treasury bills and bank Certificates of Deposit. Of course such people also had some of their money in bank checking accounts. But all of these latter have paid out almost zero interest over the past 12 to 18 months because of the actions of the Federal Reserve. This latter has kept interest rates at near historical lows for more than a year, supposedly in order to alleviate the financial crisis and the recession.
Have you been frugal with your money over the past several years? For example, have you saved $100,000 and always invested it in bank Cerificates of Deposit because the latter are very safe? Well, three years ago or more you would likely have earned anywhere between 3 and 5 thousand dollars a year on your investment. This past year you would have been lucky to earn 500 dollars. Yep, you got shafted.
In the meantime, as is well known, many people who have not been careful and instead went into debt beyond their means by buying a house they could not afford, have been considered poor souls or “casualties” who needed help from the government. Why even a few companies and banks, such as AIG, General Motors and Bank of America who lost much money on risky investments and/or bad business practices have been considered “casualties” who needed help from the government. And boy did they get it. Those poor jerks, such as myself, who spent little money and instead saved a lot of money, why they need no “help” at all, which is certainly true. Furthermore, they apparently do not need what would otherwise be decent interest rates on their money which they have saved only in safe investments such as insured bank deposits. What jerks. They should know better. Yep, that includes me.
Let me be clear – Never say “NEVER”
Sunday, February 7th, 2010Gosh, I hate to borrow one of our Dear Leader Obama’s favorite phrases – “let me be clear”. However, I think it might be somewhat appropriate in my response to something that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is reported to have said. . .
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the U.S. is in no danger of losing its Aaa debt rating even though the Obama administration has predicted a $1.6 trillion budget deficit in 2010. “Absolutely not,” Geithner said, when asked in an ABC News interview broadcast today whether a downgrade is a concern. “That will never happen to this country.”
Gosh, I guess Mr. Geithner, no doubt because of his intelligence and knowledge, can see far into the future. The United States’ debt will never be downgraded. Never ! If it were not for my conviction that one should never say “never”, Mr. Geithner’s comments would make be feel comfortable for the future of my children and my grandchildren. Let me be clear – one should never say “never”!
Yes, I did use one of Obama’s favorite phrases – “let me be clear”. He used it again yesterday when he spoke to members of the Democratic National Committee, saying that “Just in case there’s any confusion out there, let me be clear. I am not going to walk away from health insurance reform.” (Gosh, I wonder if he will never walk away from health insurance reform.)
Obama – teaching us again
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010I see where Obama again has instructed us on how to live wisely, which of course is what we expect from a loving parent president. Again he has instructed the people to not “blow a bunch of cash on Vegas”. Yes, do not gamble your money away; instead save it and/or spend it wisely. Our Dear Leader is telling us how to behave. Ain’t that great?
Perhaps our Dear Leader should instruct government officials to not promote gambling in the first place. For many years now many U.S. States have promoted gambling, in most cases by first introducing lotteries. (According to this article, studies show that 70 percent of lottery winners go bankrupt within five years.) Then a few casinos were permitted in many U.S. States. Now that we are in a recession, most States are having financial problems, and some are now pushing plans for video poker and slot machines as their legislators hope gambling income will compensate for declines in taxes. My hometown is in Pennsylvania, and not long ago the State passed a law allowing slot-machine casinos to be built in the State. My hometown itself has now had one for almost one year. In addition, however, my hometown casino will soon also have table games. Early this year, the governor signed into law legislation to expand gambling in Pennsylvania to include table games such as poker, blackjack and roulette at the state’s casinos. The casinos, until then, had offered only slot machines. Ain’t that great? Now the citizens will have even more ways in which to have fun, gamble and lose money!
(Oops, I neglected something. Most of the money citizens lose will go to pay casino employees; those are new jobs, probably some of the ones Obama has promised us. Most of the rest of the money will go to the governments in the form of taxes, and our government leaders do, of course, know how to spend that new-found tax money wisely. As for me, although I am retired and do go to a casino three or four times a year, I do not gamble much money, do not stay long in the casino, and of course at least half the time I actually win money. You believe that, right? Heck, next week my old folks’ home is sponsoring a bus trip to a casino. We will only be in the casino for just over three hours – enough time for me to have a lot of fun and to win enough money to buy a nice gift for my new grandson.)
Obama and the Lama
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010I just read that China has warned Obama not to meet with the Lama – the “Dalai Lama”. China considers Tibet to belong to China, whereas the Dalai Lama and his followers think otherwise. As the reader may know, Chinese authorities, backed up by their military, occupied much of Tibet starting in 1950. The Dalai Lama himself fled Tibet for India at the end of that decade. Ever since, what has often been called Tibet has been occupied and ruled by China.
Well, I myself don’t much care. For a few centuries there has been controversy over what portion of the Himalayan mountains makes up Tibet, and Chinese rulers have effectively ruled over large parts of the area on and off for centuries. I note that last year Obama did not meet with the Dalai Lama when the latter was in Washington, supposedly because Obama did not want to upset the Chinese before Obama made a trip to China.
Heck, I have a question. Why meet with the Dalai Lama in the first place? Never mind what China or anyone else thinks about it. Just who is this guy, the “Dalai Lama”, a guy whom a lot of people seem to revere, the Chinese excepted? I certainly would never meet the guy. If you wonder why, just read my article on the Dalai Lama. I first wrote it over one year ago, although I have edited it slightly since then.
Oh yes, college for almost everyone
Monday, February 1st, 2010Well, I see where our Dear Leader, in his State of the Union Address, apparently wants most of our young people to go to college. At least that is what I infer from this part of his speech:
The third challenge we must address is the urgent need to expand the promise of education in America. In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity – it is a pre-requisite. Right now, three-quarters of the fastest-growing occupations require more than a high school diploma. And yet, just over half of our citizens have that level of education. We have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation. And half of the students who begin college never finish.
Hmm… I wonder why half of the students who begin college never finish? Could it be because many of them simply do not have the necessary brainpower? This despite the fact that “grade inflation” has made it a bit easier to get passing grades and get a college degree today than 40 to 50 years ago? In many if not most cases, I think so. Too many “college students” are not really “college material”. In fact, I believe that too many young people go to college today because of peer pressure and pressure from their parents. Also, it is easier to get into college now than it was 50 years ago. Today it is easier to get student loans and grants. Today there are more “community colleges” than there were 50 years ago. Today it is easier for colleges to accept students whom they would not have accepted 50 years ago because the colleges benefit more financially. Never mind whether or not the students eventually graduate. Never mind whether or not the students do learn a lot which is really useful. We’ve got to keep all those tenured professors, mostly liberals, employed!
Hmm… I wonder what those “fastest-growing occupations” are? I certainly know that today many of them are “government” jobs. Most of those jobs do not require too much real knowledge, although many do require at least some sort of college degree – never mind what kind. In the past 60 years, the size of America’s government work force has increased five times faster than the population. Our Dear Leader’s budget proposals for “reforming” student loan programs for college do give some preference for those students who are studying for “public service”. As Mark Steyn pointed out, if a student chooses to go into “public service,” any college loan debts will be more easily forgiven because public service is more noble than the selfish, money-grubbing private sector. Yeh, right.
I should also mention that some college students who fail to graduate do have the necessary brainpower, but their high school education was very, very poor. Too many high schools today are not giving their students even a decent education. In fact, I would call many high schools dysfunctional. But never mind. Obama is here to make things right.