Most Americans -- 54% -- now oppose Universal Coverage, the idea that it is the federal government's job to ensure health care for all. Obamacare is NOT a done deal.
Read the full article at
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Monday, December 17, 2012
Medical Privacy: Read the FINE PRINT!
The Scene: a job interview circa 2015
Interviewer: Well, Ms Smith, we are very impressed with your qualifications, your credentials and your experience, and we think you could be a very good fit for this position and with our organization. We are particularly impressed with how well-travelled you are, and your knowledge of foreign languages. We just have a few more questions and then we should be able to wrap up for today.
Ms. Smith: Thank you. Please go ahead.
Interviewer: Well, first of all, what can you tell us about your long-term career goals? Where do you see yourself in ten or even twenty years?
Ms. Smith: Well, for the next several years I want to continue climbing the corporate ladder here in the private sector, but at some point I would like to transition into public service. I have been inspired by role models like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Allbright, Condoleza Rice and Susan Rice, and my ultimate ambition would be to become Secretary of State. But that’s a long way off, of course.
Interviewer: Excellent! Those are noble ambitions and by your resume you appear to be building the right foundation to get there. So, back to our immediate objective…
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Interviewer: Can you tell us something about these three cases of syphillis in 2004 and 2005?
Ms. Smith: I beg your pardon?
Interviewer: Well, it has come to our attention that you were treated three times for syphillis during those years, and we just wanted to ensure that your character is up to the moral standards of our organization.
Ms. Smith: With respect, how would you even know that about me, I mean, even if it were true, which it is not, which I deny categorically.
Interviewer: Do you recognize your signature on this photocopied document?
Ms. Smith: Yes, that’s my signature, but that’s a medical privacy notice. What does that have to do with our subject today?
Interviewer: Well, surely you read the notice before you signed it, correct?
Ms. Smith: I can’t possibly read all the fine print of every document I sign, no.
Interviewer: Hmm, I’m not sure what that says about your attention to detail, but in any case if you had read it, you would see that it clearly states under the heading of “National Security,” the medical facility that treats you may disclose your health information to federal officials “in order to protect the President, other officials or foreign heads of state.”
Ms. Smith: You’re telling me that when I signed a privacy notice, I was really signing a public disclosure notice? What choice did I have? How could I have not signed it and still gotten the care?
Interviewer: A very good question. Ms Smith, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Ms. Smith: What do my politics have to do with this position?
Interviewer: I suppose that’s an unfair question since we pretty much know the answer already. Based on your two abortions during that same time period, we can be fairly certain you’re pro-choice. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: [shocked silence]
Interviewer: Moving on, on three occasions you were prescribed anti-depressant medication by three different physicians who, upon further investigation, turn out to be psychiatrists. Are you mentally unstable, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: This is outrageous! Anti-depressants! That could be anyone today! Besides, you’re not permitted by law to even ask me such questions, much less go digging for dirt behind my back!
Interviewer: Well, we do do background checks on all candidates, and the information is out there, in electronic form, easily transmissible.
Ms. Smith: But it’s private information! It belongs to me and me alone!
Interviewer: Not quite, according to the fine print. What did you think you were getting when you voted for Obama and his healthcare reform?
Ms. Smith: You don’t know how I voted!
Interviewer: Actually, based on the record of your campaign contributions, we have a pretty good idea.
Ms. Smith: The point of Obamacare is to provide coverage for the uninsured, nothing more. That’s what I voted for.
Interviewer: Perhaps, but somewhere along the way a tremendous concentration of power has been created, wouldn’t you say? Power to know the most intimate secrets of every individual cititizen, to be used however the federal officials judge best, with resources at their command that dwarf the entire American military.
Ms. Smith: But you’re not a federal official! You’re a private-sector corporation! What does this have to do with you?
Interviewer: Let’s just say we have connections. How else are we to obtain our exemptions from the worst mischief that Congress cooks up?
Look, I realize this may be distressing, Ms. Smith, but don’t you think it’s better that you walk through this fire while you’re still in the private sector, before you go for higher-profile public service? I mean, how do you expect your Senate confirmation hearing to go with this information in your file?
Ms. Smith: In my file? The Senate -- they would never bring this up in a dignified official hearing.
Interviewer: A person aspiring to an office appointed by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate should have a better command of history. I suggest you google ‘Clarence Thomas pubic hair in coke’. Realize that back then, that was just heresay; he-said-she-said. Thomas could always plausibly deny the charges. But you’ll have a much harder time denying what’s in your official EMR.
Ms. Smith: I’m a Democrat! The Senate would never use dirt like that against me! The Republicans didn’t vote for…not one of them voted for Obamacare.
Interviewer: Nevertheless, as federal officials, Obamacare gave them the power, too. Did you think all this power that was being concentrated would forever only be in the hands of the party that promoted it?
. . .
Ms. Smith wakes up. Thank God!, she thinks. It was just a nightmare. Nothing like this could possibly happen in real life.
Not in America!
(See also: Health info collected to “protect the President”)
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Interviewer: Well, Ms Smith, we are very impressed with your qualifications, your credentials and your experience, and we think you could be a very good fit for this position and with our organization. We are particularly impressed with how well-travelled you are, and your knowledge of foreign languages. We just have a few more questions and then we should be able to wrap up for today.
Ms. Smith: Thank you. Please go ahead.
Interviewer: Well, first of all, what can you tell us about your long-term career goals? Where do you see yourself in ten or even twenty years?
Ms. Smith: Well, for the next several years I want to continue climbing the corporate ladder here in the private sector, but at some point I would like to transition into public service. I have been inspired by role models like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Allbright, Condoleza Rice and Susan Rice, and my ultimate ambition would be to become Secretary of State. But that’s a long way off, of course.
Interviewer: Excellent! Those are noble ambitions and by your resume you appear to be building the right foundation to get there. So, back to our immediate objective…
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Interviewer: Can you tell us something about these three cases of syphillis in 2004 and 2005?
Ms. Smith: I beg your pardon?
Interviewer: Well, it has come to our attention that you were treated three times for syphillis during those years, and we just wanted to ensure that your character is up to the moral standards of our organization.
Ms. Smith: With respect, how would you even know that about me, I mean, even if it were true, which it is not, which I deny categorically.
Interviewer: Do you recognize your signature on this photocopied document?
Ms. Smith: Yes, that’s my signature, but that’s a medical privacy notice. What does that have to do with our subject today?
Interviewer: Well, surely you read the notice before you signed it, correct?
Ms. Smith: I can’t possibly read all the fine print of every document I sign, no.
Interviewer: Hmm, I’m not sure what that says about your attention to detail, but in any case if you had read it, you would see that it clearly states under the heading of “National Security,” the medical facility that treats you may disclose your health information to federal officials “in order to protect the President, other officials or foreign heads of state.”
Ms. Smith: You’re telling me that when I signed a privacy notice, I was really signing a public disclosure notice? What choice did I have? How could I have not signed it and still gotten the care?
Interviewer: A very good question. Ms Smith, are you pro-life or pro-choice?
Ms. Smith: What do my politics have to do with this position?
Interviewer: I suppose that’s an unfair question since we pretty much know the answer already. Based on your two abortions during that same time period, we can be fairly certain you’re pro-choice. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: [shocked silence]
Interviewer: Moving on, on three occasions you were prescribed anti-depressant medication by three different physicians who, upon further investigation, turn out to be psychiatrists. Are you mentally unstable, Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: This is outrageous! Anti-depressants! That could be anyone today! Besides, you’re not permitted by law to even ask me such questions, much less go digging for dirt behind my back!
Interviewer: Well, we do do background checks on all candidates, and the information is out there, in electronic form, easily transmissible.
Ms. Smith: But it’s private information! It belongs to me and me alone!
Interviewer: Not quite, according to the fine print. What did you think you were getting when you voted for Obama and his healthcare reform?
Ms. Smith: You don’t know how I voted!
Interviewer: Actually, based on the record of your campaign contributions, we have a pretty good idea.
Ms. Smith: The point of Obamacare is to provide coverage for the uninsured, nothing more. That’s what I voted for.
Interviewer: Perhaps, but somewhere along the way a tremendous concentration of power has been created, wouldn’t you say? Power to know the most intimate secrets of every individual cititizen, to be used however the federal officials judge best, with resources at their command that dwarf the entire American military.
Ms. Smith: But you’re not a federal official! You’re a private-sector corporation! What does this have to do with you?
Interviewer: Let’s just say we have connections. How else are we to obtain our exemptions from the worst mischief that Congress cooks up?
Look, I realize this may be distressing, Ms. Smith, but don’t you think it’s better that you walk through this fire while you’re still in the private sector, before you go for higher-profile public service? I mean, how do you expect your Senate confirmation hearing to go with this information in your file?
Ms. Smith: In my file? The Senate -- they would never bring this up in a dignified official hearing.
Interviewer: A person aspiring to an office appointed by the president and subject to confirmation by the Senate should have a better command of history. I suggest you google ‘Clarence Thomas pubic hair in coke’. Realize that back then, that was just heresay; he-said-she-said. Thomas could always plausibly deny the charges. But you’ll have a much harder time denying what’s in your official EMR.
Ms. Smith: I’m a Democrat! The Senate would never use dirt like that against me! The Republicans didn’t vote for…not one of them voted for Obamacare.
Interviewer: Nevertheless, as federal officials, Obamacare gave them the power, too. Did you think all this power that was being concentrated would forever only be in the hands of the party that promoted it?
. . .
Ms. Smith wakes up. Thank God!, she thinks. It was just a nightmare. Nothing like this could possibly happen in real life.
Not in America!
(See also: Health info collected to “protect the President”)
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Socialized Medicine = Wait (and wait... and wait... and wait some more) your turn.
Canadians wait an average of 18 weeks for specialized health care. In New Brunswick, the average is 35 weeks. For orthopedic surgery (knee and hip replacements, so that you can walk), the national average wait is 40 weeks; 9 months. Average.
That's a 91 percent increase in wait times over 19 years.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
This is the system we want to emulate in the USA?
Of course we'll do much better than those hockey-playing Cannucks, right? After all, our bureaucrats are smarter than their bureaucrats. And since no Republicans voted for Obamacare, it is pure and free of any corruption or defects. Right.
Read the full report at:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Some Supporters of Obamacare Admit Some of its Failures
a.k.a. Econ 101 for Law Professors
Some supporters of Obamacare are honest enough to admit a few of its warts. Would that they would take those admissions to their logical conclusions.
Read the full article at:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Some supporters of Obamacare are honest enough to admit a few of its warts. Would that they would take those admissions to their logical conclusions.
Read the full article at:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Why Government Interference in Markets Always Fails
For citizens and law professors who believe that the government is Santa Claus, capable of blessing the nation with prosperity by way of market manipulations, a review of certain basic economic principles, easy to understand if equally easy to forget, is in order.
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy', published by Regnery (www.regnery.com) and the Mises Institute (www.mises.org):
The government hears people complain that the price of milk has gone up. And milk is certainly very important, especially for the rising generation, for children. Consequently the government declares a maximum price for milk, a maximum price that is lower than the potential market price would be. Now the government says: "certainly we have done everything needed in order to make it possible for poor parents to buy as much milk as they need to feed their children."
But what happens? On the one hand, the lower price of milk increases the demand for milk; people who could not afford to buy milk at a higher price are now able to buy it at the lower price which the government has decreed. And on the other hand some of the producers, those producers of milk who are producing at the highest cost – that is, the marginal producers – are now suffering losses, because the price which the government has decreed is lower than their costs. This is the important point in the market economy. The private entrepreneur, the private producer, cannot take losses in the long run. And as he cannot take losses in milk, he restricts the production of milk for the market. He may sell some of his cows for the slaughterhouse, or instead of milk he may sell some products made out of milk, for instance sour cream, butter or cheese.
Thus the government's interference with the price of milk will result in less milk that there was before, and at the same time there will be a greater demand. Some people who are prepared to pay the government-decreed price cannot buy it. Another result will be that anxious people will hurry to be the first at the shops. They have to wait outside. The long lines of people waiting at shops always appear as a familiar phenomenon in a city in which the government has decreed maximum prices for commodities that the government considers as important. This is happened everywhere when the price of milk was controlled. This was always prognosticated by economists. Of course, only by sound economists, and their number is not very great.
But what is the result of the government's price control? The government is disappointed. It wanted to increase the satisfaction of the milk drinkers. But actually it has dissatisfied to them. Before the government interfered, milk was expensive, but people could buy it. Now there is only an insufficient quantity of milk available. Therefore the total consumption of milk drops. The children are getting less milk, not more. The next measure to which the government now resorts, is rationing. But rationing only means that certain people are privileged and are getting milk while other people are not getting any at all. Who gets milk and who does not, of course, is always very arbitrarily determined. One order may determine, for example, that children under four years old should get milk, and the children over four years, or between the age of four and six, should get only half the ration which children under four years receive.
Whatever the government does, the fact remains, there is only a smaller amount of milk available. Thus people are still more dissatisfied than they were before. Now the government asks the milk producers (because the government does not have enough imagination to find out for itself): "why do you not produce the same amount of milk you produced before?" The government gets the answer: "we cannot do it, since the cost of production are higher than the maximum price which the government has established." Now the government studies the costs of the various items of production, and it discovers one of the items is fodder. "Oh," says the government, "the same control we applied to milk we will now apply to fodder. We will determine a maximum price for fodder, and then you will be able to feed your cows at a lower price, at a lower expenditure. Then everything will be all right; you will be able to produce more milk and you will sell more milk. "
But what happens now? The same story repeats itself with fodder, and as you can understand, for the same reasons. The production of fodder drops and the government is again faced with a dilemma. So the government arranges new hearings, to find out what is wrong with fodder production. And it gets an explanation from the producers of fodder precisely like the one that it got from the milk producers. So the government must go a step farther, since it does not want to abandon the principle of price control. It determines maximum prices for producers goods which are necessary for the production of fodder. And the same story happens again.
The government at the same time starts controlling not only milk, but also eggs, meat, and other necessities. And every time the government gets the same result, everywhere the consequence is the same. Once the government fixes a maximum price for consumer goods, it has to go farther back to producer's goods, and limit the prices of the producer's goods required for the production of the price-controlled consumer goods. And so the government, having started with only a few price controls, goes farther and farther back in the process of production, fixing maximum prices for all kinds of producer's goods, including of course the price of labor, because without wage control, the government's "cost control" would be meaningless.
Moreover, the government cannot limit its interference into the market to only those things which it views as vital necessities, like milk, butter, eggs, and meat. It must necessarily include luxury goods, because if it did not limit their prices, capital and labor would abandon the production of vital necessities and would turn to producing those things which the government considers unnecessary luxury goods. Thus, the isolated interference with one or a few prices of consumer goods always brings about effects – and this is important to realize – which are even less satisfactory than the conditions that prevailed before.
Before the government interfered, milk and eggs were expensive; after the government interfered they began to disappear from the market. The government considered those items to be so important that it interfered; it wanted to increase the quantity and improve the supply. The result was the opposite: isolated interference brought about a condition which – from the point of view of the government – is even more undesirable than the previous state of affairs which the government wanted to alter. And as the government goes farther and farther, it will finally arrive at a point where all prices, all wage rates, all interest rates, in short everything in the whole economic system, is determined by the government. And this, clearly, is socialism.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Few economists have illustrated as plainly and logically as Ludwig von Mises why price controls (and by extension, all types of interventions in free markets) don't work, never achieve their stated goals. For this reason we present here an excerpt from the chapter 'Interventionism' from his book 'Economic Policy', published by Regnery (www.regnery.com) and the Mises Institute (www.mises.org):
The government hears people complain that the price of milk has gone up. And milk is certainly very important, especially for the rising generation, for children. Consequently the government declares a maximum price for milk, a maximum price that is lower than the potential market price would be. Now the government says: "certainly we have done everything needed in order to make it possible for poor parents to buy as much milk as they need to feed their children."
But what happens? On the one hand, the lower price of milk increases the demand for milk; people who could not afford to buy milk at a higher price are now able to buy it at the lower price which the government has decreed. And on the other hand some of the producers, those producers of milk who are producing at the highest cost – that is, the marginal producers – are now suffering losses, because the price which the government has decreed is lower than their costs. This is the important point in the market economy. The private entrepreneur, the private producer, cannot take losses in the long run. And as he cannot take losses in milk, he restricts the production of milk for the market. He may sell some of his cows for the slaughterhouse, or instead of milk he may sell some products made out of milk, for instance sour cream, butter or cheese.
Thus the government's interference with the price of milk will result in less milk that there was before, and at the same time there will be a greater demand. Some people who are prepared to pay the government-decreed price cannot buy it. Another result will be that anxious people will hurry to be the first at the shops. They have to wait outside. The long lines of people waiting at shops always appear as a familiar phenomenon in a city in which the government has decreed maximum prices for commodities that the government considers as important. This is happened everywhere when the price of milk was controlled. This was always prognosticated by economists. Of course, only by sound economists, and their number is not very great.
But what is the result of the government's price control? The government is disappointed. It wanted to increase the satisfaction of the milk drinkers. But actually it has dissatisfied to them. Before the government interfered, milk was expensive, but people could buy it. Now there is only an insufficient quantity of milk available. Therefore the total consumption of milk drops. The children are getting less milk, not more. The next measure to which the government now resorts, is rationing. But rationing only means that certain people are privileged and are getting milk while other people are not getting any at all. Who gets milk and who does not, of course, is always very arbitrarily determined. One order may determine, for example, that children under four years old should get milk, and the children over four years, or between the age of four and six, should get only half the ration which children under four years receive.
Whatever the government does, the fact remains, there is only a smaller amount of milk available. Thus people are still more dissatisfied than they were before. Now the government asks the milk producers (because the government does not have enough imagination to find out for itself): "why do you not produce the same amount of milk you produced before?" The government gets the answer: "we cannot do it, since the cost of production are higher than the maximum price which the government has established." Now the government studies the costs of the various items of production, and it discovers one of the items is fodder. "Oh," says the government, "the same control we applied to milk we will now apply to fodder. We will determine a maximum price for fodder, and then you will be able to feed your cows at a lower price, at a lower expenditure. Then everything will be all right; you will be able to produce more milk and you will sell more milk. "
But what happens now? The same story repeats itself with fodder, and as you can understand, for the same reasons. The production of fodder drops and the government is again faced with a dilemma. So the government arranges new hearings, to find out what is wrong with fodder production. And it gets an explanation from the producers of fodder precisely like the one that it got from the milk producers. So the government must go a step farther, since it does not want to abandon the principle of price control. It determines maximum prices for producers goods which are necessary for the production of fodder. And the same story happens again.
The government at the same time starts controlling not only milk, but also eggs, meat, and other necessities. And every time the government gets the same result, everywhere the consequence is the same. Once the government fixes a maximum price for consumer goods, it has to go farther back to producer's goods, and limit the prices of the producer's goods required for the production of the price-controlled consumer goods. And so the government, having started with only a few price controls, goes farther and farther back in the process of production, fixing maximum prices for all kinds of producer's goods, including of course the price of labor, because without wage control, the government's "cost control" would be meaningless.
Moreover, the government cannot limit its interference into the market to only those things which it views as vital necessities, like milk, butter, eggs, and meat. It must necessarily include luxury goods, because if it did not limit their prices, capital and labor would abandon the production of vital necessities and would turn to producing those things which the government considers unnecessary luxury goods. Thus, the isolated interference with one or a few prices of consumer goods always brings about effects – and this is important to realize – which are even less satisfactory than the conditions that prevailed before.
Before the government interfered, milk and eggs were expensive; after the government interfered they began to disappear from the market. The government considered those items to be so important that it interfered; it wanted to increase the quantity and improve the supply. The result was the opposite: isolated interference brought about a condition which – from the point of view of the government – is even more undesirable than the previous state of affairs which the government wanted to alter. And as the government goes farther and farther, it will finally arrive at a point where all prices, all wage rates, all interest rates, in short everything in the whole economic system, is determined by the government. And this, clearly, is socialism.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Required Reading from American Thinker
Politicians, at our request, pretend that real spending cuts aren't necessary.
Read the full article here:
The Left continues to play games with unconstitutional words as long as they approve of the result. Read the full article here:
Read the full article here:
The Left continues to play games with unconstitutional words as long as they approve of the result. Read the full article here:
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Argentina (and America) on the Brink
Now that Argentina is on the brink of economic and social collapse -- again -- this might be a good time to be reminded of what could have been for Argentina if only it had followed correct economic principles, and what will be in store for us in the US if we don't.
Little over a hundred years ago, Argentina was the eighth weathiest country in the world. Let that sink in for a minute; wealthier than Japan, Italy or Brazil.
In 1959, a visit was paid to Argentina by one of the world's greatest economists, Ludwig von Mises, dean of the Austrian school of economics and mentor of the Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek. He gave a series of lectures, and those lectures were transcribed into a short book later published under the title 'Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and for Tomorrow'. It is perhaps the best comprehensive exposition of Mises' economic philosophy in a small package easy to read and accessible to the comprehension of the common citizen. For those of us lacking the time and patience to wade through his 1949 magnum opus 'Human Action', with its 900 pages of almost German academic English, Economic Policy is a welcome plain-language and brief alternative. Next to Thomas Sowell's evolving editions of Basic Economics, Mises' Economic Policy is THE book for the person who has never read one on economics or has only read dismal mathematical, keynesian and/or college textbooks.
The history of Argentina for the past 50 years is one of tragedy followed by misery, repression and economic crisis, each episode ratcheting up the impoverishment of a once proud people. How much suffering could Argentina have avoided if only they had taken Mises' advice?
If the United States continues on its present crony-socialist course, we too will be remembered one day as a once-great nation. Putting a copy of Mises' book into the hands of every politician, student and citizen would be a good place to start reversing the decline.
Read Mary Anastasia O'Grady's analysis of the current mess here:
Sunday, November 18, 2012
ObamaCare Is Not a Done Deal
The majority of state governors are Republicans, and they have the power to disarm the health-care law.
Read the full story here:
Wall Street Journal: Capretta and Levin: Why ObamaCare Is Still No Sure Thing
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Read the full story here:
Wall Street Journal: Capretta and Levin: Why ObamaCare Is Still No Sure Thing
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Brett Stephens on Immigration and Latin American Culture
"If the argument is that illegal immigrants are overtaxing the welfare state, then that's an argument for paring back the welfare state, not deporting 12 million people. If the argument is that these immigrants "steal" jobs, then that's an argument by someone who either doesn't understand the free market or aspires for his children to become busboys and chambermaids."
"And if the argument is that these immigrants don't share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren't American values."
"By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice. "
Read the full article at The Wall Street Journal.
"And if the argument is that these immigrants don't share our values, then religiosity, hard work, personal stoicism and the sense of family obligation expressed through billions of dollars in remittances aren't American values."
"By the way, what's so awful about Spanish? It's a fine European language with an outstanding literary tradition—Cervantes, Borges, Paz, Vargas Llosa—and it would do you no harm to learn it. Bilingualism is an intellectual virtue, not a deviant sexual practice. "
Read the full article at The Wall Street Journal.
Obamacare is still vulnerable
States can still resist being sucked into the sucker's game of doing the federal government's dirty work on Obamacare.
Read the full story by Michael F. Cannon at the Cato Institute.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Read the full story by Michael F. Cannon at the Cato Institute.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Friday, November 16, 2012
WSJ: Republican Success in the San Joaquin Valley
Republicans who think that reaching out to the Hispanic vote is futile need to study California's 21st District, which is 70% Hispanic and voted for Obama in 2008. They just elected a Rebublican to the US House of Representatives with 60% of the ballots.
Read the full story by Kimberly Strassel at The Wall Street Journal
Read the full story by Kimberly Strassel at The Wall Street Journal
Republicans and the 2014 Hispanic Vote
The Hispanic vote is receiving renewed attention following the 2012 election fiasco. Businessman Romney may be credited with the dubious achievement of a market share lower than John McCain’s: just 27%. Republicans, including Tea-partiers and talk show hosts like Sean Hannity are waking up to the fact that a demographic that is growing at more than 40 percent in a decade, with more than 20 million eligible to vote, cannot be ignored if the party intends to remain viable. The challenge is how to appeal to Hispanic citizen voters without compromising conservative, limited constitutional government principles. It would be futile to attempt to out-Santa Claus the Democrats; nevertheless Republicans must take a change of strategy, of policy priorities and perhaps most important, of attitude. Too paraphrase Peggy Noonan, some people don’t like Republicans because they perceive that Republicans don’t like them.
It has been observed enough times that the values and interests of Hispanics should make them naturally gravitate to the Republican party. Hispanic immigrants are hard-working, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life and religious. A high percentage are small businesses owners and entrepreneurial capitalists and are grateful to the United States of America for the opportunities it has afforded them. Like all Americans they yearn for the American Dream, starting with good job prospects. Ronald Reagan once quipped that most Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet. The Republican failure to convince more than a shrinking fraction of them speaks at least as poorly of Republicans as it does people who seem to contradict their own values and interests in the way they vote.
So what do we do? Permit me to propose a 3-pronged strategy:
1. Treat Hispanics/Latinos like everyone else. We are the party of, by and for Americans, not hyphenated-Americans, ethnic victim groups and single-issue special interests.
2. Educate Americans about constitutional, limited-government, and free-market economic principles, in Spanish as well as English. To set an example, this author gives lectures on the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (no partisan political preaching required), together with American Revolution film screenings, in Spanish-language churches.
News Flash!: the Spanish-language news media leans Left. But the Spanish-speaking public is just as diverse as the English-speaking public. There is a huge ground-floor opportunity to build a conservative commentary industry on the Spanish-language radio and TV airwaves, cable, satellite and social media. The movers and shakers in the conservative media need to make it happen.
And 3: Take the high road with respect to immigration policy, not just with respect to illegals and low-skilled workers, but at the high end, the PhD in engineering end, as well.
The Republican party should be seen frequently and consistently proposing and promoting its own positive immigration reform, in simple, bite-sized pieces. Rather than inflicting a national root-canal of comprehensive omnibus corrupt pork legislation on the scale of ObamaCare, just propose one simple policy change at a time, say one per month, debate it, vote it up or down and then MoveOn.org to the next bite-sized piece.
Republicans can:
• Propose to relax immigration restrictions in exchange for a surcharge on immigrant’s payroll and income taxes.
• or charge a $1000 per head for the right to immigrate, which is a third less than the going rate for coyote fees to risk death to be smuggled across the desert.
• Propose an uncomplicated guest worker program and normalization, NOT CITIZENSHIP but some form of normalized guest status, for people already here who are not felons. We had a guest worker program in the 1950’s called Bracero, and in the main it worked.
• Allow people educated in America legally to work, produce, pay taxes and hire other Americans in America. Right now we educate people in America and then throw them out, which makes no sense. (By the way, just because some people aren’t in the US doesn’t mean we don’t have to compete with them; better to keep them where they do us the most good.) This includes children of illegals whose college education we have already paid for (whether we SHOULD have paid for it or not is beside the point after the fact).
Republicans can propose solutions that are market-based, more effective and more humane than enforcement-only; reforms that are consistent with limited government and free-market principles which the Democrats will be embarrassed to oppose. We can put Democrats on defense even as we interleave proposals for such things as repealing the 1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act that required printing election materials in foreign languages. So we can include proposals that are dear to our conservative hearts along with olive branches to the Latino community. The list above is only intended to be a starting point.
But, Republicans absolutely need to purge from their brains the idea of deporting 11 million people. It ain’t gonna happen!
Taking the high road means refraining from foaming at the mouth in public over illegal immigration. I love Rush Limbaugh, I love Mark Levin and Michael Savage and Mike Galagher, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin etc, but I don’t think they have helped on net balance to win hearts and minds. The Hispanic community is very family-oriented, and many citizen voters have cousins whose legal status is less than perfect. If you appear hostile to someone’s cousin, whether you mean to or not, you alienate that person. In politics, perception is reality, and the perception is that the Republican party is anti-immigrant in general and anti-Latino, possibly with racist motives, in particular. Our challenge is at the very least not to provide cheap ammunition to the Democrat machine to shoot us with.
This does not mean we have to surrender principle. But it does mean changing the rhetoric and yes, compromising with some people and policies that we might not like so much.
Resistance to change is often based on limited information, therefore permit me to present a few facts and stats about immigration in America today:
• Immigration as a proportion of population today is about half of what it was in the peak years a century ago.
• Net immigration from Mexico for the past two years has been approximately zero.
• Immigrants complement the native population with higher numbers at the low and high end of the skills and education spectrum, while natives are concentrated in the middle.
• New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives in the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to the public coffer than they draw from it. The average age is 28.
• In spite of the drug cartel wars, the Mexican economy has improved under President Felipe Calderón, with a rising tide of opportunity for Mexicans at home. I wish our economy were growing half as fast as Mexico’s.
• Putting aside the Great Recession and non-recovery, our economy still creates hundreds of thousands of jobs each year that only require minimal training. The supply of native-born workers without a high school diploma is shrinking by about 300,000 per year. All of Obama’s unemployed college graduates are not pining to pick lettuce. Any immigration policy built on the premise that we won’t need any additional foreign workers in the future is doomed.
• At least one quarter of illegal aliens enter the country legally and overstay their visas and permits. Therefore sealing the border will not solve the whole problem; in fact it may be counter-productive as it discourages people who wish to return home on their own from doing so.
• Cities with high immigrant populations have lower prices for child care, house cleaning, gardening, dry cleaning and other services essential to permitting college-educated women with children to pursue their professional careers.
• Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive transfer payments made by the government, and these payments go almost entirely to natives. This is because immigrants typically arrive when they are young and healthy, and also because older recent immigrants do not qualify for Social Security for many years after their arrival.
Now if all of that paints too rosy a picture, let’s talk about problems commonly associated with immigration:
• Crime: While immigration rates have been on the rise in the last two decades, until Obama the violent crime rates had been decreasing. The crime rate is higher for native-born Americans than it is for immigrants. More immigration does not lead to more crime overall, even if a few exceptionally bad cases make the headlines. Offering and accepting employment at mutually agreeable wages is not fundamentally immoral.
• Infectious disease: A more open immigration policy that permitted workers to enter through the front door without fear would provide the opportunity for health screening.
• Terrorism: We need a policy that makes it more difficult for bad people to hide among the masses of honest immigrants who come for work and opportunity. More openness and transparency is the terrorist’s enemy.
• Assimilation: 88% of 2nd-generation immigrants are fluent in English. Immigrants know they can double their income by learning English. The single most formidable obstacle to assimilation is the leftist indoctrination that pupils receive in our public employee union-dominated schools, and that is not the fault of immigrants.
• Similarly regarding Communist infiltration and agitation: This also is a homegrown issue, not an immigration problem. The battleground of radical leftism is in the public schools and universities and in labor union legislation and policy; not the border.
• Narcotraffic is not an ‘immigration’ issue. Putting aside ‘Fast and Furious’, it is American drug consumers that provide the guns for the gangs with their dollars.
Speaking of compromise, it may be time to sit down with the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking commie pinko hippies like…Pat Robertson, George Schultz, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal -- freaks like that -- who will tell you that drugs are bad, no doubt about it, but that drug wars don’t get a free pass on their track record. Agree or disagree with prohibition vs. legalization, the illicit drug industry is distinct from immigration and we must not be so clumsy as to allow the Democrat party to spin it as a racial issue with Republicans wearing the white sheets.
• Welfare and public service abuse: the problems of the nanny state are inherent to socialism. Government social welfare programs are prone to corruption and abuse. We can’t scapegoat housecleaners and migrant farm workers for the natural consequences of our own socialistic policies. Fight socialism, not immigration.
I believe these facts justify a high-road strategy mostly in favor of immigrants and immigration. I would like to persuade Republicans that the Dream Act, or similar reform, is not the worst thing ever proposed, not the greatest threat we face, but something we can live with. We say that we want illegals to get in line with everyone else, but we haven’t provided any line at all for most of them. Dogmatic opposition to this and any reform like it is costing us far more than we are getting in return.
Many of my friends on the right will find some of these recommendations too liberal to stomach, too much slouching toward amnesty, too offensive to the letter of the law and to the sovereignty of America. To those especially I would ask to consider their priorities. Is sealing the border more important than combating Obamacare? Is it more important that holding the line on tax rates on small businesses? Does punishing illegal immigrants take precedence over reforming Medicare and Social Security, reducing the size and scope of the federal government, and re-launching job creation and economic growth? What constitutes a greater threat to our freedom and prosperity: Cap and Trade, unfunded defined-benefit pensions for government employees, dependence on foreign oil and domestic windmills, expanding entitlement programs, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, China’s rapidly-growing Pacific navy, North Korea, radical Islamic Shariah law -- or Jose Gonzales, minimum wage-earning illegal food-processing worker, with a fake social security number by which he pays taxes to the treasury which he will never be able to collect as benefits?
Republicans need all the help they can get, and high priority goals are worth compromising for.
Permit me to quote a couple of liberals on this issue:
“The problem has to be solved. Because as we’ve made illegal some kinds of labor that I’d like to see legal, we’re doing two things: We’re creating a whole society of really honorable, decent family-loving people that are in violation of the law, and secondly we’re exacerbating relations with Mexico.”
That ‘liberal’ was George Herbert Walker Bush.
“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit--and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.”
That ‘liberal’ was Ronald Reagan.
Let us not forget that the single most effective means of reducing illegal immigration would be to so destroy our economy that no one would want to come here anymore. In other words, it’s a good problem to have, and we have it a lot better here than in socialist countries like France where the immigrant male youth unemployment rate is somewhere between 40 and 50%. That is a social catastrophe we won’t face as long as remain true to our limited government principles.
America’s ideals are universal, not ethnic or limited to the direct descendants of the Mayflower. Regardless of color, accent, flavor or spices, we can still have an America we recognize in 100 years if it is based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To achieve this we must fight FOR good policy, not against good people.
It has been observed enough times that the values and interests of Hispanics should make them naturally gravitate to the Republican party. Hispanic immigrants are hard-working, pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, pro-life and religious. A high percentage are small businesses owners and entrepreneurial capitalists and are grateful to the United States of America for the opportunities it has afforded them. Like all Americans they yearn for the American Dream, starting with good job prospects. Ronald Reagan once quipped that most Hispanics are Republicans, they just don’t know it yet. The Republican failure to convince more than a shrinking fraction of them speaks at least as poorly of Republicans as it does people who seem to contradict their own values and interests in the way they vote.
So what do we do? Permit me to propose a 3-pronged strategy:
1. Treat Hispanics/Latinos like everyone else. We are the party of, by and for Americans, not hyphenated-Americans, ethnic victim groups and single-issue special interests.
2. Educate Americans about constitutional, limited-government, and free-market economic principles, in Spanish as well as English. To set an example, this author gives lectures on the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (no partisan political preaching required), together with American Revolution film screenings, in Spanish-language churches.
News Flash!: the Spanish-language news media leans Left. But the Spanish-speaking public is just as diverse as the English-speaking public. There is a huge ground-floor opportunity to build a conservative commentary industry on the Spanish-language radio and TV airwaves, cable, satellite and social media. The movers and shakers in the conservative media need to make it happen.
And 3: Take the high road with respect to immigration policy, not just with respect to illegals and low-skilled workers, but at the high end, the PhD in engineering end, as well.
The Republican party should be seen frequently and consistently proposing and promoting its own positive immigration reform, in simple, bite-sized pieces. Rather than inflicting a national root-canal of comprehensive omnibus corrupt pork legislation on the scale of ObamaCare, just propose one simple policy change at a time, say one per month, debate it, vote it up or down and then MoveOn.org to the next bite-sized piece.
Republicans can:
• Propose to relax immigration restrictions in exchange for a surcharge on immigrant’s payroll and income taxes.
• or charge a $1000 per head for the right to immigrate, which is a third less than the going rate for coyote fees to risk death to be smuggled across the desert.
• Propose an uncomplicated guest worker program and normalization, NOT CITIZENSHIP but some form of normalized guest status, for people already here who are not felons. We had a guest worker program in the 1950’s called Bracero, and in the main it worked.
• Allow people educated in America legally to work, produce, pay taxes and hire other Americans in America. Right now we educate people in America and then throw them out, which makes no sense. (By the way, just because some people aren’t in the US doesn’t mean we don’t have to compete with them; better to keep them where they do us the most good.) This includes children of illegals whose college education we have already paid for (whether we SHOULD have paid for it or not is beside the point after the fact).
Republicans can propose solutions that are market-based, more effective and more humane than enforcement-only; reforms that are consistent with limited government and free-market principles which the Democrats will be embarrassed to oppose. We can put Democrats on defense even as we interleave proposals for such things as repealing the 1975 amendment to the Voting Rights Act that required printing election materials in foreign languages. So we can include proposals that are dear to our conservative hearts along with olive branches to the Latino community. The list above is only intended to be a starting point.
But, Republicans absolutely need to purge from their brains the idea of deporting 11 million people. It ain’t gonna happen!
Taking the high road means refraining from foaming at the mouth in public over illegal immigration. I love Rush Limbaugh, I love Mark Levin and Michael Savage and Mike Galagher, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin etc, but I don’t think they have helped on net balance to win hearts and minds. The Hispanic community is very family-oriented, and many citizen voters have cousins whose legal status is less than perfect. If you appear hostile to someone’s cousin, whether you mean to or not, you alienate that person. In politics, perception is reality, and the perception is that the Republican party is anti-immigrant in general and anti-Latino, possibly with racist motives, in particular. Our challenge is at the very least not to provide cheap ammunition to the Democrat machine to shoot us with.
This does not mean we have to surrender principle. But it does mean changing the rhetoric and yes, compromising with some people and policies that we might not like so much.
Resistance to change is often based on limited information, therefore permit me to present a few facts and stats about immigration in America today:
• Immigration as a proportion of population today is about half of what it was in the peak years a century ago.
• Net immigration from Mexico for the past two years has been approximately zero.
• Immigrants complement the native population with higher numbers at the low and high end of the skills and education spectrum, while natives are concentrated in the middle.
• New immigrants are more concentrated than are natives in the youthful labor-force ages when people contribute more to the public coffer than they draw from it. The average age is 28.
• In spite of the drug cartel wars, the Mexican economy has improved under President Felipe Calderón, with a rising tide of opportunity for Mexicans at home. I wish our economy were growing half as fast as Mexico’s.
• Putting aside the Great Recession and non-recovery, our economy still creates hundreds of thousands of jobs each year that only require minimal training. The supply of native-born workers without a high school diploma is shrinking by about 300,000 per year. All of Obama’s unemployed college graduates are not pining to pick lettuce. Any immigration policy built on the premise that we won’t need any additional foreign workers in the future is doomed.
• At least one quarter of illegal aliens enter the country legally and overstay their visas and permits. Therefore sealing the border will not solve the whole problem; in fact it may be counter-productive as it discourages people who wish to return home on their own from doing so.
• Cities with high immigrant populations have lower prices for child care, house cleaning, gardening, dry cleaning and other services essential to permitting college-educated women with children to pursue their professional careers.
• Social Security and Medicare are by far the most expensive transfer payments made by the government, and these payments go almost entirely to natives. This is because immigrants typically arrive when they are young and healthy, and also because older recent immigrants do not qualify for Social Security for many years after their arrival.
Now if all of that paints too rosy a picture, let’s talk about problems commonly associated with immigration:
• Crime: While immigration rates have been on the rise in the last two decades, until Obama the violent crime rates had been decreasing. The crime rate is higher for native-born Americans than it is for immigrants. More immigration does not lead to more crime overall, even if a few exceptionally bad cases make the headlines. Offering and accepting employment at mutually agreeable wages is not fundamentally immoral.
• Infectious disease: A more open immigration policy that permitted workers to enter through the front door without fear would provide the opportunity for health screening.
• Terrorism: We need a policy that makes it more difficult for bad people to hide among the masses of honest immigrants who come for work and opportunity. More openness and transparency is the terrorist’s enemy.
• Assimilation: 88% of 2nd-generation immigrants are fluent in English. Immigrants know they can double their income by learning English. The single most formidable obstacle to assimilation is the leftist indoctrination that pupils receive in our public employee union-dominated schools, and that is not the fault of immigrants.
• Similarly regarding Communist infiltration and agitation: This also is a homegrown issue, not an immigration problem. The battleground of radical leftism is in the public schools and universities and in labor union legislation and policy; not the border.
• Narcotraffic is not an ‘immigration’ issue. Putting aside ‘Fast and Furious’, it is American drug consumers that provide the guns for the gangs with their dollars.
Speaking of compromise, it may be time to sit down with the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking commie pinko hippies like…Pat Robertson, George Schultz, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal -- freaks like that -- who will tell you that drugs are bad, no doubt about it, but that drug wars don’t get a free pass on their track record. Agree or disagree with prohibition vs. legalization, the illicit drug industry is distinct from immigration and we must not be so clumsy as to allow the Democrat party to spin it as a racial issue with Republicans wearing the white sheets.
• Welfare and public service abuse: the problems of the nanny state are inherent to socialism. Government social welfare programs are prone to corruption and abuse. We can’t scapegoat housecleaners and migrant farm workers for the natural consequences of our own socialistic policies. Fight socialism, not immigration.
I believe these facts justify a high-road strategy mostly in favor of immigrants and immigration. I would like to persuade Republicans that the Dream Act, or similar reform, is not the worst thing ever proposed, not the greatest threat we face, but something we can live with. We say that we want illegals to get in line with everyone else, but we haven’t provided any line at all for most of them. Dogmatic opposition to this and any reform like it is costing us far more than we are getting in return.
Many of my friends on the right will find some of these recommendations too liberal to stomach, too much slouching toward amnesty, too offensive to the letter of the law and to the sovereignty of America. To those especially I would ask to consider their priorities. Is sealing the border more important than combating Obamacare? Is it more important that holding the line on tax rates on small businesses? Does punishing illegal immigrants take precedence over reforming Medicare and Social Security, reducing the size and scope of the federal government, and re-launching job creation and economic growth? What constitutes a greater threat to our freedom and prosperity: Cap and Trade, unfunded defined-benefit pensions for government employees, dependence on foreign oil and domestic windmills, expanding entitlement programs, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, China’s rapidly-growing Pacific navy, North Korea, radical Islamic Shariah law -- or Jose Gonzales, minimum wage-earning illegal food-processing worker, with a fake social security number by which he pays taxes to the treasury which he will never be able to collect as benefits?
Republicans need all the help they can get, and high priority goals are worth compromising for.
Permit me to quote a couple of liberals on this issue:
“The problem has to be solved. Because as we’ve made illegal some kinds of labor that I’d like to see legal, we’re doing two things: We’re creating a whole society of really honorable, decent family-loving people that are in violation of the law, and secondly we’re exacerbating relations with Mexico.”
That ‘liberal’ was George Herbert Walker Bush.
“Rather than talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we work out some recognition of our mutual problems? Make it possible for them to come here legally with a work permit--and then while they’re working and earning here, they pay taxes here. And when they want to go back, they can go back. And open the border both ways by understanding their problems.”
That ‘liberal’ was Ronald Reagan.
Let us not forget that the single most effective means of reducing illegal immigration would be to so destroy our economy that no one would want to come here anymore. In other words, it’s a good problem to have, and we have it a lot better here than in socialist countries like France where the immigrant male youth unemployment rate is somewhere between 40 and 50%. That is a social catastrophe we won’t face as long as remain true to our limited government principles.
America’s ideals are universal, not ethnic or limited to the direct descendants of the Mayflower. Regardless of color, accent, flavor or spices, we can still have an America we recognize in 100 years if it is based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To achieve this we must fight FOR good policy, not against good people.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
WSJ: Immigrants and the GOP
The GOP's Presidential election defeat is opening up a debate in the party, with more than a few voices saying they are willing to rethink their views on immigration. This is good news, which means it's also a good moment to address some of the frequent claims from the anti-immigration right that simply aren't true, especially about Hispanics.
Read the full article at:
Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
What Do Young People Believe?
One of the most remarkable impressions of election night was seeing, in places like Times Square and the Obama campaign stadium in Chicago, crowds of young people, cheering, laughing, dancing, crying with joy over the result. Since these are the people who will have to live with the consequences of this election the longest, it is worth asking: what is it exactly that they are cheering? What do they believe?
Read the full article at Front Page Magazine.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Reflections on Elections
Why Obama Won
The GOP's Epic Senate Fail
Economy: Post-Election Firings and Layoffs Surge
What Does the Election Mean for Obamacare?
Business Rejects Obamacare Elections, as it is often said, have consequences. As a result of the president’s reelection, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, will be fully implemented. Unsurprisingly, several businesses are looking for ways to avoid the costs associated with the law. Just as unsurprisingly, American leftists consider such efforts to keep one’s business profitable–or solvent–unseemly.
The Meaning of Yesterday's Defeat
Vote Data Show Changing Nation
The Tea Party Got It Right, Mitt Got It Wrong
After Election, GOP Openness to Immigration
The young voters who celebrated Obama's victory don't know that they are voting against their own interest, because although many may have advanced degrees, they are substantially uneducated.
By Gary Aminoff, vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County
The GOP's Epic Senate Fail
The National Republican Senatorial Committee, lead by establishment Republicans hostile to the grassroots and to the Tea Party, promoted a slate of mediocre candidates.
By Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal
Economy: Post-Election Firings and Layoffs Surge
The victory by Barack Obama on election night has resulted in a huge wave of firings and layoffs all over America. A large number of businesses seem to have suddenly shifted into panic mode. The number of layoff announcements that we have seen in the last 48 hours has been absolutely shocking.
By Michael Snyder for Market Daily News
What Does the Election Mean for Obamacare?
The bad news is that many of the health care law’s serious effects were delayed until after the election. Ten of its 18 new tax hikes have yet to kick in. And there is still so much about the law that we don’t even know.
By Nina Owcharenko for The Heritage Foundation
Business Rejects Obamacare Elections, as it is often said, have consequences. As a result of the president’s reelection, the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, will be fully implemented. Unsurprisingly, several businesses are looking for ways to avoid the costs associated with the law. Just as unsurprisingly, American leftists consider such efforts to keep one’s business profitable–or solvent–unseemly.
By Arnold Ahlert for Front Page Magazine
The Meaning of Yesterday's Defeat
America is a deeply divided country with a center-left plurality. This plurality includes a vast number of citizens who describe themselves as moderates, but whose views on the issues are identical or similar to those that have historically been deemed liberal.
By John Hinderaker for Powerline Blog
¡Estimados Republicanos!
The GOP's immigration and Hispanic debacles.
The Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook
Vote Data Show Changing Nation
President Barack Obama's election victory exposed tectonic demographic shifts in American society that are reordering the U.S. political landscape.
The 2012 presidential election likely will be remembered as marking the end of long-standing coalitions, as voters regroup in cultural, ethnic and economic patterns that challenge both parties—but especially Republicans.
By Neil King Jr.
The Tea Party Got It Right, Mitt Got It Wrong
Mitt Romney won the primaries because he was electable. But, as it turned out, he really wasn’t electable after all. Not when the chief criteria of electability is having no opinion, no point of view and no reason to run for office except to win. Not when the chief criteria of being a Republican presidential nominee is being able to convince people that you’re hardly a Republican at all.
By Daniel Greenfield
After Election, GOP Openness to Immigration
The need to overhaul immigration laws has emerged as a rare area of agreement among leaders in both parties. The president wants to reward one of the voting blocs that helped him secure a second term, and Republicans are eager to make inroads with a constituency that seems to be moving away from them.
By Patrick O'Connor for the Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Why ObamaCare Will Fail
The failures of Medicare, Medicaid and socialized health care systems around the world are not accidents, rounding errors or bad luck of unanticipated complications. Rather, they are the inevitable, predicable result of forceful interference in the voluntary cooperation of free citizens. Obamacare will fail for the same reason that the Soviet Union failed: command-and-control economies cannot function rationally.
Read the full article at FrontPageMag.com.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Read the full article at FrontPageMag.com.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
'Hating Breitbart' movie opens
Andrew Breitbart reported the stories that the so-called mainstream media refused to touch because they did not fit the liberal-socialist-progressive agenda. He took no prisoners defending the smaller government and fiscal responsibility movement known as the Tea Party against scurrilous lies, echoed in the mainstream media, that the movement was a closet racist white supremacist club.
The movie 'Hating Breitbart' documents his one man war for truth up until his untimely death earlier this year. In theatres now. Go see it.
Resources:
The movie 'Hating Breitbart' documents his one man war for truth up until his untimely death earlier this year. In theatres now. Go see it.
Resources:
Saturday, October 27, 2012
America's Medical Society defends Free Markets in Health Care
Here is another invaluable resource in the fight against a massive government takeover that attacks the wrong problems, harms more than it solves, and makes us all bankrupt subjects of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and czars.
Dr. Adam F. Dorin, M.D., MBA and Founder/CEO of America's Medical Society writes in the Washington Times:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Dr. Adam F. Dorin, M.D., MBA and Founder/CEO of America's Medical Society writes in the Washington Times:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Monday, October 01, 2012
Howard Hyde Speaking October 2 at SFVRC
Howard Hyde will be presenting October 2 at 7PM to the San Fernando Valley Republican Club (Gary Aminoff, President), which meets at Galpin Ford, Roscoe Blvd near the 405 in Van Nuys.
The topic is 'Republican Priorities, Strategies and the Hispanic Vote 2012'.
Here are a few related past articles:
The topic is 'Republican Priorities, Strategies and the Hispanic Vote 2012'.
Here are a few related past articles:
- Hispanic Voters, Immigration and the Republican Party
The Hard Right and Extreme Left both need to give way to the Sober Center
- Republicans and the Immigration Trap
The next elections are too important to sacrifice over illegal gardeners.
- Environmental Hoaxes and Immigration
Human beings living under liberty and the rule of law are the ultimate resource.
- Illegal Immigration, 1806 -2006
The Homestead Act of 1862 demonstrates how law can eventually catch up with reality.
- Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Advocates of immigration reform must take seriously the arguments of critics, explain why these arguments are incorrect and, if necessary, adapt legislation to address the concerns raised.
By Stuart Anderson
- Lost in Translation: GOP Struggles With Hispanics
The Hispanic Vote polls at 63% for Obama, 28% for Romney
By Neil King Jr.
- Alabama's Immigration Miss
Arizona-style anti-illegal immigration laws are backfiring.
By Jason Riley
- Scholarly studies on Immigration
The overriding impact of immigrants is to strengthen and enrich American culture, increase the total output of the economy, and raise the standard of living of American citizens.
The Cato Institute
- Is Immigration Good For America?
Today, the demise of limited government has altered the relation between the individual and the state. People, including immigrants, are much more dependent on the state. In this institutional setting, what are the implications for immigration?
The Cato Journal
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Congressman Mike Rogers on Obamacare
Congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan speaks eloquently on the destruction wrought by Obamacare. See the video here:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
The Inconvenient Truth about Medical Care Supply and Demand
It offends the refined sensibilities of many high-minded people that crude law of the jungle should have any place in the sacred and transcendent fields of health, education, art and so on. But the laws of chemistry certainly apply to drugs and their effect on the body, so there is no rational reason to expect that economic laws shouldn’t apply to the organization and administration of health care too. If more people are clamoring for services that fewer people are providing, either the price of that service will go up or the availability will go down; a shortage, with queues, waiting lists, black markets and other forms of rationing will ensue (see: Canada and the UK).
That’s the law of Supply and Demand, and it’s real, it is of the fundamental nature of human action in society, and it is not subject to repeal via political legislation.
It also explains what is wrong with the health care market in the United States and elsewhere.
The practice of medicine involves a whole lot of math and science (something which our public school pupils and public government politicians are woefully deficient in) but at its core it is an art: an art of human and social interaction among doctor, family and patient; the whole patient, not just the pancreas; the patient’s family history, not just today’s symptoms; the patient’s personality type, psychological profile, relationships, work, nutrition, exercise, sleep and drug habits, not just ink bubbles on a chart. Only a highly trained and experienced doctor or nurse or other provider who is free to practice his/her craft without third-party interference can provide the most effective care.
When we need care badly, we want the best practitioners of the art caring for us and are willing to mobilize our resources to get them. And in the freest nation in the history of the world, there has never been greater quality care nor greater access to it by the most common of citizens.
Yet the government-sanctioned system for regulating healthcare services completely undermines this. In the bureaucratic calculus, a bypass operation is a bypass operation is a bypass operation, whether performed by a first-year intern or a 30-year world-renowned veteran. It has a code in the system and a price that Medicare is willing to reimburse, no more, no less, no qualifiers, no accounting for skill, experience, dexterity or judgment (above all no allowance or toleration for judgment!), no exceptions.
If all there were to medicine was the correct generic, commodity cookie-cutter treatment for the matching defined disease or condition, then no doctors would be required; only kindergarten-variety bureaucrats trained to put the square pegs into the square holes and the triangular pegs into the triangular holes.
Do I exaggerate? A physician who treats a patient according to his or her professional judgment differently from what the government-sanctioned protocol produced by the ‘embedded clinical decision supports’ (the computer that tells the doctor what to do) say (s)he should faces denial of reimbursement, second-guessing of his/her decision or worse. It is happening today with Medicare billings and pharmaceutical prescriptions, and it will explode tenfold when the Medicare model is applied to the entire population.
Under Obamacare, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) may deny medicine, devices or treatments to Medicare patients that its ‘comparative effectiveness analysis’ algorithm deems unsatisfactory; that is, too costly (it’s about the cost to the agency, not the effectiveness to the patient). This is government ownership of your life.
It’s time to pull the plug on Obamacare.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
That’s the law of Supply and Demand, and it’s real, it is of the fundamental nature of human action in society, and it is not subject to repeal via political legislation.
It also explains what is wrong with the health care market in the United States and elsewhere.
The practice of medicine involves a whole lot of math and science (something which our public school pupils and public government politicians are woefully deficient in) but at its core it is an art: an art of human and social interaction among doctor, family and patient; the whole patient, not just the pancreas; the patient’s family history, not just today’s symptoms; the patient’s personality type, psychological profile, relationships, work, nutrition, exercise, sleep and drug habits, not just ink bubbles on a chart. Only a highly trained and experienced doctor or nurse or other provider who is free to practice his/her craft without third-party interference can provide the most effective care.
When we need care badly, we want the best practitioners of the art caring for us and are willing to mobilize our resources to get them. And in the freest nation in the history of the world, there has never been greater quality care nor greater access to it by the most common of citizens.
Yet the government-sanctioned system for regulating healthcare services completely undermines this. In the bureaucratic calculus, a bypass operation is a bypass operation is a bypass operation, whether performed by a first-year intern or a 30-year world-renowned veteran. It has a code in the system and a price that Medicare is willing to reimburse, no more, no less, no qualifiers, no accounting for skill, experience, dexterity or judgment (above all no allowance or toleration for judgment!), no exceptions.
If all there were to medicine was the correct generic, commodity cookie-cutter treatment for the matching defined disease or condition, then no doctors would be required; only kindergarten-variety bureaucrats trained to put the square pegs into the square holes and the triangular pegs into the triangular holes.
Do I exaggerate? A physician who treats a patient according to his or her professional judgment differently from what the government-sanctioned protocol produced by the ‘embedded clinical decision supports’ (the computer that tells the doctor what to do) say (s)he should faces denial of reimbursement, second-guessing of his/her decision or worse. It is happening today with Medicare billings and pharmaceutical prescriptions, and it will explode tenfold when the Medicare model is applied to the entire population.
Under Obamacare, the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC) may deny medicine, devices or treatments to Medicare patients that its ‘comparative effectiveness analysis’ algorithm deems unsatisfactory; that is, too costly (it’s about the cost to the agency, not the effectiveness to the patient). This is government ownership of your life.
It’s time to pull the plug on Obamacare.
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Catholic Priest issues strong invocation against socialism
A catholic priest addressing the 2012 Colorado Republican State Assembly and Convention assails socialism for taking away, not just rights, but responsibilities of free people.
For a man representing an institution that has seemed all too willing to go along with the Democrat-party big government social welfare agenda, Fr. Andrew is a breath of fresh air.
Click below.
For a man representing an institution that has seemed all too willing to go along with the Democrat-party big government social welfare agenda, Fr. Andrew is a breath of fresh air.
Click below.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Milton Friedman on Socialized Medicine
With your Obamacare debate, get some wisdom from one of the greatest economists of the 20th century. We've been warned for decades. When will we learn?
Check out these videos and more:
Check out these videos and more:
A Time For Choosing, again
The more things change...
The particulars of political campaign issues change from cycle to cycle, but fundamental principles endure. In truth, there is nothing new under the sun.
As we contemplate the issues of the 2012 election, a speech from 1964 is as true today as it was then.
On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and Democrat (not yet Governor of California), addressed the Republican National Convention. It was his first nationally televised appearance.
Watch it and think: How few particulars of the speech would have to be changed to fit the present day, and how many of our problems today stem from not listening to him then.
The particulars of political campaign issues change from cycle to cycle, but fundamental principles endure. In truth, there is nothing new under the sun.
As we contemplate the issues of the 2012 election, a speech from 1964 is as true today as it was then.
On October 27, 1964, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and Democrat (not yet Governor of California), addressed the Republican National Convention. It was his first nationally televised appearance.
Watch it and think: How few particulars of the speech would have to be changed to fit the present day, and how many of our problems today stem from not listening to him then.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Obamacare is in Critical Condition on National Review Online
National Review Online has an in-depth blog dedicated to health care policy. Highly recommended.
Click below:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Click below:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Obamacare on Video
For our readers who prefer video, here are a few top selections on Obamacare:
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
- WSJ: Does the ObamaCare repeal vote matter?
243-176: More members of the House voted to repeal than had originally voted to pass, with 10 Democrats crossing over.
- Townhall Comedy: Chief Justice Roberts Offered a Job as the Conservative Commentator on MSNBC
- American Association of Physicians and Surgeons: Why ObamaCare must be repealed
How it can happen and what are the real answers. See also: http://aapsonline.org
- FoxNews: ObamaCare and the Road to Serfdom
John Stossel interviews Dr. Lee Hieb
- The Hill: GOP Rep. Gingrey: Health law like 'Boss Hogg'
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) compared the 2010 healthcare law to Boss Hogg, the crooked commissioner of the fictional Hazzard County, Ga., in the 1970s TV series "The Dukes of Hazzard."
- The Cato Institute: The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling: What Happens Next?
More Health care reform resources on the Obamacare page.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Obamacare's Next Battle: November 2012
In November 2009 HHCapitalism.com published 121 Reasons to Reject Obama-Reid-PelosiCare. Many battles have been fought and lost since then, but this war is not over. With John Robert's tortured reasoning that defies common sense and insults the intelligence of non-law degree-holding Americans, citizens now know that their institutions cannot protect them from political power brokers unless they participate fully and excercize their constitutional rights (while they still have them) at the voting booth and in talking to their friends, neighbors, families and co-workers.
Candidates for office, campaign managers, activists and any citizen who wants to be thoroughy informed on this most critical issue may start here:
Candidates for office, campaign managers, activists and any citizen who wants to be thoroughy informed on this most critical issue may start here:
- CNN: Health care ruling can help Romney
William Bennett writes What the country thought was a debate over federal regulation of interstate trade has been transformed by Roberts into a debate over Congress' power to shape decisions through taxation.
- WSJ: A Strategy to Undo ObamaCare
Keith Hennessey writes: To push through key parts of the Affordable Care Act, Democrats used the 'reconciliation' process. A Republican president, House and Senate can use reconciliation to repeal them.
- The Cato Institute: Rarely Has Such a Smart Judge Written Such a Bad Opinion
John Robert's gain comes at the cost of Americans' liberties.
- WSJ: Romney's Tax Confusion
The candidate's response on the ObamaCare mandate reveals larger campaign problems.
- American Spectator: Time for One More Flip-Flop
Mitt Romney should admit his mandate was a mistake.
- The Hill: Fifteen governors reject or leaning against expanded Medicaid program
Elise Viebeck writes of a blow to President Obama’s promise of broader insurance coverage.
- WSJ: ObamaCare's Lost Tribe: Doctors
Daniel Henninger: The practice of medicine is the Obama health-care law's biggest loser.
- Townhall.com: IRS Gets Ready for Obamacare Implementation
Lorum Ipsum
- Washington Examiner: Odds long to undo health care law
Senator Mitch McConnell says it's hard to unravel something of the magnitude of the 2,700-page health care law.
- WSJ: What Hath the Supreme Court Wrought?
Letters to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal
- Times247.com: On Obamacare's 'silver lining' — there is none
Mark J. Fitzgibbons says the constitutional rule of law lost.
- National Review: Pfizer’s Political CEO
Without the clout in the pharmaceutical world of Jeff Kindler, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act might never have passed. But the deal he cut ended up hurting his industry.
- Kaiser Heath News: Supreme Court
A compendium of articles relevant to this topic.
- AP/Washington Post: Beware the claims
Nothing in the law ensures that people happy with their policies now can keep them.
- The Cato Institute/National Review: The States Resist Obamacare
Michael D. Tanner writes that One of the few bright spots in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare was its 7–2 decision striking down the Obama administration’s attempt to blackmail states into going along with a massive and costly expansion of Medicaid.
- Mises.org: Hospital of Cards
How did we get here?
- The Cato Institute: A Strange Constitutional Win
Who would have thought we could win our Commerce Clause challenge while the Affordable Care Act is upheld?
- Mises.org: Government Medical "Insurance"
We've been warned for decades about the encroachment of government power into medicine.
- The Cato Institute: ObamaCare's Now a Bigger Mess
Last week's Supreme Court ruling actually added another layer of cost, complexity and political contentiousness to the bill.
- Times247: Mandate seen pushing church out of health care
Many Catholics are wondering whether their religious freedoms will survive.
- The Cato Institute: Why the Obamacare Ruling Matters
Much of the political Left remains mystified by the health-care law’s continued unpopularity.
- Mises.org: The Devilish Principles of Hillarycare
Remember the Democrat's 1993 attempt? Ignore history and unchanging principles at your peril.
- WSJ: A Vast New Taxing Power
The Chief Justice's ObamaCare ruling is far from the check on Congress of right-left myth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)