US combat troops have left Iraq. Iran has fired up a nuclear reactor that is almost certainly the beginning of a nuclear weapons program.
What would the world be like if we hadn't invaded Iraq?
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. It's very likely that the UN would have let the post-Kuwait sanctions lapse. Whether he had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons before we invaded or not, evidence suggests that he was trying maintain the ability to resume such work as soon as the sanctions and inspections ceased.
Today Iraq and Iran would be locked in an arms race. The most oil-rich and politically explosive piece of real estate in the world would be an even bigger basket case than usual. $4/gallon gas would be nothing if they started tearing up the Middle East.
Oil isn't the only reason we went into Iraq, and by itself it's not a sufficient one, but given than it is the fuel for every industrialized economy in the world, we should be glad that Saddam isn't in power today.
We can't have an open border and a generous social welfare system.
Right now Congress is debating new regulations for financial institutions, and there are conservatives out there who think the very idea is wrong-headed.
I'm going to take the moderate approach. I also think it's the traditional conservative stance.
The conservative approach to the economy is largely "hands off." Businessmen know how to run their businesses far better than politicians. When people who know nothing about the private sector start making rules, they can bog businesses — and the economy — down by making innovation and growth more expensive than it would otherwise be. If the government will get out of the way, the free market will take care of itself.
Under one condition, that is.
Traditionally, conservatives recognized that free markets — and democracy — only work when coupled with morality. Humans will always sin, but there have been ages when common decency was a bit more common. And there have been times when greed surpassed good sense.
For example, monopolies are not inherently evil. But the 19th century monopolies became problems when they realized they could do whatever they wanted and then did just that.
In modern America we've reached a point, hopefully temporarily, when corporate officers see their good, the good of the company, the good of the shareholders, and the good of the customers as four distinct things. And they see their own good as the primary concern.
While we can't ignore the government's role in the collapse of the financial market, we shouldn't exaggerate it either. A whole lot of people did some awfully stupid and selfish things, assuming that they wouldn't be the ones left holding the bag. They've shown us that they cannot police themselves, so we're going to have to do it for them.
But that doesn't mean we should let the left do whatever crosses their beady little minds. Before we accept new regulations, we should consider a few things:
1) Was lack of enforcement of existing rules a factor in the collapse?
Government, but the left more than the right, loves to make new rules when the old ones were never enforced properly. This only adds burdens without creating any actual security.
2) Power corrupts.
There are stupid, greedy, and power hungry people in government, too. And there are good people who are simply overzealous. And there are people who don't have a clue what they're doing. New regulation should be added slowly and carefully with as much oversight on the regulators as the regulatees.
3) Less is more.
We have to have rules, but it's all too easy to overburden the private sector economy. Life is risk, and we'll never remove all the chance of another stupidity fueled collapse. Trying to do so will only prevent our economy from getting back up to full speed. But wasn't the "speed" part of the problem? Yes, but everybody's been burned pretty darn good; I think we can err to the side of liberty. In general, I think it's always preferable to err a little to the side of liberty.
4) Think out of the box.
Is "regulation" the only way to go? Is there a way to raise the costs of failure in such a way as to discourage insane gambling? Without adding to the cost of business? For instance, what if a corporate bankruptcy required the CEO and directors to forfeit 50% of their personal assets? Might jail time be appropriate for future failures of the magnitude we've recently seen? Replace golden parachutes with orange jumpsuits and see what happens.
All talk of regulation isn't bad. I applaud the GOP for working with the Democrats to make better regulation rather than just sitting in the corner so they "can't be blamed" for whatever insanity the Dems come up with. If we're careful, we might just all live through this.
There are no jobs Americans won't do with 10% unemployment.
It's been crazy busy at work (which affects home), but I can break the silence with, I think, a work complaint that sheds some light on government and the future of health care.
I work in radiation oncology designing the patients' radiation treatments.
Under Medicare rules (and most insurance companies mimic their rules), if a patient gets a CAT scan today, I can't print out the radiation plan today, or we can't get all the money we would normally receive. If the patient starts treatment tomorrow, I can't print the plan tomorrow or we won't get another fee we're normally entitled to. The only way we can get all we're normally paid is to push the patient's treatment off until Monday.
In this case (and many others) Medicare rules punish efficiency and encourage us to let the patient suffer a little longer.
So I printed the plan today, he'll start tomorrow, and we get the shaft. Thank you, federal government.
(And next year, they may decide to slash all of those payments simply because they can.)
It is a fitting coincidence that I'm wearing largely black today. It's April 15, Tax Day. I'm writing this before I make out my check and further sour my mood.
No one likes to pay taxes, but it's a necessary evil. The government must do some things, and that takes money. The question is how much money and whose.
The debates about "sharing the wealth" and transfer payments and "paying your fair share" all boil down to this:
Some people think there is a certain amount of money beyond which you have no claim to your earnings. And they think they should get to decide what that is.
And the number keeps going down. They get stars in their eyes and wild ideas of all the good they could do if they just had a little more of your money. So brace yourselves; it's about to get worse.
Some tax-related reading for your ... well, enjoyment certainly isn't the right word:
The Preemptive Tax Revolt
Obama's promised tax increase on "the rich" "will raise almost $700 billion [over 10 years], or only enough to cover about half of the budget deficit this year alone."
Europe's VAT Lessons
VAT taxes start low then grow and never lower income tax rates.
I recently highlighted an article that said 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes. At least one person took this fact and labeled the Tea Party folks hypocrites. Why?
By this person's "logic," if 47% of Americans aren't paying income taxes, at least 47% of the Tea Partiers aren't. So they're receiving more benefit from the federal government than they're paying in taxes — for example, they pay $1 in taxes and get $1.50 in benefits. They're benefiting from the government's redistribution of wealth and complaining about it at the same time.
Let's say that's accurate. How do we respond?
1) The US government spends much more than it takes in. Technically everyone gets more "benefit" than they pay in taxes. This will continue right up to the point where the federal government implodes (i.e., no one will lend them any more money).
2) Implosion or not, eventually we're all going to have to help pay that money back. Us, our kids, and their kids.
3) For this to be anything like hypocrisy, you'd need to be applying for some government benefit. Your state getting money for roads or schools isn't up to you. It's a passive benefit. These folks probably aren't actively seeking benefits.
4) Even if they are, our alleged benefiting from this government policy doesn't make it right.
This argument makes as much sense as a teenager watching his parents spend themselves into the poorhouse. Why should he care as long as he's getting new shoes, phones, ipods, and whatever else he wants?
How about because he cares about his family's financial situation? How about because he doesn't want his parents to ruin themselves? How about because he knows if this continues his family will get their house, cars, and boat taken away?
Enlightened self-interest? Nothing wrong with that.
Agree with them or not, the Tea Partiers are not hypocrites; they're concerned citizens.
An article explaining that health care reform would exclude illegal immigrants (yeah, right, for about six minutes) included this troublesome line:
"Proponents of reducing immigration believe that allowing illegal immigrants access to health care is an incentive for them to come, and an unfair tax burden on Americans."
What's so troublesome about that?
This author, like so many, says opponents of illegal immigration oppose all immigration.
That's simply not true. Sure, there are people who want to end all immigration, but that is a small number compared to those who are concerned about our porous border and the dangers and costs associated with it.
It's all too common in American politics to cast your opponent's position as the kind of thing all reasonable people should abhor. We can't allow that to happen here.
Opponents of illegal immigration are not xenophobes. We simply think the law should be enforced.
So the health care reform battle is over. (yeah, right)
Does that mean we get to rest? I wish. We know this batch of Democrats are an ambitious bunch, and now they've got the clock counting down to November (I'll be utterly and completely shocked if they don't lose the House).
So they've got to scratch a few more items off the wishlist before they lose the chance.
This didn't get much attention, but they've scratched one off already: college loans. The health care reform bill also made the federal government the sole provider of subsidized college loans. Why? They're going borrow money and re-lend it at a higher rate and use the profit to pay for health care.
Next? The spectre of "climate change." And immigration. And "financial reform."
Like I said, ambitious.
This is a brief summary of my opposition to ObamaCare, aimed mostly at visitors but hopefully also helpful to regulars. I have written thousands of words over the last year on this topic; I'm going to link to those and other folks, so if you want more detail or explanation, follow the links.
First and foremost, opposing ObamaCare does not mean I'm happy with the status quo. There are very few who don't want to reform our health care system. But ObamaCare isn't the way to do it. Setting aside the fact that most of it is unconstitutional and rips away many of our freedoms, it simply won't work.
It will not rein in health care costs.
The biggest problem we have is that costs are rising at an incredible rate. The biggest culprit is that health care costs are invisible to the patient. We appear to be spending someone else's money.
It will only improve access to medical care in a few years and then only for a little while.
When the benefits kick in (four years after the taxes start), people who didn't have insurance — or good insurance — will be able to go see a doctor when they want or need to. But there aren't enough doctors. And people tend to over-use "free" services. So it will be hard to get an appointment. Fees will go up (supply and demand). Then the government will step in and limit fees. And, like now with Medicare and Medicaid, providers will stop seeing people on these plans.
We can't afford it.
It's "cost savings" is based on accounting gimmicks. Every government program ends up costing more than promised. In the end, the government will have to increase taxes (which we can't afford), borrow money (which we can't afford), or cut services.
It's designed to lead us to single-payer.
Mr. Obama and just about every other major Democrat has said publicly this is supposed to be a first step toward a single-payer system. They can slowly push the system that direction. But the current bill also seems to be designed to fail in that direction — for instance, when doctor's start rejecting people on these subsidized plans because they don't pay enough, the Dems can call this a flaw in the private insurance market that is best fixed by putting everyone into one system.
Everything proposed has been tried somewhere else and failed.
What has been passed and what will be proposed next, it's all been done — whether in a state or another country. It doesn't work.
The latest on Massachusetts here and here.
What will work?
The only thing left is to reconsider the whole concept of health insurance. Why isn't it more like auto insurance — catastrophic coverage? If we ask health insurance to cover less, premiums go down. That savings can be used to pay cash for health care. Patients will be more aware of costs, and providers will have to keep costs in check. It works in eye care. It will work here. And if we still need to subsidize some people's care, we can, but that's in a system that is pushing health care costs down rather than driving them up.
More: Indiana's experience with HSAs
Related:
What's Wrong with ObamaCare?
Barring some miracle preventing the president's signature, ObamaCare is law. What's left to say?
For Democrats, the ends justify the means. We already knew that, of course, but they sunk to new levels in this. The bribes, lies, and backroom deals were amazing to watch. You know it's bad when we feel it was a victory to get them to actually vote on the bill.
We know the truth about "pro-life" Democrats. They are either two-faced or terribly gullible — believing an executive order will accomplish what they couldn't make law and trusting an executive that has broken every promise he's made. Most of all, no matter how pro-life they claim to be, if they vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, they're supporting the radical left's agenda.
We now know that the Democrats are more committed to their leftist ideology than to their constituents. They didn't care that the people didn't want it. They didn't care that it's failed everywhere it's been tried. Their ideology demanded it, so it happened.
This isn't over. They've promised this is only step one. We know they want to go to a full-fledged single-payer system. In fact, I strongly believe they know this thing they've created will fail. I think it's weaknesses are coordinated to make single-payer look attractive. We have more work to do.
Elections matter. The American people put these guys in power, and this is what we got. Hopefully people will see we cut off our nose to spite our face. Hopefully the November elections will reward the Dems for these shenanigans.
There is hope. Many have argued that this bill, once passed, would be almost impossible to undo. And I certainly think we've got to hurry — the longer it lasts the harder it will be to undo. But given the way it was passed and how much we the people said we didn't want it, we may be able to generate enough political will to remove.
If it lasts long enough to start to damage things, the Dems will call for another leftward lurch, but we can remind the public that they said this wouldn't work from the beginning and they shouldn't trust the Dems to fix it.
There is more hope. Yes, life will be harder — higher taxes, lower employment, waits for doctors and procedures, less R&D into medicines and technology — but suffering is good for the soul. Seriously, though, one thing we must remember is that this world, no matter how bad it gets, isn't all there is. Seventy, eighty years and we're done. A drop in the bucket measured against eternity.
While we fight the Democratic nightmare that would be ObamaCare, we shouldn't let the GOP off for their part in this monstrosity. If they had seriously addressed health care reform 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess today.
When the Republicans first retook Congress in the 90's, everyone was sick of health care reform, so it's hard to blame them for letting it sit for a while. But they let it sit for 10 years.
That's when they invented Health Savings Accounts, although their version was poorly-executed and little more than a band-aid on our broken system. It was something, but not enough. They let a lot of time pass with no real attempts at changing the status quo.
President George W. Bush made another attempt at getting Congress to make some basic reforms in 2007, but the Democrats were in control by then and were not going let a Republican get any credit for health care reform.
What happened between 2003 and 2007? I mean besides the GOP spending spree.
In November, the Democrats will almost certainly lose at least one house of Congress for what they've done on this issue. And they deserve it.
I'm just not sure the Republicans deserve to replace them.
Liberals have finally had to admit that conservatives do more than say "no" to health care reform. There are actual ideas — even bills — on the table. I'm pleased to say some of them are even interacting with those ideas.
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic says, "Democrats propose to shift resources from the rich and the healthy to the poor and the sick. Republicans want to do just the opposite."
One idea he hates is health savings accounts (HSA) which, in his words, "give individuals who buy insurance a tax deduction for money they set aside for a high-deductible plan. Since tax deductions are worth more to people in higher tax brackets, and since high-deductible plans appeal more to those with lower medical expenses, the plans attract the rich and healthy, leaving the poor and sick behind."
Health care costs
He's partly right; in the short-term, going to an HSA-based system would not help the poor or the sick, especially those with chronic illnesses/pre-existing conditions. Could we do something to mitigate that? Of course.
Long-term, though, HSAs — no, let's call it what it is, cash. Long-term, only going to a cash-based system will reduce overall health care costs.
Insurance-based systems of one stripe or another have been tried in every corner of the world, and they have failed to control costs. The simple fact is insurance-based health care makes costs invisible to the user. Make costs visible and felt and patients will force health care costs down — or at the very least to flatten out — quite naturally.
We've seen this in eye care and veterinary medicine. It will work here too.
And reigning in health care costs helps everyone.
How HSAs work
But in his indictment against HSAs, I don't think Chait really understands how they work. First, it's not a "tax deduction" but pre-tax money. A minor difference? Yes and no.
The people he's concerned about largely don't pay income taxes, but this will still increase the amount of money they take in on April 15. And pre-tax money, unlike a deduction, decreases your adjusted gross income no matter what — you can still take the standard deduction and there wouldn't be any cutoffs.
The other key feature of HSAs, at least as envisioned by conservatives, is their permanence. Many people have a "flex" account that has to be used or forfeited every year. Money in an HSA would be yours until you die, and then it is inheritable. So you start saving now for health needs in fifteen years. This gives the young and healthy poor the chance to save up for when they get old and sick.
What about the poor?
I think Chait underestimates how many this can help. Employers who can't afford conventional health insurance could still afford to put a little into your HSA. The same goes for those who don't make enough to buy their own insurance — at least they can put a little in an HSA.
But maybe there would be people who can't put enough back to pay for their medical expenses. Don't we already have a system to deal with that? Most people accept that there is and must be some kind of social safety net. Can we fund HSAs for the poor much like the food stamp debit cards? Could we subsidize care for sudden expenses or chronic diseases?
Of course. That some people might need help under this system doesn't mean it isn't the best option for controlling health care costs long-term.
It is the best option. So far, it's the only option.
If you've got a better idea, we'd love to hear it.
/* --------------
-----analytics code */
