I am not a fan of Ted Kennedy. I do not want to hide that fact. I am sad when anyone passes away and it is sad when that person is a high profile figure that has served his country. I am not blogging to speak of the disagreements I had with Ted Kennedy most of which are based on his unconstitutional thinking and socialist leaning tendencies. Ok that is enough of that. His life is a testament though to something great about America.
America's healthcare has many faults. Most of those faults have to do with government regulation that does not allow a true free market to exist. You know its one of those "healthcare is so important we can not allow it to go unregulated in the free market" type deals. The fact is that most things in the unregulated free market is what we Americans like best. Ted Kennedy had the best healthcare available. He was given many choices of healthcare to choose from when he became a U.S. Senator. He was not forced on one plan nor was he in a position where his private insurance companies had to worry about competing with a public option that had no profit incentive and thus could charge lower prices and eventually force businesses to drop health coverage or sign all their workers up on the public option. Kennedy had the very best to choose from.
I know he sponsored and fought for a public healthcare option. But in his old age I bet he did not use Medicare services. No, he had the best privatized care. Healthcare is not something that our leaders honestly believe will better all our lives. It is a way to get more control of our lives and spread wealth from those who have to those who do not have. Ted Kennedy would have never chosen a public option over private health insurance. Do not use his name to push this reform through. I know he championed it, I know he supported it, I know universal healthcare was one of his big causes. But this is a case of "do as I DO not as I SAY" moment. His life is a testament to choices not socialized medicine despite him praising and supporting such reform. We should honor his passing by explaining what he "did" not what he has "said". And what he did was CHOOSE the best private healthcare you can find.
... Lets build on that
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
Taxes on the Wealthy = Taxes on Everyone
Let me assure you I believe that wealthy individuals should pay more taxes in this county than do poor individuals, lower class, middle class, or upper middle class. This would be true under almost any tax system including the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, a progressive income tax, regressive income Tax, etc... But lets keep in mind that politicians love votes and they are going to try and tax the fewest people they can so that those who do not pay taxes are more inclined to vote for them. To operate this huge government that minority of people chosen must be those that those politicians love to declare as "rich". This is possible due to our ignorance of economics in our country. Let me explain or better yet allow Neal Boortz to explain.
The link below is a little longer read than most of my blog entries. I want to assure you that if you read this you will understand in the fullest why raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing especially during a time like this. You will also learn who is truly looked upon as "rich" and will learn that most of those "rich" are in fact not rich. Enough of the amateur...
This Link will give you the real life deal
The link below is a little longer read than most of my blog entries. I want to assure you that if you read this you will understand in the fullest why raising taxes on the rich is a bad thing especially during a time like this. You will also learn who is truly looked upon as "rich" and will learn that most of those "rich" are in fact not rich. Enough of the amateur...
This Link will give you the real life deal
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Pre-existing Conditions=Discrimination=Good Thing
One of the complaints about our current healthcare system in the country (I have plenty of mine own) is that insurance companies discriminate. They do this by not allowing individuals with pre-existing conditions to have immediate healthcare coverage. This has led to the President to push for a Public Option (which will lead to universal healthcare and more than likely a single paying system) for government paid (taxpayer paid) insurance plans. This argument has been met with very little resistance on the part of other politicians and individuals. Yes healthcare overhaul has met a lot of resistance but this destructive language against insurance companies for discriminating has not been met with resistance. Why?
Most Americans do not love ture freedom and independence. Americans today hear a President say something that sounds kind and compassionate and they just love it and never give it much thought. But God forbid we actually listen to him and force insurance companies to not be allowed to discriminate on these conditions. This is one of the most anti-freedom statements a person can make. Lets face it, why should I be responsible to pay for or more importantly why should an insurance company not be allowed to choose who they want to insure and not. Since when should government have the right to deny a private company to choose who they work with and don't. The sad thing is that we have come so far left in this country that no one even gives it thought. If a person with pre-existing conditions is given insurance due to government forcing the insurance company to undertake that risk, those costs will simply be spread out throughout the pool of other people who have insurance. In other words, we without pre-existing conditions will be forced to pay for those with those conditions.
A company should be allowed to charge what they want to whom they want if that person is in agreement on receiving health insurance from that company. That company should also be allowed to not insure a person if they feel it is too much of a risk. The Solution is to allow people to pay different amounts for their insurance based on the agreement with that insurance company. If a person who smokes a pack a day, drinks a pack a day, and is 80 pounds over weight comes in and wants insurance, they should be allowed. That company should also be allowed to charge that person what they want including more than the non-drinking, non-smoking, and healthy person. The healthy person does not cost that company as much so they should not be forced to pay as much. This will also motivate people to take care of themselves as it could save them thousands in premiums each year. No more fat police just make people pay for what they cost. When you spread it out, there is no motivation to conserve and in this case be healthy.
If that person is not able to afford insurance just as older people might not be able to afford it because it is more expensive with the obvious more costs, then private companies such as churches should be allowed to help them afford their insurance. There are many other reforms we can make now that can fix many of these problems and in fact make health insurance cheaper. The answer is not a communist-dictator like idea of forcing people to pay and take care of other people whether the person is an individual or a company that would rather not insure them. Where have our freedoms gone? More importantly, where has our common sense gone where people object to this in the first place?
Most Americans do not love ture freedom and independence. Americans today hear a President say something that sounds kind and compassionate and they just love it and never give it much thought. But God forbid we actually listen to him and force insurance companies to not be allowed to discriminate on these conditions. This is one of the most anti-freedom statements a person can make. Lets face it, why should I be responsible to pay for or more importantly why should an insurance company not be allowed to choose who they want to insure and not. Since when should government have the right to deny a private company to choose who they work with and don't. The sad thing is that we have come so far left in this country that no one even gives it thought. If a person with pre-existing conditions is given insurance due to government forcing the insurance company to undertake that risk, those costs will simply be spread out throughout the pool of other people who have insurance. In other words, we without pre-existing conditions will be forced to pay for those with those conditions.
A company should be allowed to charge what they want to whom they want if that person is in agreement on receiving health insurance from that company. That company should also be allowed to not insure a person if they feel it is too much of a risk. The Solution is to allow people to pay different amounts for their insurance based on the agreement with that insurance company. If a person who smokes a pack a day, drinks a pack a day, and is 80 pounds over weight comes in and wants insurance, they should be allowed. That company should also be allowed to charge that person what they want including more than the non-drinking, non-smoking, and healthy person. The healthy person does not cost that company as much so they should not be forced to pay as much. This will also motivate people to take care of themselves as it could save them thousands in premiums each year. No more fat police just make people pay for what they cost. When you spread it out, there is no motivation to conserve and in this case be healthy.
If that person is not able to afford insurance just as older people might not be able to afford it because it is more expensive with the obvious more costs, then private companies such as churches should be allowed to help them afford their insurance. There are many other reforms we can make now that can fix many of these problems and in fact make health insurance cheaper. The answer is not a communist-dictator like idea of forcing people to pay and take care of other people whether the person is an individual or a company that would rather not insure them. Where have our freedoms gone? More importantly, where has our common sense gone where people object to this in the first place?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Why I love Economics and most people do not
Economics is believed to be a very difficult subject and concept to grasp and thus very few people can stand it much less like or love it. The Praxis exams that teachers must pass in order to earn certification to teach a subject in high school are not hard. But the economics test is by many standards the hardest if not by far the hardest. I took it two weeks ago. I agree and I know a lot more about economics than most people and in fact most economics teachers even those who have been teaching it for years.
When we teach economics we teach the complicated parts of it first and try to apply it to real life. That is not the correct method. It confuses people and they quit and lose interest. Economics is not the study of graphs and big words like so many teachers teach. Call me a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder if that is done on purpose by our education establishment. You say why would they do that? The more economics you understand the less government and bureaucracy you like. Our education system is exactly that in fact and thus most economist hate the way our education system is ran in the U.S.A. The less you know the less you will hate it.
Economics is simply the study of the efficient allocation (spreading out) of scare resources (obviously there is not an unlimited supply of stuff) which have alternative uses (those resources can be used on different things). That is not too complicated. It simply says this: When a resource or good is used for X, just because a benefit comes about does not mean it is the most efficient allocation of that good. If 100,000,000 million dollars is spent on teaching sex education in schools and the pregnancy rate drops 1 percent with very little if any drop in STD's most would say "just one life is worth saving!" "There is not price on life." That is not true. The cost of 100,000,000 million dollars spent on Sex education is not 100,000,000 million dollars. That is paper representing value. But the "COST" is that thing in which you did not spend the 100,000,000 million on that you could have if chosen. In other words if the 100,000,000 million could have hired more police officers or built more prisons to house sex offenders and thieves and murders, how many more lives could have been saved or helped than it being spent on sex education?
Many economist are considered "uncompassionate" So many are in fact that the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is used today by many politicians who want republicans and conservatives to care more about people like say liberals do. But it is the economist that cares more because he wants the most people to benefit from the money spent.
I love economics for many reasons. One reason is that I love I just absolutely love.... being right. LOL Most of my friends would argue that I always think I'm right. I can't argue there that is an accurate assumption about me. But so does everyone else believe that their always right. But economics opens the window for knowledge that can only be grasped through economic analysis. I have learned more in the last four years about society than I did in the first 22 of my life. Economic analysis is what I use to make most of my opinions.. and because of that... I believe I am right usually. It is not being cocky... it is economics that allows for it.
P.S. If you want to understand economics buy just two books. I promise they are easy reads and this complicated subject will be made much easier.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell
You will understand economics and your views on so much will change I guarantee it.
When we teach economics we teach the complicated parts of it first and try to apply it to real life. That is not the correct method. It confuses people and they quit and lose interest. Economics is not the study of graphs and big words like so many teachers teach. Call me a conspiracy theorist but sometimes I wonder if that is done on purpose by our education establishment. You say why would they do that? The more economics you understand the less government and bureaucracy you like. Our education system is exactly that in fact and thus most economist hate the way our education system is ran in the U.S.A. The less you know the less you will hate it.
Economics is simply the study of the efficient allocation (spreading out) of scare resources (obviously there is not an unlimited supply of stuff) which have alternative uses (those resources can be used on different things). That is not too complicated. It simply says this: When a resource or good is used for X, just because a benefit comes about does not mean it is the most efficient allocation of that good. If 100,000,000 million dollars is spent on teaching sex education in schools and the pregnancy rate drops 1 percent with very little if any drop in STD's most would say "just one life is worth saving!" "There is not price on life." That is not true. The cost of 100,000,000 million dollars spent on Sex education is not 100,000,000 million dollars. That is paper representing value. But the "COST" is that thing in which you did not spend the 100,000,000 million on that you could have if chosen. In other words if the 100,000,000 million could have hired more police officers or built more prisons to house sex offenders and thieves and murders, how many more lives could have been saved or helped than it being spent on sex education?
Many economist are considered "uncompassionate" So many are in fact that the phrase "compassionate conservatism" is used today by many politicians who want republicans and conservatives to care more about people like say liberals do. But it is the economist that cares more because he wants the most people to benefit from the money spent.
I love economics for many reasons. One reason is that I love I just absolutely love.... being right. LOL Most of my friends would argue that I always think I'm right. I can't argue there that is an accurate assumption about me. But so does everyone else believe that their always right. But economics opens the window for knowledge that can only be grasped through economic analysis. I have learned more in the last four years about society than I did in the first 22 of my life. Economic analysis is what I use to make most of my opinions.. and because of that... I believe I am right usually. It is not being cocky... it is economics that allows for it.
P.S. If you want to understand economics buy just two books. I promise they are easy reads and this complicated subject will be made much easier.
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
Applied Economics by Thomas Sowell
You will understand economics and your views on so much will change I guarantee it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
