Channeling "Native American" professor Elizabeth Warren to the extreme, President Obama presented a flurry of oh-no-you-didn't comments regarding the building of businesses. In all fairness, yes, the government builds roads, pays teachers, and creates technology (e.g. the Internet), and does other things that provide tools to help business growth....BUT government does those things via taxes they collect from other American citizens and businesses in prior years.
Government doesn't create things from nothing. Without the money it gets from people and businesses, the government can do nothing. (Yes, taxation is necessary.) On the other hand, businesses and individuals do not necessarily require government in order to be productive. Certain things about government can help...while other things about it hinder.
That said, Obama's mission has been to convince us all that the people must and should depend on government. The people should give up as much of their hard earned income as possible to the government and let it take care of us through (or in spite of) it's vast, inefficient bureaucracies.
Obama's own book illustrates his leftist extremist roots. In fact, the "Frank" he describes as a mentor and father-figure was card-carrying communist and Pro-Soviet activist Frank Marshall Davis.
Kennedy's noble "Ask not what your country can do for you..." has become Obama's "Ask what you can do without the government."
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Safety Third
About a year ago, I saw part of a TED talk by Mike Rowe. You can see it here. From time to time, this gem is pushed to the forefront of the chaotic studio control room that is my mind.
The video starts with an amusing talk about his experiences in sheep castration on his show "Dirty Jobs," but the part I have mulled over time and time again is his brief discussion on "safety" on his other show "The Deadliest Catch." It starts 12:54 into the talk. He describes his epiphany on safety regulation and how they can give a worker (or user of a given tool or piece of equipment) a false sense of security - factitious safety, if you will. The worker trusts that all safety regulations, labels, and any one of a myriad of "safety" items will keep him safe. He puts so much trust in these things that, to varying degrees, he eventually relinquishes responsibility for his own safety.
Don't get me wrong: Safety training is very important. Important because it imparts knowledge - mental tools - for one to protect one's self. But too often the physical tools and book regulations can be a smokescreen. The very point the crab boat captain makes when he says, "My job is not to get you home alive. My job is to get you home rich. If you want to get home alive, that's on you."
In light of the recent passage of new financial regulations by the House of Representatives, I posit that the same is true for financial safety. In my younger years, I was very pro-regulation and pro-government. My mind was bent on seeing the government fix that which was wrong, unfair, or unsafe...but that was before I realized it's really ALL just smoke and mirrors.
Financial regulation gives the consumer/investor a false sense of security. Financial regulation is simply a maze of laws and rules that unscrupulous people learn to navigate in order to find as many loopholes as possible. New rules simply mean they look for new ways around them, while the well-intentioned, law-abiding investor places his money in a system wrought factitious safety.
Regulation encourages the investor to assume that Uncle Sam has everything protected. The reality is the regulators and the firms are in bed together. Wall Street traders learn the ropes, wine and dine with the Who's Who in the world of finance then move over to the public sector, where they end up regulating friends.
The best regulator is the investor's own mind. For example, in a wide-open, unregulated stock market, rather than relying on the myth that the Government is the fiduciary vanguard of all, investors/consumers would be use their own brain as their safety net when deciding what to do with their money. This encourages the investor to be fully educated as to their investments - or to not be an investor at all (which might actually be a good thing.) Caveat emptor should be viewed as the mantra of the consumer, rather than the harbinger of the unscrupulous seller.
The video starts with an amusing talk about his experiences in sheep castration on his show "Dirty Jobs," but the part I have mulled over time and time again is his brief discussion on "safety" on his other show "The Deadliest Catch." It starts 12:54 into the talk. He describes his epiphany on safety regulation and how they can give a worker (or user of a given tool or piece of equipment) a false sense of security - factitious safety, if you will. The worker trusts that all safety regulations, labels, and any one of a myriad of "safety" items will keep him safe. He puts so much trust in these things that, to varying degrees, he eventually relinquishes responsibility for his own safety.
Don't get me wrong: Safety training is very important. Important because it imparts knowledge - mental tools - for one to protect one's self. But too often the physical tools and book regulations can be a smokescreen. The very point the crab boat captain makes when he says, "My job is not to get you home alive. My job is to get you home rich. If you want to get home alive, that's on you."
In light of the recent passage of new financial regulations by the House of Representatives, I posit that the same is true for financial safety. In my younger years, I was very pro-regulation and pro-government. My mind was bent on seeing the government fix that which was wrong, unfair, or unsafe...but that was before I realized it's really ALL just smoke and mirrors.
Financial regulation gives the consumer/investor a false sense of security. Financial regulation is simply a maze of laws and rules that unscrupulous people learn to navigate in order to find as many loopholes as possible. New rules simply mean they look for new ways around them, while the well-intentioned, law-abiding investor places his money in a system wrought factitious safety.
Regulation encourages the investor to assume that Uncle Sam has everything protected. The reality is the regulators and the firms are in bed together. Wall Street traders learn the ropes, wine and dine with the Who's Who in the world of finance then move over to the public sector, where they end up regulating friends.
The best regulator is the investor's own mind. For example, in a wide-open, unregulated stock market, rather than relying on the myth that the Government is the fiduciary vanguard of all, investors/consumers would be use their own brain as their safety net when deciding what to do with their money. This encourages the investor to be fully educated as to their investments - or to not be an investor at all (which might actually be a good thing.) Caveat emptor should be viewed as the mantra of the consumer, rather than the harbinger of the unscrupulous seller.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Never Personalize Diplomacy
Ms. Clinton is was a poor choice for Secretary of State. She is a politician, not a diplomat. One should never personalize diplomacy as she did with her comments here.
"Pakistan is close to my heart. Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles and I am committed to the success of this (strategic) dialogue,"
She has negated what little credibility she had and rendered worthless any future words to India she might proffer.
"Pakistan is close to my heart. Pakistan’s struggles are my struggles and I am committed to the success of this (strategic) dialogue,"
She has negated what little credibility she had and rendered worthless any future words to India she might proffer.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A Reboot for the Health Care Debate
I agree with most of what President Obama's health care plan calls for. However, I do not agree with the creation a full-on government-run health plan to compete with insurance. An insurance company that receives its funds via our taxes (rather than having to actually earn it) would essentially wipe out all other insurance companies...with the end result being a single-payer government health plan. Whether or not this is the actual goal of the left is not really important, is it? With a government plan, it is the end result - not just the first step - that should be considered.
What I see as the big issue no one is addressing is that insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk. However, health insurance companies don't really spread risk - not evenly anyway. They give breaks to what their actuaries see as "healthy people" and jack up prices, deny coverage and/or summarily terminate policies for what they see as "unhealthy people". Insurance companies also give huge premium breaks to large corporations while small businesses and individuals have no such advantage. This disparity in premiums can be addressed by Congress.
Additionally, there are other problems that can be addressed by law without creating another federal bureaucracy. Here are some ways I see health care can be reformed:
1. Fairness in pricing:
a. By law, for any given insurance plan, an insurance company's rates must be made equal for all people. Yes, that means that "healthy people" will pay more and "unhealthy people" will pay less. By ensuring equal cost per plan, the consumer can make an informed decision without jumping through hoops full of paperwork and applications with each company to find out what their rate will be. If the premium for a plan is too high, the consumer can go elsewhere. This is where the administration's original Health Insurance Exchange program can help with consumer choice.
b. By law, for any given medical service, a healthcare provider must charge the same amount to all patients regardless of insurance plan or insured status. No more sky-high pricing models for non-insured patients for the purpose of negotiating with insurance companies.
2. Instead of assuming the burden of managing a health plan for employees and re-negotiating cost year after year, employers can simply subsidize the cost of whatever insurance the employee chooses via the Exchange. This reduces administrative burden on the employer. This also allows the employee to choose their own plan (as opposed to restricting them to the plan employer has chosen as in the current common model).
3. Medicare is expanded to include unemployed persons receiving unemployment benefits, the disabled or otherwise indigent/unemployable citizens.
4. Providers continue to have the option of participating with Medicare or not. Providers whose local market share in their specialty exceeds an acceptable threshold (i.e. monopoly or near-monopoly) are mandated to participate with Medicare.
5. Insurance companies cannot terminate coverage for any medical reason. Once an application is accepted, they assume coverage for all health care of the covered persons under their plan.
6. The Federal Health Reinsurance Corporation (FHRC) is established to ensure the solvency of insurance companies and to act as a safety net for insurance companies that may go bankrupt. The FHRC has oversight authority of insurance companies and may prosecute individuals responsible for fraud or criminal negligence. (The FHRC is to the health insurance industry what the FDIC is to the banking industry.)
7. Small businesses shall receive sliding scale tax credits for payment of premium subsidies. The sliding scale is based on profit per employee. The higher the profit per employee, the lower the tax credit per employee.
8. Health care providers and drug companies may receive tax credits for providing quality care and free medication to uninsured persons under a Health Care Pay-It-Forward program. Provider tax credit (amount TBD, but should be on par with Medicare reimbursement rates) is dependent upon the quality of care. Quality is measured by comparing outcomes of a providers insured vs. non-insured patients. Significant discrepancies in quality measurements disqualify the provider from receiving any tax credit for that period. The federal government (agency TBD) has authority to audit any health records of non-insured patients covered under the program to ensure compliance with quality reporting guidelines and to abate fraud.
What I see as the big issue no one is addressing is that insurance is supposed to be about spreading risk. However, health insurance companies don't really spread risk - not evenly anyway. They give breaks to what their actuaries see as "healthy people" and jack up prices, deny coverage and/or summarily terminate policies for what they see as "unhealthy people". Insurance companies also give huge premium breaks to large corporations while small businesses and individuals have no such advantage. This disparity in premiums can be addressed by Congress.
Additionally, there are other problems that can be addressed by law without creating another federal bureaucracy. Here are some ways I see health care can be reformed:
1. Fairness in pricing:
a. By law, for any given insurance plan, an insurance company's rates must be made equal for all people. Yes, that means that "healthy people" will pay more and "unhealthy people" will pay less. By ensuring equal cost per plan, the consumer can make an informed decision without jumping through hoops full of paperwork and applications with each company to find out what their rate will be. If the premium for a plan is too high, the consumer can go elsewhere. This is where the administration's original Health Insurance Exchange program can help with consumer choice.
b. By law, for any given medical service, a healthcare provider must charge the same amount to all patients regardless of insurance plan or insured status. No more sky-high pricing models for non-insured patients for the purpose of negotiating with insurance companies.
2. Instead of assuming the burden of managing a health plan for employees and re-negotiating cost year after year, employers can simply subsidize the cost of whatever insurance the employee chooses via the Exchange. This reduces administrative burden on the employer. This also allows the employee to choose their own plan (as opposed to restricting them to the plan employer has chosen as in the current common model).
- A minimally acceptable dollar amount (TBD) of the employer subsidy should be tax-free to the recipient (i.e. the employee). Any subsidy amount above the minimum is taxable as income. (This is to keep employers from using the tax-free benefit to pay for "health plans" that might include services like elective plastic surgery, day spas, a three-meal-a-day "health food plan" or other perks not directly related to health care. In other words, no tax free "face lifts" or "healthy" slush funds for corporate executives.)
- The employee chooses the company and plan they desire. The employer's subsidy payment is paid to the insurance company via the Health Insurance Exchange. Any additional cost beyond the employer's subsidy is assumed by the employee and can be deducted from their pay and sent along with the employer subsidy. In this model the employer does not need to keep track of where to send each employees' insurance payments. The employee manages their payments via the Exchange.
- A minimally acceptable dollar amount (TBD) paid as insurance premiums for each of an employee's dependents should be considered non taxable income.
3. Medicare is expanded to include unemployed persons receiving unemployment benefits, the disabled or otherwise indigent/unemployable citizens.
4. Providers continue to have the option of participating with Medicare or not. Providers whose local market share in their specialty exceeds an acceptable threshold (i.e. monopoly or near-monopoly) are mandated to participate with Medicare.
5. Insurance companies cannot terminate coverage for any medical reason. Once an application is accepted, they assume coverage for all health care of the covered persons under their plan.
6. The Federal Health Reinsurance Corporation (FHRC) is established to ensure the solvency of insurance companies and to act as a safety net for insurance companies that may go bankrupt. The FHRC has oversight authority of insurance companies and may prosecute individuals responsible for fraud or criminal negligence. (The FHRC is to the health insurance industry what the FDIC is to the banking industry.)
7. Small businesses shall receive sliding scale tax credits for payment of premium subsidies. The sliding scale is based on profit per employee. The higher the profit per employee, the lower the tax credit per employee.
8. Health care providers and drug companies may receive tax credits for providing quality care and free medication to uninsured persons under a Health Care Pay-It-Forward program. Provider tax credit (amount TBD, but should be on par with Medicare reimbursement rates) is dependent upon the quality of care. Quality is measured by comparing outcomes of a providers insured vs. non-insured patients. Significant discrepancies in quality measurements disqualify the provider from receiving any tax credit for that period. The federal government (agency TBD) has authority to audit any health records of non-insured patients covered under the program to ensure compliance with quality reporting guidelines and to abate fraud.
140
One hundred forty - The number of banks that failed in 2009. (see list)
That's almost triple the number of banks that failed in all the prior 8 years. Here's the breakdown since 2001:
(2010-2016 added March 2017)
2016 - 5
2015 - 8
2014 - 18
2013 - 24
2012 - 51
2011 - 92
2010 - 157
2009 - 140
2008 - 26
2007 - 3
2006 - 0
2005 - 0
2004 - 4
2003 - 3
2002 - 11
2001 - 4
The 140 total includes 16 banks that failed in December 2009. Is the recession really slowing down?
That's almost triple the number of banks that failed in all the prior 8 years. Here's the breakdown since 2001:
(2010-2016 added March 2017)
2016 - 5
2015 - 8
2014 - 18
2013 - 24
2012 - 51
2011 - 92
2010 - 157
2009 - 140
2008 - 26
2007 - 3
2006 - 0
2005 - 0
2004 - 4
2003 - 3
2002 - 11
2001 - 4
The 140 total includes 16 banks that failed in December 2009. Is the recession really slowing down?
Screw Yu
Yesterday, Akmal Shaikh, a British national, was executed by Communist China. Apparently, he was tried and convicted of trafficking heroin, one of many capital offenses in China. I don't know all the details of the case. Apparently, Shaikh suffered from bipolar disorder and had significant delusions of grandeur - which may or may not have allowed him to be "tricked" into transporting the heroin.
According to news sources, in response to a British diplomat's criticism of the execution, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said, "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty..."
To that I say: Screw You, Jiang Yu! Try and stop me! I live in a nation where freedom of speech is guaranteed by our constitution. I can speak all the ill I want of your oppressive "sovereignty" and you can't do a thing about it.
According to news sources, in response to a British diplomat's criticism of the execution, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Jiang Yu said, "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty..."
To that I say: Screw You, Jiang Yu! Try and stop me! I live in a nation where freedom of speech is guaranteed by our constitution. I can speak all the ill I want of your oppressive "sovereignty" and you can't do a thing about it.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Comparison and Contrast
Here is the same story as written by two Asheville newspapers:
4/28 Mountain Xpress: Tupelo Honey Cafe closed for clean-up
4/30 Asheville Citizen-Times: Clogged sewer forces Tupelo Honey to close
What a difference. The Mountain Xpress story is far more informative and 2 days earlier than the other one. No wonder the C-T is doing so poorly.
What a difference. The Mountain Xpress story is far more informative and 2 days earlier than the other one. No wonder the C-T is doing so poorly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)