On Monday I blogged about how ObamaCare would necessarily lead to government assuming a nanny role to keep America fit and trim. And on Tuesday, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius made a speech in which she said that America spends twice as much on obesity as it does on cancer. In that speech, she also said:
"President Obama and I are committed to delivering a healthcare system that provides all Americans with better quality and lower costs, and fighting obesity is at the heart of these goals," Sebelius told the conference.
So that means the government is "committed" to "fighting obesity." How is the government going to do that? Ms. Sebelius didn't say, but the government has only one way of doing anything: force. It can dress up that force as "nudges in the right direction," but whether it's making Americans pay more for their sweet treats or cutting health benefits for those who don't lose enough weight, there's still a gun behind the "nudge." Force is force, even in a seemingly innocuous guise.
I do not want a government committed to fighting obesity. A government committed to fighting obesity is a government committed to violating individual rights -- because the only proper purpose of a government is to defend rights. Any time it tries to do more than that, it will necessarily curtail freedom of action -- in this case, the freedom to choose whatever food and drink one sees fit to consume, the freedom to exercise as much or as little as one wants, the freedom to gain or lose weight when one wants to do so. Freedom to act according to one's judgment -- that is what rights are, and what the government will destroy on its mission to create slim, healthy Americans.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Obama defends universal health care -- poorly
The Wall Street Journal reports that president Obama is on the defensive about HR 3200. Good! Let's keep it that way. And let's analyze some of the words he said in defense of healthcare "reform" at a Raleigh, NC town-hall meeting:
He mocked some Americans who say, "I don't want socialized medicine, and by the way, don't take away my Medicare."
If there are Americans who are saying this, shame on them, indeed. But the answer is not, as Obama later implied, that the government is doing great with Medicare and would do just as well with the so-called "strong public option" for insurance. Medicare is going to go bankrupt, and damn soon, if nothing is done; doctors are increasingly turning Medicare patients away because of low reimbursement rates; young people who may not be able to afford health insurance for themselves get taxed to pay for the elderly, who use more medical products and services than any other age group. How is that working, Mr. President?
"Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. I have been as clear as I can be."
Oh, come on, Mr. President. That's disingenuous. What the Democrats claim to want is a "strong public option," but in truth there can be no competition between government and private companies. That's because, if a private company's revenue doesn't equal its costs, it goes out of business -- but if the government doesn't make as much from insurance premiums as it pays out in health benefits, it can confiscate our money to make up the difference. Eventually the government will drive private insurers out.
He mocked some Americans who say, "I don't want socialized medicine, and by the way, don't take away my Medicare."
If there are Americans who are saying this, shame on them, indeed. But the answer is not, as Obama later implied, that the government is doing great with Medicare and would do just as well with the so-called "strong public option" for insurance. Medicare is going to go bankrupt, and damn soon, if nothing is done; doctors are increasingly turning Medicare patients away because of low reimbursement rates; young people who may not be able to afford health insurance for themselves get taxed to pay for the elderly, who use more medical products and services than any other age group. How is that working, Mr. President?
"Nobody is talking about some government takeover of health care. I have been as clear as I can be."
Oh, come on, Mr. President. That's disingenuous. What the Democrats claim to want is a "strong public option," but in truth there can be no competition between government and private companies. That's because, if a private company's revenue doesn't equal its costs, it goes out of business -- but if the government doesn't make as much from insurance premiums as it pays out in health benefits, it can confiscate our money to make up the difference. Eventually the government will drive private insurers out.
And he blasted Republicans for passing a prescription drug benefit for Medicare without offsetting spending cuts or tax increases, then complaining to him about his fiscal discipline.
"I'm now president, so I'm responsible for solving [the deficit], but we shouldn't have selective memory here," he said. "You handed me a $1.3 trillion bill, and now, six months later you're complaining because we haven't paid it all back."
Again, he's got a point -- during the Bush years, Republicans behaved even worse than Democrats in increasing spending and creating massive entitlements. Which does not, for one second, mean that they should shut up and sign HR 3200 -- but it sure does take the wind out of their sails.
Last but not least:
"Back in Washington, there's been a lot of talk recently about the politics of health care; about who's up and who's down; and what it will mean for my party or this presidency if health insurance reform is passed or defeated," Mr. Obama said. "But here in North Carolina, you know this isn't about politics. This is about people's lives. This is about people's businesses. This is about our future."
As I posted yesterday, it is about power. If the president were truly sincere about helping Americans -- especially those productive Americans who run businesses -- he would listen to the rational arguments for a free-market system. But he'd rather "help" us by being a dictator. I don't buy the "it's not about power" argument, not for one second.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
At least this guy's honest
The current issue of New York magazine (which I normally read for the restaurant reviews and event listings, not the political commentary) contains an op-ed by Michael Tomasky about the healthcare debate on Capitol Hill. It's pretty clear that Mr. Tomasky wants Democrats to band together and and vote for HR 3200 post haste.
But why does he want this? Try as I might, I could not find a single argument in Tomasky's piece about the merits of the legislation.
In fact, Tomasky argues that the Blue Dogs and other skittish Democrats need to choke down their doubts because the party could lose its majority in Congress if they don't. In other words, Democrats should vote for HR 3200 not because it's a good set of laws, but in order to stay in power.
I guess at least Tomasky is honest that it's about power-lust. That's the best that I can say for his piece, and I'm certainly hoping that Democrats won't come to the consensus that he's begging for.
But why does he want this? Try as I might, I could not find a single argument in Tomasky's piece about the merits of the legislation.
In fact, Tomasky argues that the Blue Dogs and other skittish Democrats need to choke down their doubts because the party could lose its majority in Congress if they don't. In other words, Democrats should vote for HR 3200 not because it's a good set of laws, but in order to stay in power.
I guess at least Tomasky is honest that it's about power-lust. That's the best that I can say for his piece, and I'm certainly hoping that Democrats won't come to the consensus that he's begging for.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Kiss that cheesecake goodbye
The AP, via Yahoo! News, reports that -- surprise, surprise -- obesity costs money. A lot of money -- an estimated $1400 per year extra per overweight American compared with those at a normal weight.
Obama wants universal health care. He claims we can get there by cutting costs -- mostly by forcing those big, bad pharma companies and evil doctors to take less money for their goods and services. This, of course, will not work, because giving people health care for "free" will cause them to demand more and more of it.
So how will the budget get balanced? Rationing care, of course -- but another way is for the government to try and keep people from developing expensive conditions. Obesity is a favorite target -- so look for taxes on sodas, like the one Governor Paterson failed to pass in New York, louder governmental "recommendations" on what one should be eating, a national trans fat ban...the possibilities are endless.
It doesn't matter that many Americans, myself included, enjoy high-calorie foods in small quantities and exercise hard enough to stay slim. It doesn't matter that many Americans, like my husband, have high metabolisms and can eat whatever they damn well please while maintaining a healthy weight.* Politicians don't think in terms of individuals; they think in terms of groups and averages. And the average American is fat. So they'll pass laws designed to get the average American to eat better (by their standards) and exercise more -- not only violating their freedom to live as they choose, but punishing those of us who aren't overweight.
Don't believe laws like this will happen? Just look at how David Paterson, in the 2009 State of the State address earlier this year, cited the high costs of obesity to the New York state treasury, and said that taxing soda, banning trans fats, cutting off access to junk food in schools, and requiring calorie-count postings in restaurants would help solve the problem. Proposals like his are sure to follow on the federal level.
So if HR 3200 passes, it won't just be your freedom to choose between health insurance plans that will be destroyed. Eventually, your freedom to eat and exercise as you please will be at stake.
* Of course I'm jealous.
Obama wants universal health care. He claims we can get there by cutting costs -- mostly by forcing those big, bad pharma companies and evil doctors to take less money for their goods and services. This, of course, will not work, because giving people health care for "free" will cause them to demand more and more of it.
So how will the budget get balanced? Rationing care, of course -- but another way is for the government to try and keep people from developing expensive conditions. Obesity is a favorite target -- so look for taxes on sodas, like the one Governor Paterson failed to pass in New York, louder governmental "recommendations" on what one should be eating, a national trans fat ban...the possibilities are endless.
It doesn't matter that many Americans, myself included, enjoy high-calorie foods in small quantities and exercise hard enough to stay slim. It doesn't matter that many Americans, like my husband, have high metabolisms and can eat whatever they damn well please while maintaining a healthy weight.* Politicians don't think in terms of individuals; they think in terms of groups and averages. And the average American is fat. So they'll pass laws designed to get the average American to eat better (by their standards) and exercise more -- not only violating their freedom to live as they choose, but punishing those of us who aren't overweight.
Don't believe laws like this will happen? Just look at how David Paterson, in the 2009 State of the State address earlier this year, cited the high costs of obesity to the New York state treasury, and said that taxing soda, banning trans fats, cutting off access to junk food in schools, and requiring calorie-count postings in restaurants would help solve the problem. Proposals like his are sure to follow on the federal level.
So if HR 3200 passes, it won't just be your freedom to choose between health insurance plans that will be destroyed. Eventually, your freedom to eat and exercise as you please will be at stake.
* Of course I'm jealous.
If you thought I was a curmudgeon...
StumblingOnTruth presents a TRULY blistering attack on the many common myths that have led to our present healthcare crisis. My favorite paragraph:
In fact, although it’s not the primitive issue, the constant improvement in health care gives another good example of why the “right” to health care makes little sense. Did you have a right to chemotherapy in 1600 AD? You could have protested to Parliament all you wanted, but chemo just didn’t exist. Then, did you have a right to it the moment some genius invented it? You did not pay for the research. You did not make the breakthrough. Where do you get the right? How did it come into existence for you the moment somebody else created these things? I’m pretty sure you cannot have rights to material goods that don’t exist, and I am pretty certain that the moment some genius (or business, or even government) brings them into the world your “rights” do not improve. But strangely, many disagree.
In fact, although it’s not the primitive issue, the constant improvement in health care gives another good example of why the “right” to health care makes little sense. Did you have a right to chemotherapy in 1600 AD? You could have protested to Parliament all you wanted, but chemo just didn’t exist. Then, did you have a right to it the moment some genius invented it? You did not pay for the research. You did not make the breakthrough. Where do you get the right? How did it come into existence for you the moment somebody else created these things? I’m pretty sure you cannot have rights to material goods that don’t exist, and I am pretty certain that the moment some genius (or business, or even government) brings them into the world your “rights” do not improve. But strangely, many disagree.
Your money AND your life
If you haven't already seen Paul Hsieh's excellent PajamasMedia op-ed, "The Federal Health Care Muggers," take a look. He eloquently shows that, unlike an armed robber who at least says "your money OR your life," the government will take both if universal health care becomes law.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
What are you afraid of, Mr. President?
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal contained an op-ed by John Fund about the hidden victims of health "reform" -- among them, the young and healthy, small business owners, and holders of health savings accounts. I'm not the least bit surprised -- about the young and healthy, at least, I've blogged plenty in the past. But the essay contained one bit of information I didn't know: that Obama's goons are using thuggish tactics to keep other, more obvious victims (pharmaceutical and insurance companies) silent.
I was too young to notice what was going on when HillaryCare was shot down, in part because of the successful "Harry and Louise" ad campaign run by a group of insurance companies, showing in sound-bite snippets how universal health care would replace patient choice with bureaucrats' dictates and how forcing insurers to cover the sick would cost the healthy more.
I also hadn't noticed, perhaps because I usually watch TV with fast-forwarded commercials via DVR, that this time around, there haven't been any such ads attacking ObamaCare. As Fund points out in his essay, that's not an accident: "intense" pressure, "bordering on extortion," has been applied by the Democrats to insurance companies to keep them from airing such ads. Basically, the Democrats have told the insurers: Shut up, or we won't let you have a voice when we put the plan together.
This is a tactic more worthy of Josef Stalin than of the purported leader of the free world. Why is Obama so afraid of Americans hearing the insurers' case? If he had a rational case for the healthcare "reform" he wants, then he would be able to rebut the insurers' assertions. Instead, he's simply having the insurers muzzled -- because he can't rebut them.
Shine a bright light on evil, and its nature is revealed. That's why it likes to hide in the dark. The insurers have been scared into keeping quiet, which means that the rest of us who understand what a monstrosity ObamaCare would be must not be silent.
I was too young to notice what was going on when HillaryCare was shot down, in part because of the successful "Harry and Louise" ad campaign run by a group of insurance companies, showing in sound-bite snippets how universal health care would replace patient choice with bureaucrats' dictates and how forcing insurers to cover the sick would cost the healthy more.
I also hadn't noticed, perhaps because I usually watch TV with fast-forwarded commercials via DVR, that this time around, there haven't been any such ads attacking ObamaCare. As Fund points out in his essay, that's not an accident: "intense" pressure, "bordering on extortion," has been applied by the Democrats to insurance companies to keep them from airing such ads. Basically, the Democrats have told the insurers: Shut up, or we won't let you have a voice when we put the plan together.
This is a tactic more worthy of Josef Stalin than of the purported leader of the free world. Why is Obama so afraid of Americans hearing the insurers' case? If he had a rational case for the healthcare "reform" he wants, then he would be able to rebut the insurers' assertions. Instead, he's simply having the insurers muzzled -- because he can't rebut them.
Shine a bright light on evil, and its nature is revealed. That's why it likes to hide in the dark. The insurers have been scared into keeping quiet, which means that the rest of us who understand what a monstrosity ObamaCare would be must not be silent.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Carolyn Malooney
What is my congresswoman SMOKING?!
I wrote to Carolyn Maloney, my representative, urging a NO vote on the healthcare bill. I wish I'd saved what I wrote (I submitted through her Web site) so I could enumerate exactly how her form letter response addressed NONE of my arguments. I certainly didn't expect her to read my letter -- I sent it more so that her aides would register me in the pile of constituents who oppose her voting yes on the bill -- but I thought at least some high school intern might read it. Clearly, that's not the case, as no one could possibly think it was appropriate to send me THIS after reading my letter:
Dear Mrs. Zawistowski:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As Americans continue to struggle in this tough economy, reducing health care costs is more important than ever. I share President Obama’s goals of reducing health care costs, protecting and increasing consumers’ choices, and guaranteeing access to quality health care for all Americans. Today, we spend 53% more on health care per capita than any other nation in the world, while a tragic 47 million Americans still remain uninsured.
On July 17, the Congressional Budget Office released estimates confirming that the health insurance reform policies of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, are deficit-neutral over the 10-year budget window -- even producing a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated that the cost of the bill’s insurance reforms was $1.042 trillion, while the bill’s cost savings and revenues totaled $1.048 trillion. CBO estimated that these reforms will provide affordable coverage for 97 percent of Americans two years after the program starts.
The House of Representatives has announced a health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 which includes the following key provisions:
• A robust public plan which will be financially self sustaining and will provide many of the underserved Americans a real health insurance option;
• A health insurance exchange which will give people the ability to shop from a variety of plans, including a public option, to find the best one for them;
•A reallocation of health care dollars so the new American health care system can provide better coverage to more people for less money.
You can view more detailed summaries of this bill by going to my website: http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_issues&task=view_issue&issue=320&Itemid=35
I look forward to working with Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration to pass meaningful reform that fully addresses the health care crisis facing our nation and provides affordable, high quality care to all Americans.
Sincerely,
CAROLYN B. MALONEY
Member of Congress
I try not to descend to using too many obscenities on this blog*, but WHAT THE FUCK? CBO thinks there will be a surplus? The same CBO that warned just days ago that the government healthcare plan is unsustainable? On what planet does Maloney live that she thinks creating a massive entitlement can be supported without massive cost increases -- costs that are going to be borne by you and me, Joe and Jane Taxpayer?
I think I will write back to Maloney, using a different argument, since she clearly doesn't understand this one. Something as simple as "Dear Congresswoman Maloney: Vote no on the healthcare bill, or I will vote no on YOU, the next chance I get. Sincerely, Stella Zawistowski."
* Not because I have some puritanical aversion to "bad words" -- in fact, I swear like a sailor in person -- but because, as Ayn Rand observed, they are imprecise. I'm often sloppy in saying "douchebag" when I really mean "rights-violating dictator-in-training," or "shitty" when I mean "immoral and impractical," but my blog is no place for such a lack of clarity.
I wrote to Carolyn Maloney, my representative, urging a NO vote on the healthcare bill. I wish I'd saved what I wrote (I submitted through her Web site) so I could enumerate exactly how her form letter response addressed NONE of my arguments. I certainly didn't expect her to read my letter -- I sent it more so that her aides would register me in the pile of constituents who oppose her voting yes on the bill -- but I thought at least some high school intern might read it. Clearly, that's not the case, as no one could possibly think it was appropriate to send me THIS after reading my letter:
Dear Mrs. Zawistowski:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on health care reform. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As Americans continue to struggle in this tough economy, reducing health care costs is more important than ever. I share President Obama’s goals of reducing health care costs, protecting and increasing consumers’ choices, and guaranteeing access to quality health care for all Americans. Today, we spend 53% more on health care per capita than any other nation in the world, while a tragic 47 million Americans still remain uninsured.
On July 17, the Congressional Budget Office released estimates confirming that the health insurance reform policies of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, are deficit-neutral over the 10-year budget window -- even producing a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated that the cost of the bill’s insurance reforms was $1.042 trillion, while the bill’s cost savings and revenues totaled $1.048 trillion. CBO estimated that these reforms will provide affordable coverage for 97 percent of Americans two years after the program starts.
The House of Representatives has announced a health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 which includes the following key provisions:
• A robust public plan which will be financially self sustaining and will provide many of the underserved Americans a real health insurance option;
• A health insurance exchange which will give people the ability to shop from a variety of plans, including a public option, to find the best one for them;
•A reallocation of health care dollars so the new American health care system can provide better coverage to more people for less money.
You can view more detailed summaries of this bill by going to my website: http://maloney.house.gov/i
I look forward to working with Congressional leaders and the Obama Administration to pass meaningful reform that fully addresses the health care crisis facing our nation and provides affordable, high quality care to all Americans.
Sincerely,
CAROLYN B. MALONEY
Member of Congress
I try not to descend to using too many obscenities on this blog*, but WHAT THE FUCK? CBO thinks there will be a surplus? The same CBO that warned just days ago that the government healthcare plan is unsustainable? On what planet does Maloney live that she thinks creating a massive entitlement can be supported without massive cost increases -- costs that are going to be borne by you and me, Joe and Jane Taxpayer?
I think I will write back to Maloney, using a different argument, since she clearly doesn't understand this one. Something as simple as "Dear Congresswoman Maloney: Vote no on the healthcare bill, or I will vote no on YOU, the next chance I get. Sincerely, Stella Zawistowski."
* Not because I have some puritanical aversion to "bad words" -- in fact, I swear like a sailor in person -- but because, as Ayn Rand observed, they are imprecise. I'm often sloppy in saying "douchebag" when I really mean "rights-violating dictator-in-training," or "shitty" when I mean "immoral and impractical," but my blog is no place for such a lack of clarity.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Let's not get distracted by anything important
The president, in his rush to get healthcare legislation through Congress before America figures out what's really going on, is blithely dismissing the complaints of Congress members concerned that a government insurance plan would funnel federal dollars to pay for abortions. "Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings and not get distracted by the abortion debate," Obama said.
That is, let's ignore the question -- even though it brings up a fundamental flaw in ANY government plan.
Let me be clear: I support a woman's right to abort her fetus, 100%. The argument for that has been made many times over by Leonard Peikoff and other prominent Objectivists, so I won't repeat it here. But when I say that a woman has a right to abort her fetus, I am not saying she has a right to an abortion. The difference is subtle: She has the right to terminate her pregnancy if she can afford the procedure and can find a doctor willing to perform it. She does not have the right to force taxpayers to fund that abortion through a government insurance plan.
Think of all the rights being violated here:
Don't believe me? Here are some examples: I don't want to fund methadone for drug addicts. I bet there are plenty of liberals who think that the physical therapy I had for a running injury last year was unnecessary -- I could have just stayed off my feet for a few weeks and given my co-pays to buy AIDS drugs for Africans, right? That bypass surgery my dad had a few years ago -- well, he doesn't take care of himself, so the resources should have been used to care for patients who "do everything right" and still get sick, right? That expensive chemotherapy drug that let your grandmother live long enough to go to a family wedding -- that was tens of thousands of dollars spent for six extra months of life. Not worth it, right? And so on and so forth.
And this is precisely why government health insurance is tyranny. Americans shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's abortions -- or for their Band-Aids. But that's something con-artist Obama hopes won't "distract" us.
That is, let's ignore the question -- even though it brings up a fundamental flaw in ANY government plan.
Let me be clear: I support a woman's right to abort her fetus, 100%. The argument for that has been made many times over by Leonard Peikoff and other prominent Objectivists, so I won't repeat it here. But when I say that a woman has a right to abort her fetus, I am not saying she has a right to an abortion. The difference is subtle: She has the right to terminate her pregnancy if she can afford the procedure and can find a doctor willing to perform it. She does not have the right to force taxpayers to fund that abortion through a government insurance plan.
Think of all the rights being violated here:
- The rights of every young couple that has been careful with their birth control so as not to need an abortion, and is now paying for someone else's.
- The rights of Americans who were nearly aborted as fetuses, and who feel uncomfortable paying for a procedure that, had their mothers had it done, would have caused them not to exist.
- And yes, the rights of every religious American who believes that abortion is a sin. They're wrong, but they have a right not to have to support, with their money, what they believe to be wrong.
Don't believe me? Here are some examples: I don't want to fund methadone for drug addicts. I bet there are plenty of liberals who think that the physical therapy I had for a running injury last year was unnecessary -- I could have just stayed off my feet for a few weeks and given my co-pays to buy AIDS drugs for Africans, right? That bypass surgery my dad had a few years ago -- well, he doesn't take care of himself, so the resources should have been used to care for patients who "do everything right" and still get sick, right? That expensive chemotherapy drug that let your grandmother live long enough to go to a family wedding -- that was tens of thousands of dollars spent for six extra months of life. Not worth it, right? And so on and so forth.
And this is precisely why government health insurance is tyranny. Americans shouldn't be forced to pay for other people's abortions -- or for their Band-Aids. But that's something con-artist Obama hopes won't "distract" us.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
In search of a fairy tale
I used to love fairy tales as a child, particularly The Book of Goodnight Stories, a now out-of-print collection that had all the familiar ones (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast) as well as some more obscure ones. I'd like to share one of those lesser-known stories, as it makes for an interesting analogy.
Once upon a time, a spoiled princess was out in the royal gardens and saw the sun shining on the morning dew, creating brilliant colors all over the grass. She ran to her father and demanded that it be made into jewelry for her -- I believe the exact phrase was, "Father, I must have a diadem of morning dew, or I shall die!"
Her father (a real peach) ordered the royal jeweler to cough up the crown by the next morning, or face beheading. The jeweler was terrified, and of course the next morning, no diadem. The king ordered the jeweler's execution, but a wise old man who happened to be at court said, "Wait! I'll make the princess her diadem, but she must first gather the dew herself for me to make it."
The princess went running to get some dew for her jewelry collection. Of course, the drops ran through her fingers and lost their pretty light reflections once they were in her hands. The princess tearfully apologized to the jeweler, and instead of being executed, he was given lots of gold. The End.
Now, let's look at a fable this reminds me of...
Once upon a time, there was a prince who had never done anything useful with his life. The prince wanted universal healthcare. He ordered his ministers to come up with a solution by the August recess, Or Else...
Unfortunately, this tale doesn't seem to be panning out the way the princess's did. It only took one example for the princess to figure out that she was violating the nature of morning dew by trying to collect it for a necklace. But no matter how many examples of countries stagnating under government-run healthcare you show him, no matter how many essays we write, Prince Obama continues to ignore the fact that he is violating the nature of man by using force to make us behave the way he'd like -- and that his dream of healthcare that grows on trees is just as impossible as a diadem of morning dew.
Once upon a time, a spoiled princess was out in the royal gardens and saw the sun shining on the morning dew, creating brilliant colors all over the grass. She ran to her father and demanded that it be made into jewelry for her -- I believe the exact phrase was, "Father, I must have a diadem of morning dew, or I shall die!"
Her father (a real peach) ordered the royal jeweler to cough up the crown by the next morning, or face beheading. The jeweler was terrified, and of course the next morning, no diadem. The king ordered the jeweler's execution, but a wise old man who happened to be at court said, "Wait! I'll make the princess her diadem, but she must first gather the dew herself for me to make it."
The princess went running to get some dew for her jewelry collection. Of course, the drops ran through her fingers and lost their pretty light reflections once they were in her hands. The princess tearfully apologized to the jeweler, and instead of being executed, he was given lots of gold. The End.
Now, let's look at a fable this reminds me of...
Once upon a time, there was a prince who had never done anything useful with his life. The prince wanted universal healthcare. He ordered his ministers to come up with a solution by the August recess, Or Else...
Unfortunately, this tale doesn't seem to be panning out the way the princess's did. It only took one example for the princess to figure out that she was violating the nature of morning dew by trying to collect it for a necklace. But no matter how many examples of countries stagnating under government-run healthcare you show him, no matter how many essays we write, Prince Obama continues to ignore the fact that he is violating the nature of man by using force to make us behave the way he'd like -- and that his dream of healthcare that grows on trees is just as impossible as a diadem of morning dew.
Monday, July 20, 2009
I'm reminded of a Tea Party sign I saw
It said, "Do you want your healthcare run by the same people who run the DMV?"
I sure as hell don't. I spent two hours in line today for a simple name change on my driver's license -- and I don't even have my new license to show for it. (Unlike many other states, which will print you a new license on the spot, New York still insists on mailing them out, which takes two weeks.) I shudder to think of how long I'd spend in line if some government-appointed triage nurse is deciding whether or not I'm worthy of seeing the doctor or not.
I sure as hell don't. I spent two hours in line today for a simple name change on my driver's license -- and I don't even have my new license to show for it. (Unlike many other states, which will print you a new license on the spot, New York still insists on mailing them out, which takes two weeks.) I shudder to think of how long I'd spend in line if some government-appointed triage nurse is deciding whether or not I'm worthy of seeing the doctor or not.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Are Massachusetts lawmakers really so blind?
A Massachusetts government healthcare commission is recommending that the state quit paying doctors and hospitals per service, and instead pay a flat fee per patient, allowing providers to keep the difference on lower-cost patients as profit, but paying no more should a patient require expensive tests and procedures. This is supposed to encourage healthcare providers to provide more preventive care by giving them a profit incentive to do so.
Am I missing something here? Isn't it patently obvious what's going to happen? When you decide that everyone has to conform to the average, those unlucky people who have more expensive-to-treat illnesses -- say, kidney failure requiring dialysis, a chronic illness requiring a lifetime of medication, cancer that needs trained professionals just to administer treatment safely -- are going to get turned away.
Perhaps what I'm missing is the very likely scenario that the state will force anyone accepting its insurance policy to take all patients covered by it, not turning away anyone based on the expense of his or her illness. Which means that either many providers will simply stop seeing any state-insured patients at all (as is the case with Medicare and Medicaid), or else the state will again step in and use force to make doctors and hospitals accept patients, which will lead to providers going out of business.
Furthermore, this use of force creates a pernicious incentive for doctors. Politicians think this kind of payment system will encourage doctors to preventively care for their patients. It might, but it will also encourage them to ignore signs that something may be more serious. If a doctor sees a patient who's near the limit of his coverage for the year, and that patient complains of a pain in his leg, the financial incentive is for the doctor to say, "You've pulled a muscle; rest for a few days and you'll be fine," when in fact the patient has a deep vein thrombosis that requires hospitalization. (Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor and my hypothetical example might be, medically, laughable -- but the point is that, often, serious problems and not-so-serious problems look alike upon first examination.)
Unintended consequences abound. But whether or not they're intended, they are what will happen.
Am I missing something here? Isn't it patently obvious what's going to happen? When you decide that everyone has to conform to the average, those unlucky people who have more expensive-to-treat illnesses -- say, kidney failure requiring dialysis, a chronic illness requiring a lifetime of medication, cancer that needs trained professionals just to administer treatment safely -- are going to get turned away.
Perhaps what I'm missing is the very likely scenario that the state will force anyone accepting its insurance policy to take all patients covered by it, not turning away anyone based on the expense of his or her illness. Which means that either many providers will simply stop seeing any state-insured patients at all (as is the case with Medicare and Medicaid), or else the state will again step in and use force to make doctors and hospitals accept patients, which will lead to providers going out of business.
Furthermore, this use of force creates a pernicious incentive for doctors. Politicians think this kind of payment system will encourage doctors to preventively care for their patients. It might, but it will also encourage them to ignore signs that something may be more serious. If a doctor sees a patient who's near the limit of his coverage for the year, and that patient complains of a pain in his leg, the financial incentive is for the doctor to say, "You've pulled a muscle; rest for a few days and you'll be fine," when in fact the patient has a deep vein thrombosis that requires hospitalization. (Disclaimer: I'm not a doctor and my hypothetical example might be, medically, laughable -- but the point is that, often, serious problems and not-so-serious problems look alike upon first examination.)
Unintended consequences abound. But whether or not they're intended, they are what will happen.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Big Pharma reaps what it has sown
In hopes of avoiding price controls and reimportation agreements, Big Pharma made a deal with the devil last month, promising Congress $80 billion in help lowering costs for drugs for seniors. Guess what: They're getting the price controls and the reimportation anyway -- on top of the revenue reductions they've already promised, and on top of the higher taxes Congress wants to impose upon their operations.
The lessons of Atlas Shrugged have become clearer to me in the last few months through a deeper reading of the novel and the recently published volume Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately, they're also now becoming clear through observation of what's going on in Washington. In Atlas, delivering concessions to the Capitol Hill cretins didn't cause politicians to walk away, satisfied that they'd gotten what they wanted, and leave businessmen to do their work without further intrusions. Instead, one unchallenged government control led to another -- because compromising with thugs and goons only emboldens them. If a burglar enters your house and you give him your DVD player so that he won't take your TV set, he'll be back next week for the TV set, and the week after that, for everything you own -- because by compromising with him, you've left unchallenged his premise that he has the right to enter your home. Thus also with Congress. No one from Big Pharma is armed with the ideas to say no, we will not compromise -- there is no right to healthcare -- you have no right to tell us what we can and cannot charge for our products -- hands off!
And so Big Pharma reaps the seeds of compromise -- lawmakers who now feel empowered to seize even more than they would have otherwise.
The lessons of Atlas Shrugged have become clearer to me in the last few months through a deeper reading of the novel and the recently published volume Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately, they're also now becoming clear through observation of what's going on in Washington. In Atlas, delivering concessions to the Capitol Hill cretins didn't cause politicians to walk away, satisfied that they'd gotten what they wanted, and leave businessmen to do their work without further intrusions. Instead, one unchallenged government control led to another -- because compromising with thugs and goons only emboldens them. If a burglar enters your house and you give him your DVD player so that he won't take your TV set, he'll be back next week for the TV set, and the week after that, for everything you own -- because by compromising with him, you've left unchallenged his premise that he has the right to enter your home. Thus also with Congress. No one from Big Pharma is armed with the ideas to say no, we will not compromise -- there is no right to healthcare -- you have no right to tell us what we can and cannot charge for our products -- hands off!
And so Big Pharma reaps the seeds of compromise -- lawmakers who now feel empowered to seize even more than they would have otherwise.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
And this is why Princeton gets none of my money
As long as Paul Krugman and Peter Singer remain employed by my alma mater, Princeton will not get a dime of my money. I suppose the only good thing one can say about this gem from Peter Singer is that it's honest: If the government pays for health care, rationing is a necessary consequence, and the emotional disgust most of us feel at the thought of rationing is unreasonable. Rationing, he says, is actually a good thing, and he gives suggestions of how to do it.
Nope. I am disgusted with the idea of rationing, but my disgust is not rooted in an irrational belief that everybody ought to have access to all the health care there is. I'm disgusted, and I know that the solution is to get the government out of health care.
Life is precious. Just how precious is a matter for each individual to decide -- and pay -- for himself.
And, since Dr. Singer adds a little aside about comparing ourselves to countries with more fully socialized medicine, I'll add one too. He says that we should look at surveys that show, for example, higher "confidence levels" in health care in Canada than we have here in the U.S. So whether people think health care is good is more important than whether it actually is good; if Canadians are deluded enough to have confidence in a system that forces them to wait in lines for basic care and travel to the U.S. when, as is all too often the case, they are denied care -- that doesn't make their system, in reality, one whit better. Compare it instead to America, the country that has developed most of the "patented medicines" Dr. Singer derides, where good doctors come from other countries for a shot at making a better living, where the best care can still be had for a price. Even shackled as American healthcare providers are by regulations and entitlements, the relative freedom we have vis-a-vis Canada and Europe has kept us on top in terms of real achievements. If we allow Obama's diktat to become law, our healthcare system is going to get worse -- regardless of how "confident" we feel about it.
Nope. I am disgusted with the idea of rationing, but my disgust is not rooted in an irrational belief that everybody ought to have access to all the health care there is. I'm disgusted, and I know that the solution is to get the government out of health care.
Life is precious. Just how precious is a matter for each individual to decide -- and pay -- for himself.
And, since Dr. Singer adds a little aside about comparing ourselves to countries with more fully socialized medicine, I'll add one too. He says that we should look at surveys that show, for example, higher "confidence levels" in health care in Canada than we have here in the U.S. So whether people think health care is good is more important than whether it actually is good; if Canadians are deluded enough to have confidence in a system that forces them to wait in lines for basic care and travel to the U.S. when, as is all too often the case, they are denied care -- that doesn't make their system, in reality, one whit better. Compare it instead to America, the country that has developed most of the "patented medicines" Dr. Singer derides, where good doctors come from other countries for a shot at making a better living, where the best care can still be had for a price. Even shackled as American healthcare providers are by regulations and entitlements, the relative freedom we have vis-a-vis Canada and Europe has kept us on top in terms of real achievements. If we allow Obama's diktat to become law, our healthcare system is going to get worse -- regardless of how "confident" we feel about it.
"Inaction is not an option"
Well, the president's right on that account. We must act -- to preserve what freedoms we have remaining, and fight for those we have lost.
Of course, I have taken Obama's statement entirely out of context. He's saying that "inaction is not an option" in pushing America toward universal health coverage, and he wants Congress to act fast. To act fast, because if we take even a few minutes to think about how this massive entitlement is to be paid for, whether it would work the way the president claims it will, much less how individual rights get trampled in the process, it will become clear that serving his whim is not only untenable but immoral.
Obama insists that we can reduce the costs of Medicare to help pay for this plan. Wait...by creating a whole NEW class of entitled Americans who will be demanding healthcare resources? Any college student who has taken even a semester of economics can tell you that when supply remains static, if demand rises, so will prices. Except that supply of healthcare won't remain static. It is going to drop once we start telling doctors -- men and women who spend years paying huge sums of money to attend medical school, then waiting several more years making small salaries as residents before they can start to tap into their earning potential -- that they are to be paid less for what they do. Shortages, here we come.
Congress wants to pay for this plan by taxing the top 1% of income-earners -- the group that already bears the highest burden of our welfare state -- another 1% to 5%. So the world will bear ever harder down on Atlas's shoulders -- don't be too surprised if more and more high-income Americans choose to shrug. When you punish people for being productive, they will slowly stop being productive.
Congress also wants to sock businesses who don't insure their employees with an extra tax of 8% on salaries, but not companies with a payroll of $250,000 or less. What does that mean for a mom-and-pop shop deciding whether or not to hire its fourth or fifth employee? What does that mean for a business already struggling to pay corporate income taxes and follow government regulations, whose profit margins are too narrow to absorb this new cost? Don't expect employment rates to rise, if we cripple the people who provide employment.
By urging legislators to act fast, Obama is behaving like nothing more than a con artist -- trying to get his whims made law before anyone has performed the necessary task of thinking about what the results of such action will be. He should be selling Ginsu knives -- not in charge of this country's future.
Of course, I have taken Obama's statement entirely out of context. He's saying that "inaction is not an option" in pushing America toward universal health coverage, and he wants Congress to act fast. To act fast, because if we take even a few minutes to think about how this massive entitlement is to be paid for, whether it would work the way the president claims it will, much less how individual rights get trampled in the process, it will become clear that serving his whim is not only untenable but immoral.
Obama insists that we can reduce the costs of Medicare to help pay for this plan. Wait...by creating a whole NEW class of entitled Americans who will be demanding healthcare resources? Any college student who has taken even a semester of economics can tell you that when supply remains static, if demand rises, so will prices. Except that supply of healthcare won't remain static. It is going to drop once we start telling doctors -- men and women who spend years paying huge sums of money to attend medical school, then waiting several more years making small salaries as residents before they can start to tap into their earning potential -- that they are to be paid less for what they do. Shortages, here we come.
Congress wants to pay for this plan by taxing the top 1% of income-earners -- the group that already bears the highest burden of our welfare state -- another 1% to 5%. So the world will bear ever harder down on Atlas's shoulders -- don't be too surprised if more and more high-income Americans choose to shrug. When you punish people for being productive, they will slowly stop being productive.
Congress also wants to sock businesses who don't insure their employees with an extra tax of 8% on salaries, but not companies with a payroll of $250,000 or less. What does that mean for a mom-and-pop shop deciding whether or not to hire its fourth or fifth employee? What does that mean for a business already struggling to pay corporate income taxes and follow government regulations, whose profit margins are too narrow to absorb this new cost? Don't expect employment rates to rise, if we cripple the people who provide employment.
By urging legislators to act fast, Obama is behaving like nothing more than a con artist -- trying to get his whims made law before anyone has performed the necessary task of thinking about what the results of such action will be. He should be selling Ginsu knives -- not in charge of this country's future.
Monday, July 13, 2009
An indication of priorities
President Obama today announced his nomination of Alabama doctor Regina Benjamin for the post of U.S. Surgeon General. Let's leave aside for the moment what the Surgeon General actually does, most of which does not fall under the proper function of government as a protector of individual rights, and consider what Mr. Obama's choice says about his vision.
The points that struck me as most important were:
Under ObamaCare, this kind of doctor will be all that we get -- because the great minds capable of discovering new truths about medicine aren't going to go through years of postgraduate training and ill-paid residencies and fellowships for the "privilege" of being their brothers' keepers, at whatever rate the government feels like paying and at whatever level of demand patients make when they don't have to count the cost of their care. And there won't even be enough of doctors like Regina Benjamin to go around. To be any kind of doctor requires an active mind capable of retaining and integrating an enormous number of facts -- and you can't enslave a mind and expect it to remain active. Paul Hsieh showed an example of how increasing taxes would take a pediatrician -- and, undoubtedly, others like her -- out of the system, so that not only would medical innovation grind to a halt, so would our ability to get the most basic of care.
Obama probably doesn't think he has this in mind when he talks about health care reform. But this is, actually, what will happen if he gets his way.
Let his choice of Dr. Benjamin be a warning to all of us: If this is the kind of doctor who has a place in the system he envisions, we are all in trouble.
The points that struck me as most important were:
- She's a primary care physician.
- She runs a clinic for poor families in a rural area.
- She had to rebuild after her practice was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
- Her patients are frequently unable to pay for the services she renders them.
Under ObamaCare, this kind of doctor will be all that we get -- because the great minds capable of discovering new truths about medicine aren't going to go through years of postgraduate training and ill-paid residencies and fellowships for the "privilege" of being their brothers' keepers, at whatever rate the government feels like paying and at whatever level of demand patients make when they don't have to count the cost of their care. And there won't even be enough of doctors like Regina Benjamin to go around. To be any kind of doctor requires an active mind capable of retaining and integrating an enormous number of facts -- and you can't enslave a mind and expect it to remain active. Paul Hsieh showed an example of how increasing taxes would take a pediatrician -- and, undoubtedly, others like her -- out of the system, so that not only would medical innovation grind to a halt, so would our ability to get the most basic of care.
Obama probably doesn't think he has this in mind when he talks about health care reform. But this is, actually, what will happen if he gets his way.
Let his choice of Dr. Benjamin be a warning to all of us: If this is the kind of doctor who has a place in the system he envisions, we are all in trouble.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Um...yeah, this is health-related, right?
It's about the health of my spirit, right?
I'm married!
My husband, David, and I were married on June 27, which also happens to be my 31st birthday, at a beautiful restaurant in NYC's Tribeca neighborhood. We had 48 people, which made for a lovely and intimate ceremony and reception. My husband and I wrote our own vows with the help of our good friend Sherry, who's a fellow Objectivist. The ceremony was short, sweet, and emotional, and the party was full of good food and fun with our friends. We honeymooned in Chicago, which was fun although the weather didn't cooperate, and "came out" to lots of others as a married couple over the July 4th weekend at OCON in Boston.
Being married is awesome! I highly recommend it. Here are a few photos to hint at how great the day was -- we also paid another Objectivist, Chad Johnson, to shoot our wedding professionally, and I can't wait to see how his set of pictures turned out!
Walking down the aisle with my dad (who, despite being highly religious, complimented us on the ceremony afterward -- I was so touched)
Ceremony
Getting a boost from my new husband
So happy!
Dancing
The
bwedding (our favorite portmanteau of "birthday" and "wedding") cake
I SO married a hottie!
Signing off,
Mrs. Zawistowski!
I'm married!
My husband, David, and I were married on June 27, which also happens to be my 31st birthday, at a beautiful restaurant in NYC's Tribeca neighborhood. We had 48 people, which made for a lovely and intimate ceremony and reception. My husband and I wrote our own vows with the help of our good friend Sherry, who's a fellow Objectivist. The ceremony was short, sweet, and emotional, and the party was full of good food and fun with our friends. We honeymooned in Chicago, which was fun although the weather didn't cooperate, and "came out" to lots of others as a married couple over the July 4th weekend at OCON in Boston.
Being married is awesome! I highly recommend it. Here are a few photos to hint at how great the day was -- we also paid another Objectivist, Chad Johnson, to shoot our wedding professionally, and I can't wait to see how his set of pictures turned out!
Walking down the aisle with my dad (who, despite being highly religious, complimented us on the ceremony afterward -- I was so touched)
Ceremony
Getting a boost from my new husband
So happy!
Dancing
The
bwedding (our favorite portmanteau of "birthday" and "wedding") cake
I SO married a hottie!
Signing off,
Mrs. Zawistowski!
You don't ban cars because people can drive them off cliffs
You don't ban pencils because people can shove them in their eyes. You don't ban swimming pools because the neighbor's kid might climb the fence and drown. You don't ban gasoline because it's poisonous if ingested. That would be ridiculous: It's the responsibility of pencil owners not to maim themselves with their writing instruments, of nonswimmers not to trespass and give their neighbors' pools a try ("attractive nuisance" litigation be damned), of gasoline buyers to use the product to fuel machines, not their bodies. It's not the responsibility of the government to stop people from misusing a product in a self-destructive way.
Not so, according to the FDA. There's talk of banning Vicodin and Percocet, two acetaminophen-containing painkillers, and tightening restrictions on over-the-counter sales of acetaminophen, because the drug can cause liver damage at higher-than-recommended doses.
Never mind that the vast majority of people who take acetaminophen have done so safely. Never mind that the risk of liver damage has been known for a long time, not hidden by the companies who manufacture the drug, and patients can therefore make informed choices. Never mind, most of all, that individuals have a right to do anything they please that does not violate the rights of others. That includes overdosing on Vicodin -- or on Tylenol.
The FDA's rationale with Vicodin and Percocet in particular is that the narcotic components of those drugs are highly addictive, and combining an addictive substance with another drug that is toxic at high doses is asking for trouble. Indeed it may be, but that is for patients and their doctors to decide. An addict violates no one else's rights simply by being an addict -- nor does he violate anyone else's rights if his addiction leads to an overdose and then to liver failure. It is not Big Brother's job to steer him to the straight and narrow!
To all those who suffer from severe pain who do not abuse the drugs they are prescribed, pay attention and get angry. What the government is telling you is that relieving your pain is less important than preventing others who aren't as careful about their prescriptions as you are from self-destructing.
Not so, according to the FDA. There's talk of banning Vicodin and Percocet, two acetaminophen-containing painkillers, and tightening restrictions on over-the-counter sales of acetaminophen, because the drug can cause liver damage at higher-than-recommended doses.
Never mind that the vast majority of people who take acetaminophen have done so safely. Never mind that the risk of liver damage has been known for a long time, not hidden by the companies who manufacture the drug, and patients can therefore make informed choices. Never mind, most of all, that individuals have a right to do anything they please that does not violate the rights of others. That includes overdosing on Vicodin -- or on Tylenol.
The FDA's rationale with Vicodin and Percocet in particular is that the narcotic components of those drugs are highly addictive, and combining an addictive substance with another drug that is toxic at high doses is asking for trouble. Indeed it may be, but that is for patients and their doctors to decide. An addict violates no one else's rights simply by being an addict -- nor does he violate anyone else's rights if his addiction leads to an overdose and then to liver failure. It is not Big Brother's job to steer him to the straight and narrow!
To all those who suffer from severe pain who do not abuse the drugs they are prescribed, pay attention and get angry. What the government is telling you is that relieving your pain is less important than preventing others who aren't as careful about their prescriptions as you are from self-destructing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
