Posted tagged ‘barack obama’

On Obama's Healthcare Reform

December 14, 2009

Obama established four purposes for the Healthcare reform bill back in August. This article will analyze each of them, their validity, and their utility.

The first purpose of the healthcare reform bill is to establish a public option. This has since been removed, but it is important to remember why. The public option would necessarily grant anyone that wanted it free healthcare from the government dole. The aim was to focus this on those that would not be able to buy healthcare insurance otherwise, but there was no way to do this without either prohibitively regulating it or creating so-called death panels to examine each case individually. The public option quickly failed both in popularity and practicality.

The second purpose was to cut wasteful government spending on healthcare and substantially cut subsidies on health insurance companies. This as a concept is a great thing, but in practicality, it is mixed in merit. For example, it forces drug companies to give a rebate to people with both medicare and medicaid (causing everyone else’s healthcare cost to go up). But there is some benefit. The medicare reform will cut down on fraud. It will also cut so-called over-billings and some bureaucratic inefficiencies, which improves this portion.

The third purpose is essentially a repeat of the second, a mere piece of rhetoric that exists because otherwise the description of the second purpose would be too long to flow conveniently.

The fourth purpose is the real reform, a regulatory mess sure to cripple the private health insurance industry. One of those chains will keep a company from “discriminating”, or charging a higher price to individuals that are more likely to induce costs. This equalizer will raise the healthcare costs of every American who does not have a pre-existing disposition. People will be penalized for living healthily.

Those were the original goals of healthcare reform, back in August. Since then, a new part has been added in the place of the public option: a mandate requiring all americans to purchase health insurance. Failure to buy health insurance means a quarter of a million dollars in fines and in some cases, jailtime. Economically, such a mandate will cause the demand curve for health insurance to become inelastic, meaning that the price can shoot through the roof without companies fearing market retribution. Health insurance costs would increase, and one’s choice to opt out of insurance would be lost. One could no longer be medically independent, and one would face dependence on either a private collective or a public collective to determine whether one should live or die.

On balance, the current bill is still a wreck. I have not even analyzed the trillion dollar spending, and already the headlights and horn of the freight train of Healthcare reform grow nearer, ready to crush us.

[1] http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/health_care/hr3962_PAYINGFORREFORM.pdf

[2] http://www.democrats.org/a/2009/08/why_we_need_hea.php

Advertisements

If Obama’s New Czar Has His Way, This Could Be My Last Post…

July 13, 2009

In a move destined to garner less attention than cap-and-trade or health care, Barack Obama’s choice for the position of Information Czar could have drastic implications for the conservative blogosphere.

by Michael Naragon

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor and friend to the national Messiah, has been tapped to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  The Wall Street Journal has reported that Sunstein was one of the major influences on a young Obama’s attitudes on government regulation and economics, a scary proposition considering the degree to which the Obama administration is attempting to pull us toward Soviet-style communism.

According to the Journal, many of those familiar with Sunstein’s work and philosophy have said that his fingerprints are obvious in many of the administration’s policies, including credit card reform and the push for climate change legislation, the now-infamous cap-and-trade debacle.

But it is Sunstein’s ideas about the First Amendment that make him dangerous to free thought and free exchange of ideas.  In Sunstein’s last published book, Nudge, he advises that the role of government should be to “nudge” people into being better human beings, an apparent contradiction to the accepted idea that morality cannot be legislated.

Now, Kyle Smith of the New York Post reported Sunday, the release of Sunstein’s next publication, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, is imminent.  The Harvard professor’s new book gives us the blueprint for his agenda as Information Overlord in the White House, and it shows why his appointment will potentially be more critical to free speech and the Constitution than the possible confirmation of Judge Sonya Sotomayor, whose Senate hearing is scheduled to begin Monday.

In his new book, according to the Post article, Sunstein warns against the dangers of social networking sites and the “false information” that can be spread quickly and efficiently through their use.  Some of the ways he has suggested to clean up the rabble–which includes bloggers and those who comment on blogs–have been to relax the standard by which libel can be proved and to create a system through which the federal government will strong-arm and fine those bloggers that post information deemed to be “false rumors” by the Obama administration.

So, let’s say, you have written a nice blog on Obama’s newest attempt at nationalizing health care.  The president has claimed that the government has no interest in taking over the health care industry, but in your blog you illustrate the logical progression of the program, from “competitive” government option to “monolithic” government mandate.

If Sunstein had his way, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs–or some other federal branch under the guidance of his department–would send you a letter asking you to remove your post because it contained “rumor.”  If you do, the administration is happy, the First Amendment is trampled, and you’ve learned your lesson to never again write anything harmful about Sunstein’s friend.  If you don’t, the federal government could then force you to fight them in court to the tune of thousands of dollars.

Most bloggers would have no financial possibility of fighting such legal action against the taxpayer-funded federal government.  Faced with such pressure, a blogger would, naturally, take down their post rather than destroy their own financial future.  And the First Amendment would still become a worthless paragraph in the annals of American history.  It would only take one or two examples to silence the entire blogosphere, turning it into a place where you can only learn about Aunt Kathy’s twins or Jimmy’s Great Dane, while Congress and the executive branch, insulated from legitimate criticism, can pass their anti-American, anti-taxpayer laws.

Post writer Smith suggests a war be waged on Sunstein by the news organizations and blogosphere before Obama’s comrade can launch his own assault.  If such a war to preserve the First Amendment is unsuccessful, how long will it be before we are hiding in our basements, huddled around short-wave radios, listening to broadcasts of Radio Free America while party officials like Sunstein and Janet Napolitano concern themselves with rooting out the dissidents?