Health Care/Insurance

So, this week, the Obama Administration is planning its takeover of the American Health Care system.  Let's see:  the banks have been taken over, as have the car companies; the federal budget has had an extra $800 Billion to spend in "economic stimulus" funds.  Unemployment is at a 25 year high.  So of course, move on to a new massive undertaking.  Do you like this stuff?  Having radical changes go on every month or so?   Is this what we elected?  

The term in favor today is "Health Care."  I prefer to call it medical insurance.  I suppose polls must show the combination of "health" and "care" elicits a more positive response than medical insurance.  The problem, so we are told by some of our political leaders, is that so many people do not have "health care."  What they really mean is that they do not have insurance which covers medical matters.  I grew up with no insurance.  I never had it until I was 24 years old, not counting college clinics.  And it wasn't something we fretted about.  If something came up, we went to the doctor and we got it looked at.  

But I cannot say that we can go back to those days of paying the doctor in cash or check with each visit.  Expenses are too high now.  Conservatives look at the high expenses and see a medical establishment not having to compete on the basis of price because consumers don't really pay the bill directly anymore.  They also see technological advances that are quite expensive playing a factor as well.  Liberals see greedy insurance company executives.  

The conservative solution is to have a catastrophic health insurance plan as well as a Health Savings Account.  Sadly, these initiatives have not gotten very far due to the roadblocks placed by the liberals in congress.  Now that they are in power, they seek to have the government be the one insurance company for all of us.  

I do not trust the federal government to create a better health insurance plan than the one I currently have, so I do not want them to interfere.  I also feel that their interference will hinder access for medical matters, and I do not want that to happen.

Most of all, can't we let the economy recover as well as deal with Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea and Iran before we blow up our entire health care industry?

The New American Car Company?

A few weeks ago I opined that no entrepreneur would start up a new car company today in the face of so much government regulation.  Well, the cover story of the latest Forbes disagrees with that assessment.  They write:

"The implosion of General Motors and Chrysler has sparked a flurry of innovators like [Henrik] Fisker. They are reminiscent of the entrepreneurs in the car industry's early days, when Henry Ford, Ransom E. Olds, Henry Studebaker and many now forgotten dreamers competed for technological leadership with steam-, electricity- and gasoline-powered cars. By the early 1910s the internal combustion engine won out. Amazingly, the means of propulsion--indeed the car business itself--has changed little since then."

I read the article to learn if I had been wrong.  Yes, it is true that Henrik Fisker has a solid plan to deliver new vehicles to American consumers in the next three years.  But, he's looking at selling $88,000 hybrid sports cars.  Later, he expects to have a $50,000 plug-in available.  

I submit that the development of these specialty concept cars will not make a significant impact on the marketplace.  In my mind, the whole problem with the auto industry is that the vehicles are simply too expensive.  Fisker and the other entrepreneurs mentioned will do nothing to achieve broad appeal.  The startup costs for his company are very high.  In addition, he is seeking financial aid from U.S. government program.  So, is he really an entrepreneur?  

Cars, Abortion, Crime

Big news has happened again over the last three days and I'm realizing that we're just repeating the same stuff again.  

 

1-GM files bankruptcy as the Obama administration asserts ownership of a company.

2-Notorious and unrepentant Kansas abortionist George Tiller murdered on Sunday.

3-14 Year Old suburban boy set upon by thugs and killed in Maryland on Saturday.

GM:  What more can I say about my feelings about government control of a car company?  It's a disturbing trend that would not have happened under Republican leadership.  Hopefully, there is still a philosophical difference in that Republicans would not take ownership of the company.  Maybe we'd bail them out with loans but to assert real control smacks of socialism.  

Abortion.  Tiller's murder was wrong.  That is obvious.  No justification for it.  What motivated the crazed killer to do it?  Was it the fact that Tiller just kept getting away with such depraved behavior (60,000 abortions!) that the crazed killer was so tormented in his mind that he unjustifiably felt it was up to him to put a stop to it?  

Murder in Crofton, Maryland.  Some older kids killed a younger kid who was riding a bike.  Is that the end of it.  Probably, but it would not be if the victim and suspects races were reversed.  As it turns out, the 16 year old being charged as an adult is named Javel.  Enough said.  But if the victim was named Javel, there would be hell to pay from Al Sharpton and the NAACP.  If the press wants to act responsible, then let them NEVER discuss race in these crimes whether the victims and suspects are white or black or Hispanic.  Of course, Hate Crimes laws specifically bring race into the discussion, and the press will always let itself be used by the race baiters in our society.  I don't like to discuss race but one of my purposes in writing this blog is to point out double standards.

IRS and the Social Security Number

"Where's my refund?" I ask the IRS website.  After filing our taxes on April 14th, I knew that it was about time that the refund be deposited in our account.  Well -- it turns out that I made a clerical error in transcribing the Social Security Number of one of our children.  So, in the eyes of the IRS, my $700 refund has turned into an $800 balance due.  Dumb mistake, that's for sure.  Especially since I had made a similar mistake a few years ago when I thought I knew one of the kids' Social Security Numbers by heart.  Not Quite, it turned out.  So, that year I received a similar notice.

The solution is actually very easy.  Last time, I just phoned up the IRS and they brought up my file and I informed them what the correct SSN was.  They made the change, and the refund was processed.  I'm expecting it to be similarly easy this time.  

So, this brings up another subject.  If the IRS is so very vigilant and careful in establishing that SSNs are correct, how are so many illegal aliens able to find jobs when they are supposed to be using valid Social Security Numbers as a prerequisite to gaining employment in this country?  Twice in the last five years a federal agency, the IRS, has caught a one digit error in the Social Security Numbers used on our 1040 forms.  Can't the INS (or is it called ICE now?) or the Department of Labor be as effective as the IRS in screening out phony or invalid Social Security Numbers?  The answer is that the government clearly does not really care about the issue of jobs going to illegal immigrants.

I haven't even discussed the ridiculousness of having to obtain Social Security Cards for newborn babies.  Remember -- the first two letters of the Social Security taxes taken out of your paycheck are "OA," as in the Old-Age and Survivors Disability Insurance program.  Yet we require these ID cards for minors and pretend we do not have a national ID card in this country.  

6/02/09 UPDATE:  The phone call to the IRS took about 20 minutes of time, most of that on hold, but yes I had mistaken a 0 for a 6 on a Social Security Number and that caused the IRS to reject the Child Tax Credit and Dependent exemption.  I simply gave the correct number and the refund will arrive in about 20 days.  It's nice that they allow these mistakes to be corrected so easily. 

This Week's News

Although some big events happened this week (Supreme Court nomination, North Korean nuclear test, GM to be 72% government owned, California's Prop 8 affirmed) I haven't really felt anything was worth writing about.  Now all four of these are major, but they are also quite predictable.

The nomination of a liberal woman to the Supreme Court by a liberal President is not a surprise.  Sonia Sotomayor's viewpoints will no doubt be to the left on all issues but that's what you get when you elected Barack Obama.  One of my favorite journalists, Charles Krauthammer has some excellent advice in today's Post on how to deal with the nomination.  Simply talk about the real life consequences of her views and accept the inevitable that she will be confirmed.  

As for North Korea, can there be any doubt that they see Obama as weak and that they know that there will be no effective response to their actions?  This has been building for over a dozen years, since Democratic Secretary of State Madeline Albright looked the other way in the face of North Korean advances towards the development of nuclear weapons.  President GW Bush was weakened by Democratic efforts against him in the wake of the Iraq difficulties and thus by 2006 he lost his ability to treat North Korea like a part of the Axis of Evil.  Had we been able to put politics aside and unite as one, perhaps the North Korean threat could have been checked in 2005.

GM?  It just seems bizarre to me that the US government is going to own this company.  Boy, am I glad I realized that owning stock in a company that was under the thumb of the U.S. government was a big mistake.

Prop 8 Upheld -- Thank goodness the rights of the people of California were not overturned by the California Supreme Court this time.  Do you know what the US Census says that the homosexual population is in America? The 2000 U.S Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. And yet, Americans when polled by Gallup, vastly overestimated the homosexual population to be closer to 25% of the population.  Why?  Because of the effective political and cultural campaign waged in the media.  They want you to believe their numbers are much bigger than they truly are.  

American Idol

What?  I thought this was a politics blog?  Sometimes the culture and politics intersect so I thought I'd  take a look at the results from last night's American Idol and what it says about the United States, if anything.

Here's what happened:  A regular-looking (okay, good-looking according to the female fans) 23 year old guy wins American Idol.  His competition, A 28-year-old man who many describe as flamboyant.  And he has a great voice.  But what it comes down to in this competition is popularity.  And, in my opinion, Kris Allen comes across as more real and authentic than Adam Lambert.   A guy who likes to wear eyeliner and dress up in costumes may do well on Broadway, but will he win a mainstream American popularity contest.  Apparently not.  Adam fits in well with performers like KISS and Queen.  Kris is more of a James Taylor kind of guy.  I like both kinds of music, and hopefully they both will have great careers.  But this week's vote shows that America is more mainstream than a lot of media people and others would like us to believe.  Is this analogous to the No on 8 result in California last November?  Perhaps.  The American people are generally quite  tolerant of alternative lifestyles but it is a big turnofff when they are flaunted in their faces.  

Politics and Cars

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he will seek (or was it mandate -- does he need Congress to approve?) to require higher overall MPGs from vehicle manufacturers.  I believe this was also combined with lower emissions requirements as well.  Wonderful goals, right?  We all want to get higher miles per gallon and we want to emit as little pollution as possible.  So, why am I against this?

Three reasons.  One is that the government has just taken over two U.S. auto manufacturers and is now saddling them with even more requirements that will further reduce sales, because it forces the price to go up.  In one sense, it makes the most sense for the Democrats running the U.S. government to just run the car companies because they set up so many of the rules and regulations for how to build a car that they might as well just build the cars and trucks themselves.  Can you imagine being an entrepreneur today who wanted to start up a new car company?  No, the smart creative types are getting involved with computers and biotechnology.  

Remember how the Democrats chafed at the restrictions placed on embryonic stem cell research by Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush?  They argued that these restrictions hindered creativity and progress in researching cures or treatments for many ailments.  Well, all the restrictions placed on the car companies over the last 40 years are what has killed the American automobile industry.  

The second reason I oppose this is similar in that the government has taken another step in killing the fun out of cars.  Thinking back to the glory days of GM and hot rods and Pontiac GTOs and TransAms or Chevy Camaros or Ford Mustangs.  Cars were fun! Now what do we have?  Boring cars like the Toyota Camry or the Honda Accord.  

Safety, fuel economy, and emissions regulations have boosted the price of cars to excessive levels.  $20,000 is probably just a starting point for a new car.  So, with prices that high, how many cars and trucks will one person buy in a lifetime?  Not as many, that's for sure.

A third point to consider is that there are inevitable safety tradeoffs when we raise the fuel economy standards as people are forced into smaller cars which are proven less safe than larger cars when involved in a crash.  So, to save ourselves from the mythical threat of Global Warming, we end up causing more real deaths as people are driving smaller cars.