Archives 2
Everything posted in the 'blog' space on the right of the main page will be stored here so the main page can load easier. Popular bloggings are grouped together or occasionally have their own page: The Minimum Wage, Farm Subsidies, New Government Food Pyramid, US Government Health, Canadian Health Care, British Health Care, Government Kidnapping, Humor, Unions, Environment, China, Government Condescension, American Heroes, USA and Freedom Abroad, Chavez, Constitutional issues (including EU vs US Constitution), Charitable Corruption, Supreme Tyranny (Supreme Court on Property rights), The Internet, A question of Rhetoric, Academic Bias, Inequality, Aid, and the Nature of Governments, Voting with your Feet (Las Vegas Vs. Detroit), Transportation Socialization, Wal-Mart, Aiding America's Poor, Club For Growth; Defending Liberty, Secondary Problems of Socialism, Guns and Crime, Gasoline and Government, French Riots, Post Office, Israel and Palestine, Optimism, FDA Tyranny, Communist Musings, College, RIP Carrie Largent, Medical Lobbying, The Bureaucrat In Your..., Amnesty From Government, Media Freedom, Nevada Politics, Social Conservatism, The Israeli Lebanon Conflict, Ebay, Tax Cuts, and Capitalism, Fee Trade, Ideology, Emotion, and Reason, Bad Karma, Good Karma?, Airbus vs Boeing, Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility; Milk, It Does A Government Good, Ron Paul 2008, Settling the Small Business Hype, Personal Responsibility, Mental Responsibility, Part II Christ In Life, New Leadership on HealthCare: a Presidential Forum, Restricting the Body, Elevating the Mind, DO Day on the Hill, Round 2..
For Excerpts from the larger research papers click here.
For earlier posts visit Archives 1.
Posted 2/10/06
Posted 5/25/06
3 Wall-Street Journal Articles (FDA)
2005 WSJ Found this group of articles from the Abigail Alliance. Contained therein is the usual: terminally ill patients refused access to medications they desire, bureaucratic FDA incompetence and foot dragging, and on and all. However, of especial interest is this blurb:
While it came too late to save Mrs. Karnes, our reporting of her plight certainly generated a lot of attention. Bayer and Pfizer -- developers of two investigational drugs showing much promise for this particularly deadly cancer -- both contacted her doctor almost immediately to discuss the appropriateness of providing the compounds. Mrs. Karnes's family was also contacted by the FDA and told that the agency stood ready to approve such treatment on an emergency basis. All encouraging steps. But isn't it a national scandal that cancer sufferers should have to be written about in The Wall Street Journal to be offered legal access to emerging therapies once they've run out of other options?
This is further evidence of what I have always maintained: the FDA is a political institution, under political control, and, as with all government agencies, is more concerned with not 'shaking the boat', generating positive media coverage, and attaining more funding, and expanding its own power, than it is with accomplishing its ostensible goal of 'protecting patients'. If the FDA was the omnipotent, benevolent, scientific, objective type of agency that its proponents make it out to be, then its decisions would not be influenced by public opinion.
When people are killed by the FDA, as in when a beneficial new drug that would have saved many lives is delayed many years, there are no headlines because the victims are nameless, faceless, and unseen. However, when one, let me repeat, ONE, person dies in gene therapy trials, there is a person and therefore a name and face and thus media coverage and hence:
The National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration opened hearings to explore the safety of gene therapy treatment after a teen died while receiving the experimental care. (As an aside, more people have died in Gene therapy trials, although I'd guess nearly all probably would have died anyway, but this particular case, for whatever reason, seemed to galvanize the political health establishment.)
This lack of context and imagination is how asinine policies develop, such as the creation of an agency like the FDA . Politicians, government officials, and agency bureaucrats are moved to actions by names and faces, causing the exponentially greater number of nameless and faceless to perish or suffer from their actions. However, in their defense, the actions of these folks merely reflect the contextless media coverage and the misguided reactions of equally emotional constituents.
This pattern is not unique to healthcare, although, since 'lives are at stake', the emotional appeal of such cases are strongest in this field and represent a primary reason for the prevalent hurtful socialism of healthcare in the United States and other countries. But, this trend can also be seen in other policy arenas, such as free trade vs protectionism and often poses barriers to the lifting of other government imposed economic burdens. For example, sad sob stories can be created about steel workers loosing their jobs if tariffs are removed, but who can gin up an equally emotional story about the prosperity (and added jobs) gained by all Americans via lower prices of a vital commodity? Similarly, when public industries (schools, roads etc..) are privatized, or when deregulation of various industries are undertaken, new businesses/companies are guaranteed to spring up and prosper in the given industry, yet these are faceless and nameless as they exist only in the future. In contrast, Teachers Unions, Unions in general, parasitic private companies using government for their protection, and a host of other 'special interests', all exist in the present, have employees with families, names, faces, and, perhaps most importantly to politicians, posses political power and contributions that will likely outweigh those of the apathetic populace.
One of the biggest obstacles to school reform, aka, school choice, is the fact that the private schools, charter or otherwise, that would replace our horrid public schools do not yet exist to have a voice.
In the end, liberty can only be assured when the populace itself is louder in their advocation of the faceless and nameless, than the special interests are with their agenda of perpetuating stagnation; or, in the case of the FDA and the Abigail Alliance, when names and faces are given to the nameless and faceless by activist citizens.
(Added to 'FDA Tyranny')
|
Posted 5/23/06
Your 'Robber Baron,' my American Hero
In 1870, Britain was the world’s chief steel producer; by 1900, Andrew Carnegie alone made more steel than all of Great Britain.
Addressing some workers in 1886, Atkinson tried to explain how everyone gained from a free market. Cornelius Vanderbilt, Atkinson observed, made a profit of 14 cents from every barrel of flour shipped over his railroads. His efficiency lowered the price of flour for consumers. “Did Vanderbilt keep any of you down,” challenged Atkinson, “by saving you $2.75 on a barrel of flour, while he was making 14 cents?”
|
Posted 5/23/06
Mayor
calls housing plan 'communist'
5/20/06 South Florida Sun-Sentinel
An interesting story describing how a mayor is opposing attempts by heavily democratic Broward country to pass 'measures' designed to alleviate a 'housing shortage' and high prices of homes. Mentioned are 'developer fees', more commonly known as 'taxes'.
Lol, so if you're in short supply of something then tax it! Just like our friends on the left want to tax oil companies when the price of gas goes up. Of course, when you tax something you discourage it's production, so this effort only makes things worse.
"The
city is under pressure from Broward County to pass a law; otherwise, the county says it won't allow
another wave of construction of thousands of condos downtown."
Lol, so county government will cause a housing shortage if city government
doesn't comply and cause a housing shortage... all in the name of preventing a housing shortage!
Posted 5/21/06
Corzine pushes tax on hospitals
5/21/06 Newark Star-Ledger
The newly installed chairman of the New Jersey Hospital Association yesterday assailed the Corzine administration's proposed $1,424-a-month bed tax and urged both suburban and urban hospitals to stand in solidarity.
What do you suppose the results of this policy will be? Hospitals will reduce their number of beds, new hospitals will be discouraged from opening. Supply will shrink and Healthcare will suffer.
D'Agnes [the NJHA chairman] said the majority of New Jersey hospitals find themselves in the same boat, with most expected to end this year in the red again.
These hospitals are in the red and therefore government decides to hit them with another tax?! So, why are they doing this?
The tax is expected to generate a total of $430 million, half of which would go toward the general state budget. (for what?) Gov. Jon Corzine would use the remaining $215 million to qualify for matching federal funds under the Medicaid program. Those dollars would be returned to hospitals treating the largest numbers of uninsured patients, with most being situated in urban areas.
The Federal government has incentives in place to encourage states down the path towards socialism.
(Added to 'Government Healthcare')
|
Posted 5/16/06
The High Price of Cheap Drugs / Why Low Drug Prices in Canada are too Good to be True
2004 Summer Issue Hoover Digest by Russel Roberts
I recently an across this article, which I think is very well written and is a must read for anyone following the Canadian prescription drug debate.
(Added to 'Canadian Healthcare')
|
Posted 5/14/06
HUD chief: Right list leads to government cash
5/8/06 Dallas Business Journal
Getting on the right government list can make you wealthy. That's the gist of what Alphonso Jackson, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a group of influential minority business leaders in Dallas on April 28.
The housing secretary told the group that HUD provides "business opportunities for many in this room to get rich."
"My task is to help you do work with and for the federal government," he said. "Whether it's HUD or another agency, the opportunities are there. The most amazing thing I've ever seen is the amount of contracts we give out every day. One contract can make you wealthy."
How is government supposed to choose these contracts?
In the government's competitive bid process, federal agencies including HUD are required to get at least three responses before awarding a contract.
"They're supposed to consult three bidders and decide what's the best value," Murphy said.
How does it actually work?
"After about six months on the job, I had a person come in and say, 'I don't think you understand how government works. We don't bid out anything in government.' I said, 'What do you mean? That's illegal.' He went on about the lists people get on.
"The strange thing about the situation is all you have to do is pick three people off the list, then you can decide which one you're going to use, as long as they're on that list."
How do you get on 'lists'? By donating campaign money, supporting whatever political party is in power.
He
came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem
with your president.'
"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I
thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You
wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the
president, don't tell the secretary.'
"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I
reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the
president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."
This is how business is done in Washington DC. The criminals in government are stealing your money and trying to stay in power. And, for what? What does HUD do? What does it accomplish? It is a poverty perpetuator. Their $28 billion in looted dollar bills would be better off burned in a bonfire than spent to hurt the poorest and most destitute of the American people.
|
Posted 5/14/06
Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues /Federal Programs Direct At Least $157 Million
3/22/06 Washington Post
Similar to the above post, let's examine how government works:
For years, conservatives have complained about what they saw as the liberal tilt of federal grant money. Taxpayer funds went to abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood to promote birth control, and groups closely aligned with the AFL-CIO got Labor Department grants to run worker-training programs.
In the Bush administration, conservatives are discovering that turnabout is fair play: Millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush's agenda on abortion and other social issues.
Among other new beneficiaries of federal funding during the Bush years are groups run by Christian conservatives, including those in the African American and Hispanic communities. Many of the leaders have been active Republicans and influential supporters of Bush's presidential campaigns. <.>
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said the grant-making is "corrupting."
"The danger is that any group that gets money from the government will end up serving the interests of the state rather than the constituencies they are trying to serve," he said. "The guy who writes the check writes the rules."
Whether it's Democrats or Republicans, those in power will attempt to expand their power base, and the easiest way to do so is to increase the money, scope and power of the Federal Government.
President Bush, a 'compassionate Conservative', ie a Liberal Conservative, is no different. And they wonder why his popularity is in the low 30s...
The GOP is Now the Party of LBJ . . .and McGovern, Waxman, and Gore
5/12/06 National Review Online
|
Posted 5/11/06
5/11/06 Club For Growth
The Club For Growth picked up my recent piece on 'DO Day On the Hill' and ran part of it on their blog.
|
Posted 5/11/06
The following two stories will be added to their respective post groupings mainly because they reiterate the theme of those postings.
The College Rejection Bonanza: Ivy League Schools are Over-rated Compared to Less Selective Colleges
3/7/06 The American Thinker
2. Having a son or daughter accepted at a selective college has become one more badge of honor and prestige for the very large group of Americans who can buy pretty much everything else they desire.
5/9/06 Thomas Sowell
In other words, those who supply oil are being denounced and demonized by those who have been blocking the supply of oil.
Sowell also mentions the growth of the developing world, China and India as a reason for the high prices. While I agree with this, on the demand side, and perhaps should have mentioned it more in my analysis, the supply side would, IMHO, have more than kept pace with this surging demand had oil across the world been free of government theft and coercion.
(Added to 'College' and 'Gasoline and Government' respectively)
|
Posted 5/10/06
Spoilers Win Seats on Rights Council
5/10/06 Herald Sun
FIVE nations seen by rights groups as among the world's worst abusers have been elected along with 39 other countries to the United Nations' new Human Rights Council in a first round of voting.
Russia, China, Cuba, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, identified by New York-based Human Rights Watch as unworthy of membership on the new UN body, were among those winning seats. But two others on the group's list, Iran and Azerbaijan, failed to win membership on the first ballot.
Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said it was inevitable some rights foes would win seats but "the important step is that we have made real progress" over the discredited Human Rights Commission, shut down in March.
That this is considered 'real progress' is illustrative of what a joke the United Nations has always been and continues to be.
|
Posted 5/10/06
Store owner arrested for shooting at gas theft suspects
4/29/06 George Town Times
The owner of an Andrews-area convenience store, accused of taking the law into his own hands after he witnessed an alleged gas drive off Wednesday, is charged with two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. Dennis Cooper, 52, the owner of Cooper’s Six Mile Crossing Convenience Store allegedly chased and then fired shots at a vehicle after the driver reportedly drove off without paying for $28 worth of gas.
Deputy Kevin Holt was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived he saw Cooper holding the two men on the ground at gunpoint.
The owner of this gas station is charged for the crime of protecting his own property. Government does not have the same incentives to protect his property as he does. While I cannot condone all his actions, I can at least respect this idea of a 'citizen' arrest.
Disabled Red Bank Man Gets Off 4 Shots At Home Invader
4/27/06 The Chatanoogan
A disabled Red Bank man foiled a home invasion early Thursday morning by getting off four shots at a man busting in his bedroom window.
I always like stories where the weakest (physically) members of society are protected by their right to bear arms.
Local resident shoots bank robber in leg
4/10/06 Paris News
Piper said he first knew of the manhunt near his house when his girlfriend called him at work about 8 p.m. to tell him a bank robber was loose in the area and police had instructed her to keep the kids in the house and the doors locked.
Upon arriving home, Piper said he said “hi” to the four kids, got his shotgun out of the closet and proceeded to lock vehicles and secure outside buildings.
“I told him, ‘you are not one of my neighbors, you are the bank robber,’” Piper said. “I told my girlfriend to call 911 and I told him to lay face down on the ground.”
Instead, the man threw his arms back and “started coming at me busted out like he was going to hit me,” Piper said.
Piper pulled the trigger, sending a 20-gauge shotgun shell through both of Hammonds’ legs, ending a five-hour manhunt involving several law enforcement agencies, a Texas Department of Public Safety helicopter and tracking dogs from the Choice Moore State Jail in Bonham.
Piper says he is anxious about possible charges being brought against him, but said he believes he was justified in what he did.
(Added to 'Guns and Crime')
|
Posted 5/10/06
Scientist Seeks Quicker Tamiflu
5/5/06 BBC
However, a new process would require extra investment in chemical equipment; and any drug produced in the Corey fashion would have to be separately licensed by the medical authorities.
Which, in the US, takes an average of 12 years. Imagine if you discovered a new cure, something that would save millions of lives. How many would die before the FDA, even if they 'fasttracked it', allowed consumers the choice of using it?
(Added to 'FDA Tyranny')
|
Posted 5/8/06
In a Dentist Shortage, British Do It Themselves
5/7/06 New York Times
Since moving to Rochdale, a working-class suburb of Manchester, he has been unable to find a National Health Service dentist willing to take him on.
Every time he has tried to sign up, lining up with hundreds of others from the ranks of the desperate and the hurting — "I've seen people with bleeding gums where they've ripped their teeth out," he said grimly — he has arrived too late and missed the cutoff.
Here is a question, I wonder if these folks who practice Dentistry on themselves can be charged for practicing without a license? Lol, wouldn't that be a hoot. However, where socialism fails, capitalism provides hope:
"I
saw it on the Internet," said Josie Johnson, 42, of London, describing how she heard about a
company called Vital Europe, which offers dental-and-vacation packages to Hungary. "It's a
quite small country, and I thought, they specialize in dentistry — so that's what I might
do."
(Added to 'British Health Care')
Posted 5/7/06
The Bureaucrat in your Internet phone (not the real title)
5/6/06 Fox News In the current case, Edwards appeared especially skeptical over the FCC's decision to require that providers of Internet phone service and broadband services must ensure their equipment can accommodate police wiretaps under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, known as CALEA.
Another Bureaucrat in your Internet phone (not the real title)
5/19/05 Washington Post The Federal Communications Commission gave companies that offer Internet-based phone service 120 days to certify that their customers will be able to reach an emergency dispatcher when they call 911. Also, a dispatcher will have to be able to tell where a caller is located and the number from which he is calling.
The 4 to 0 vote came after FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin invited families affected by the inability to reach emergency-response centers over Internet phones to tell their stories. A Florida woman described how her infant daughter died while she was unable to reach an emergency dispatcher through her Internet phone. "By moving quickly, we will save lives," Commissioner Michael J. Copps said.
Harry Browne said:
If government had taken over the auto industry in 1920, today we'd all be driving Model-T cars -- and saying, 'If it weren't for the government, we'd have no cars at all.'
In this case, it is because of government and their stupid, silly, asinine regulations and meddlings that we do not have free internet phones at the present time.
The technology is there and has been there, but then again, so has government. Expand this across nearly every industry and you can begin to realize the harm our own government propogates on society in the name of 'protecting us'.
(Added to 'The Internet' and 'The Bureaucrat In Your...')
|
Posted 5/5/06
Court Backs Experimental Drugs for Dying Patients
5/3/06 Washington Post
Saying that dying patients have a basic "right of self-preservation," the court held that drugs that have passed the first phase of FDA review -- which determines whether a product is safe -- should be made available if they might save someone's life.
Why does it have to pass the 'first phase'? How much time, money, and bureaucracy stand in the way of a drug passing this 'first phase'? And why is this limited only to terminally ill patients?
However, the best is yet to come:
In its opposition to the challenge, the FDA had said that the agency already has programs that make potentially lifesaving drugs available before final approval. In addition, it said that allowing large numbers of patients to take unapproved drugs could put many at unacceptable risk, even if they are terminally ill.
Glad to see, yet again, the FDA is doing its best to protect those irresponsible incompetent terminally ill patients... from themselves.
If you can believe it, the Washington Post came out with a doozy of an editorial that actually argued against this court decision:
But since when did access to experimental therapies become a "fundamental right" -- defined in Supreme Court case law as a right deeply embedded in the fabric of American tradition and without which ordered liberty would not be meaningfully free?
Heh heh... where do the editors at the Washington Post get this 'ordered liberty' from? The Constitution mentions liberty at every turn, but never 'ordered liberty'. From the Declaration of Independence we get a more eloquent depiction:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The WP editorial continues:
If this right is real, it potentially calls into question the whole fabric of drug regulation.
Well, I agree, as it should! The whole fabric of drug regulation does not square with the Constitution. But then again, why should one respect the Constitution and such a concept as 'liberty'?
The FDA's balancing of the competing interests of patients, public health and science may not be perfect. But the cure does not reside in the Constitution.
(Added to 'FDA Tyranny')
|
Posted 5/2/06
I've created a 'Medical Lobbying' group post, which is subdivided into 'DO Day on the Hill' and 'AOA Advocacy' posting links.
|
Posted 5/2/06
This past week/weekend I attended the AOA (American Osteopathic Association) sponsored 'DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) Day on the Hill' and the SOMA (Student Osteopathic Medical Association) convention in Washington DC. It was a great experience and we had a blast. I thought some of you might find a little write-up on it interesting and, since this is largely a political site, I'll stick to that aspect of it. :)
I have been to DC before, curtesy of ABC (Alternative Break Corps), lobbying on behalf of the National Homeless Coalition, which was somewhat of an irony considering that our experiences, sleeping on the streets etc..., only served to solidify my belief that a good initial measure to combat homelessness in this country would be to eliminate the National Homeless Coalition, a bloated taxpayer funded agency with a socialist agenda that, in my opinion, perpetuates and increases homelessness rather than reducing it. They did not take too kindly to our not supporting their bills.
However, the AOA was much more welcoming and presented us with a number of bills they supported and then gave us the leeway and choice to lobby our representatives on the bills and issues we were passionate about. Shawn Martin, our head lobbyist, gave us good information about the bills, is a great guy, and works hard to represent DOs on Capital Hill.
The night before our 'DO day on the Hill' we heard from a number of great speakers, including Tom Price, MD (R-GA), who spoke eloquently about the problems resulting from government control of physician salaries and of medicine in general.
Another interesting speaker was William Prentice, Associate Executive Lobbyist from the American Dental Association. He spoke with pride about how dentists in the United States, unlike those of, say, Great Britain, are lucky enough to be the least regulated of all health care professionals: patients typically pay out of pocket for a high percentage of their bill, dentists have little to do with Medicare and Medicaid, and consequently, the result being, in his and my concurrent opinion, increased access and quality of care, along with low costs for patients and high salaries for dentists. Indeed, our friends on the Left often seek to chisel cohabiting groups into artificial categories: rich against poor, worker against business, doctor against patient, without the understanding that the end result of a policy generally affects all involved parties similarly, with little exception. What is good for docs is good for patients and vice versa. I would like to learn more about how the free market and dentistry have resulted in such positive results. I rather wish the AOA and the AMA would follow in their footsteps.
But, I must say I was disappointed to hear some of our lobbyists extol the virtues of the free market and capitalism, but then begin to hedge their opinions with regard to Healthcare. A common statement I always hear is, "Healthcare is too important to be left to market forces." In reality, precisely the opposite is true, Healthcare is too important not to be left to market forces.
There was one common theme I heard over and over throughout the week, from every single doctor, every single lobbyist, and every single politician, Democrat or Republican. They all agreed that Medicare and Medicaid were broken, especially that the physician payment/reimbursement formula was convoluted, contradicting and ultimately, unworkable.
Now, I doubt this is any surprise to regular readers of this site, who probably yawningly view this as merely another predicable government debacle, but I was a bit surprised at how willing those with Liberal leanings were to admit this. But, most surprising of all was that no one, well, perhaps besides the dentists, seemed to comprehend that these problems were only the natural result of socialism. By definition, the system has to be broken! Yet, what we heard was the need for new formulas, smarter calculations, and the 'proper adjustments' and, even with all of these 'patches', they all admitted none of the fixes could make the system 'properly functional'.
Despite all this, the AOA and, I'm assuming the AMA (American Medical Association), and most of the Medical Students in attendance went out and lobbied for increases in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. To be perfectly frank, and in my opinion, this whole approach is a useless and counterproductive exercise. The pervasive socialism of the Healthcare industry must be ended, pulled out by its roots. Medicaid and Medicare must be abolished. By abolished, I mean 'phased out', because, misguided thought they were, government promises need to be honored for current enrollees of these programs. Even such 'drastic' and 'extreme' measures as totally ridding ourselves of these harmful programs are really only the first step in reducing the massive government entrenchment and hurtful involvements in Healthcare.
As previously mentioned, Medicare is an especially egregious program, considering it is essentially a government sponsored, mandatory, pyramid scheme, which increasingly takes money from younger people, who tend to be poorer, and gives it to older people, who are, demographically, the richest segment of society.
My grandparents' generation thought being on the government dole was a disgraceful, a blight on the family honor. Today's senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right [to as much] 'free' stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.
- CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown
However, the arguments against Medicaid, the health program for the poor are the most insidious, as opponents usually state as fact that poorer citizens will loose their health care and die or become ill and then the debate often shifts from a rational policy discussion to an evaluation of your personal intentions. Of course, this was the same line used with welfare reform and in fact, as documented, the repealing of socialism and the taking away of government benefits from the poorest Americans resulted in an increase in their prosperity, not a decline. In fact, the well intentioned government programs were found to be the very reason for the poverty!
In addition, both Medicare and Medicaid, being government programs, are racked with fraud, theft, waste, and, being government programs, offer incentives for poor care and disincentives for excellence, entrepreneurialship, and humane care.
In arguing for increasing physician reimbursement rates for both Medicaid and Medicare (H.R. 3617), the AOA tells lawmakers that physicians will stop accepting Medicaid and Medicare patients, thus decreasing patient access, if the compensation is not increased. Do you see the problem with this? Imagine if instead the AOA encouraged its members not to accept Medicaid and Medicare programs and urged Congress to phase out the programs. Don't hold your breath on that one... :)
Another bill we could choose to advocate for was a bill (H.R. 1380) which would help us lower our rather substantial debt as we emerge from medical school. It involves special tax breaks and more subsidies and who knows what other forms of measures that are, in my opinion, nothing less than outright theft. Unfortunately, as one can imagine, this was a relatively popular topic among many of the students. Most times, this brought smiles of understanding and something along the lines of "We'd like to work with you on that." or, "I understand that is quite a burden.", from the various legislative aides and/or Congressmen we met with.
The correct rebuttal came from, Senator Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK), incidentally my favorite Senator, who, according to second hand information, tartly asked a student: "Ok. So who do you want to pay for this?"
Of course, Senator Coburn's refreshing response is the correct response; as William E. Simon said:
If you would not confront your neighbor and demand his money at a point of a gun to solve every new problem that may appear in your life, you should not allow the government to do it for you.
In fact, the government already subsidizes our tuition and loans through various programs. But, more importantly, it also dramatically increases our tuition, via the aggregate effect of the massive regulation and meddling the government inserts throughout all US Medical Education, from the beginning of medical school all the way through residency and CME (Continuing Medical Education) programs. Yet, again, our lobbying focus appears to be in the wrong place. The battle is not being fought with government in the proper role as enemy, but rather as some sort of corrupting friend, who, with a wink and a nod, will help us loot the American people.
Another bill (H.R. 4403/S 2071) actually did address some of this, and tried to remove some of the regulation of residency programs from rural health care programs. I commend the AOA for their work on this bill.
Proponents of the subsidized tuition bill sometimes opined that a doctor's education needed subsidizing because their work was much more important and critical than a lawyer's or engineer's or psychologist's, or any other graduate program, or, apparently, any other education program. First, I'm not sure how one judges how 'important' someone's work is; we certainly don't want government to be doing this sort of 'evaluating'. Secondly, even if a doctor's work is that much more important, than it is all the more critical that government be kept out of the profession. Again, these constant attempts to treat medicine differently than other businesses has, in my humble opinion, resulted in the very problems which more hurtful government expansion has been proposed to treat.
So, seeing as I disagreed with the AOA's approach on many of these bills I did not bring them up in conversation. But, the bill or subject I discussed with nearly all the legislators I met, and indeed, was stated as the highest priority for the AOA, was a Medical Malpractice bill (S. 22), sponsored by Senator John Ensign (R-NV), who, by the way, has a great Senior Health Policy aide in Michelle Spence. :) Basically, this bill would nationally place a cap on non-economic damages in Medical Malpractice cases. There was some confusion about what exactly this bill does, as we heard variously that if States had a cap that was below this, then the State cap would stand, but higher State caps would be preempted by the new Federal law, and we were also told by different sources that this new national bill would only apply to states that did not have some form, with higher or lower caps, of Medical Malpractice reform. So, I tried not to get into the meat of this, and mostly just talked generally about the need to reduce Medical Malpractice.
Interestingly, did you know there is no such thing as 'Lawyer Malpractice'? There is no 'standard of care' that car mechanics are held to. Neither are engineers or electricians or any other non-health profession. Also, all are free, unfortunately only within 'reason', to make legally binding contracts with their customers. Yet, health care is different we say, lives are at stake we say, the free market cannot properly regulate health care we say. A bunch of rot I say. :)
One of the funniest moments, although to remain polite, I didn't laugh, came when a Democratic staffer brought up State's Rights as reason enough to vote against this national Medical Malpractice law. Now, I wasn't laughing at their argument; it was actually relatively sensible; I don't believe Federal power should be expanded except in what was previously termed, "negative power", whereby the Federal Government limits the power of the States, preventing them from committing acts of tyranny on their citizens, yet it, the Federal Government, is not empowered to garner 'positive power' or 'do anything' itself. I'm not sure quite where Malpractice falls in this framework, however, I suspect upon closer analysis we might find the root of the Malpractice problem is related to government's violation of one of the most basic human rights: the right to freely contract. All States currently do not allow a patient, if they so choose, to waive their right to partake in the current Medical Malpractice legal system. In other words, even if a patient wants to, they cannot sign a legally binding contract pledging not to sue their doctor, regardless of medical outcome. From my perspective, this is a violation of the Constitution, the right to liberty, and States that willfully violate the liberty of their citizens in this way, should be subject to Federal oversight.
In any case, returning to the moment of humor, my inner laughter was directed at the capricious irony of a Democrat talking about State's Rights regarding Medical Malpractice, when they are simultaneously in favor of expanding the Federal Government into nearly all other areas. Let's talk about State's Rights with Medicare or Medicaid! Just give us somewhere to run!
Another argument we frequently encountered was less humorous, as it was more indicative of a fundamental ignorance: the attacks on the companies that insure doctors for Medical Malpractice. Just like Big Phrama, Big Oil, and Big Wal-Mart, Big Insurance has been delegated resident villain by those on the Left, and demonized as responsible for at least some of the Medical Malpractice woes (same with workers comp). However, the facts are that insurance companies flee states with skyrocketing Malpractice verdicts, and flock to those with lower more stable rates, giving doctors greater choice of provider. The idea that insurance companies would just increase their profits, leaving rates unchanged if Malpractice reforms were enacted, can be dismissed even before checking the validating historical record. If an insurance company, or group of insurance companies, conspired to do such a thing, their profit margins would be high for only a very short amount of time, as their actions would create ample incentives for new insurance company startups, or for existing outside companies, to enter the market in order to take market share from the 'excessively profiting' companies. Incidentally, this same sort of reasoning will show why there can be no such thing as price gouging, or monopolizing.
In conclusion, I wouldn't want to leave out the highlight of the trip, which was meeting Rep. Ron Paul, MD, (R-TX), the utmost defender of liberty in all of Congress, an unabashed libertarian, and whom I didn't even know was also a doctor until just now.
We were walking the halls of Congress and we passed by his office and I thought, "Wow, Ron Paul's office, I wonder if he's in." So, later on we went back and asked his staff if we could steal just a minute or so of his time to meet him and maybe get a quick picture. It turned out he was in and he came out and shook our hands and posed for some quick pics:
I mentioned to him I had run across and appreciated his accurate root diagnosis of the campaign finance reform debacle and had even found a prominent space (required reading) for it on my blog.
As we were leaving, I told him I was very glad to meet him as he was the only politician I knew who actually worked to shrink their own power.
His response?
"Damn right." *(ok, maybe it was "that's right") :)
(Further pictures, articles, and updates can be found at 'DO Day on The Hill')
|
Posted 4/26/06
If you recall, in my previous 4/21/06 post regarding Unions, I posted an article containing the following:
One of the ugliest consequences of the loss of economic freedom and respect for property rights is that it makes such spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen — such amorality — a requirement of succeeding in business. Business today is conducted in the face of all pervasive government economic intervention. There is rampant arbitrary and often unintelligible legislation. There are dozens of regulatory agencies that combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the enforcement of more than 75,000 pages of Federal regulations alone. The tax code is arbitrary and frequently unintelligible. Judicial protection of economic freedom has not existed since 1937, when the Supreme Court abandoned it, out of fear of being enlarged by Congress with new members sufficient to give a majority to the New Deal on all issues.
For another example of this see:
History of the Wright Amendment
Brought to myself and Bagert's attention by our wonderful friend Becca, a flight attendant of SouthWest Airlines. Reading through this will help yield an understanding of why the above excerpted statement is true. Southwest Airlines battled legal litigation, regulation, and direct political intervention as its penalty for doing the unspeakable: saving consumers big bucks in air travel. It is really a wonder the airline even got off the ground. But despite this, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if SouthWest Airlines today uses government to do to others what was once done to it.
The point of this is to highlight the battle nearly all new businesses and start-ups must face. Even worse, using government to squash competition, to restrict new ideas, to rob consumers, to prevent the prosperous creative destruction that has made this country great has, in fact, become a requirement of doing business. In a perverse sort of way, business is incentivised to act immorally. The 'market' albeit an artificially created one, dictates that a successful business must use government to protect itself and attack its enemies.
And it's not only businesses that are corrupted, professions meet a similar fate; Doctors, Nurses, PAs, OTs, Chiropracters, Plumbers, even lawyers, must focus their efforts not on attaining the voluntary choices of their customers, or improving the quality of their services and members, but rather they must utilize the despotic power of centralized government to outregulate, outlegislate, and outlitigate their competition and maintain their monopoly on a public service. And if they do not? With a wink and a nod government will 'give' their 'market' share to their competition.
This is why Janice Rogers Brown said:
Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.
And this is why I post this quote throughout this website. Another example:
Google Joins the Lobbying Herd
Started less than a decade ago in a Stanford dorm room, Google has evolved into a multibillion-dollar business, its search engine ubiquitous on the Internet. Its sprawling growth, fueled by a public stock offering in August 2004 that created a market behemoth, has now thrust it into the glare of Washington.
As lawmakers and regulators begin eyeing its ventures in China and other countries and as its Web surfers worry about the privacy of their online searches, Google is making adjustments that do not fit neatly with its maverick image.
It has begun ramping up its lobbying and legislative operations after largely ignoring Washington for years, in a scramble to match bases long established here by competitors like Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as the deeply entrenched telecommunication companies.
Google has hired politically connected lobbying firms and consultants with ties to Republican leaders like the party chairman, Ken Mehlman; Speaker J. Dennis Hastert; and Senator John McCain; and advisers say the company may set up a fund-raising arm for political donations to candidates. And in a town where Republicans hold the levers of power, Google has begun stockpiling pieces of the party's machine.
To some, Google is a novice arriving late to the table. To others, the company's embedding on K Street, which serves as home to many of Washington's top lobbyists, represents a new and not necessarily welcome sign of sophistication.
"It's sad," said Esther Dyson, editor of the technology newsletter Release 1.0 and former chairwoman of Icann, a nonprofit group that plays a role in Internet administration. "The kids are growing up. They've lost youth and innocence. Now they have to start being grown-ups and playing at least to some extent by grown-up rules."
In doing so, Google provides another example of how Internet companies, no matter how unconventional their roots or nonconformist their corporate cultures, increasingly find themselves wrestling with the same forces in Washington that more traditional industries have long faced. Google's executives consider the moves necessary as they achieve a prominence that allows them to elbow their own interests onto the political stage.
With its stock price closing on Monday near $370 a share and its vaulting onto the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index this week, the company also cannot afford to be caught flat-footed by regulatory agencies or its competitors.
"They are brilliant engineers," said Lauren Maddox, a principal in the bipartisan lobbying firm Podesta Mattoon that was hired by Google last year. "They are not politicians."
And why should they need to be? Or need to hire any of these people? The only reason is because government has given itself power to interfere and meddle with their business.
Because some Republicans still view the company as Democratic-leaning, citing the 2004 election analyses that showed nearly all its employees' contributions went to Democrats, the company will be careful, Mr. Clark said, to spread its wealth around.
Mr. Clark also predicted that Google would name a political director, probably a Republican.
So, by necessity, by the unspoken blackmailed threats of a twisted 'market' reality, a company is forced to support a political party, which the vast majority of its employees do not support. While I can't sympathize with the political leanings of the Google employees, I can sympathize with how this is similar to the how Conservative voters routinely have their compulsory tax money used by teachers unions and such entities as the post office to finance the Democratic party.
And despite the climate of indictments and investigations that pervades K Street right now, industry experts say Google has no choice but to get into the arena.
Rhett Dawson, president of the Information Technology Industry Council, admonished that lobbying was not "a dirty word." Google, Mr. Dawson noted, "is quickly going through a maturation phase that a lot of companies have gone through that shows it pays to pay attention to Washington or it can hurt you in ways that don't reflect well on you."
He added, "It doesn't have to be a system that makes you embarrassed to talk to your mother about."
Well, perhaps it isn't embarrassing to these entrenched lobbying types, but you'd think it would be outrageous to your average grounded American.
When will a company or a profession stand up against the entrenched powers and interests of the Federal Government of the United States? When will a company or profession act morally and state that government should not have the power to pass whatever laws all of these lobbyists concoct and connive to pass? My guess is that it won't happen until company employees and professionals in member organizations stop supporting the Democratic party, and all but the libertarian wing of the Republican party. Currently, if a company or profession dared raise a finger against the Big Government types, they would get squashed like bugs. And how easy would it be? Just think of all the laws one could make. In the name of 'public safety' or, failing that, 'the children' we will: X, Y, Z... c ya!
|
Posted 4/23/06
Bush promotes fuel cells, rides his bike on Earth Day
4/21/06 San Francisco Gate I have to write a bit about this because of the way the media is covering it and the reactions of our government officials.
The first sentence of this article is:
Unable to drive down high oil prices, President Bush is spending Earth Day promoting futuristic hydrogen fuel technology as a way to wean Americans from gas-guzzling vehicles.
Why would anyone want a President who was able to drive down high oil prices? Why would anyone, reporter or otherwise, want government to have this kind of power? In fact, a government that could control gas prices with that much ease would probably unleash the the highest prices and greatest shortages etc... on its populace, caused by the very virtue of that control.
However, we need to ask, why is Bush trying to 'wean Americans from gas guzzling vehicles'? Rather, one would think we should be trying to wean him and others in government from again trying to spend/steal hard earned tax dollars from the populace to waste on another grandiose hydrogen initiative, despite the fact that, as documented on this website and others, hydrogen is currently both more costly and more polluting than regular gasoline.
So why do many environmentalists keep pushing for government funding/thieving for programs that produce more pollution? Your guess is as good as mine. They are literally clueless, and not just in this regard...
Another argument for hydrogen fuel, despite the higher costs and increased pollution, is this need to be 'energy independent', a term increasingly coined by President Bush and other 'Republicans' in reference to Middle Eastern supplies. But, of course, this government invented goal of 'energy independence' is just as shallow and ridiculous as a goal of 'automobile independence' or 'toilet paper independence', and has become little more than the vogue political jargon of these meddling elites. What would really help our energy problems is 'energy independence' from government!
We also need to address President Bush again talking about 'price gouging': But to address the immediate problem, Bush offered only a pledge that "if we find any price gouging it will be dealt with firmly." He didn't say if government would also continue to heavily fine those who sell gas too cheaply...
Even worse, 'Republican' leaders in Congress are saying the same thing:
Congressional leaders yesterday planned to ask President Bush to order investigations into possible price gouging by oil companies as crude oil prices hit new highs on world markets and average gasoline prices in the nation's capital blew through the $3-a-gallon mark.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) are preparing to send a letter to the president Monday asking him to direct the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department to investigate alleged price gouging and instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to issue waivers that might make it easier for oil refiners to produce adequate gasoline supplies, Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said.
Of course, the only problem with all of this is that, by definition, there is no such thing as price gouging! The phenomenon does not and cannot exist!
But, it is interesting they mention the burdensome EPA regulations and requirements for the formulation of gasoline. From another article:
According to Michael Ports of the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers of Americas, "Twenty years ago, there were two blends of gasoline offered in three octane levels, and essentially one blend of diesel fuel. Today, there are more than 18 unique blends of gasoline mandated across the nation -- again offered in three octane grades [57 total] -- and at least three different blends of diesel fuel."
Mandated? By whom? To whom? Why? What does it cost us?:
Pumps go dry at some gas stations
4/21/06 Philadelphia Inquire
Catherine Rossi, spokeswoman for AAA, said she knew of eight stations in the region that were out of fuel yesterday.
Areas of Virginia and Texas, also going through the ethanol conversion, have experienced similar supply disruptions, said Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience Stores.
I've always maintained whenever there is a shortage of something people are willing to pay for government is to blame. Indeed, this is the case here:
As if rising prices weren't enough, the tanks have run dry at some Philadelphia-area service stations in the last few days as the refining industry stumbles through a change in the formulation of gasoline.
Oil refiners are phasing out a petrochemical that makes gasoline burn cleaner but which also has been found to contaminate groundwater. Refiners are switching to corn-based ethanol.
The conversion to ethanol was prompted by the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which left refiners vulnerable to groundwater contamination suits and mandated greater use of renewable fuels.
Is it any surprise that the 'Federal Energy Policy Act' served to screw up energy? If there was a law passed called the 'Stop the Children from Starving Act', the first result I would expect to see is more children starving.
The article goes onto describe the burdensome changes government has foisted upon private industry, including replacing the 'deadly carcinogen' MTBE with ethanol. Now, I don't know this, but it would not surprise me in the least if the 'concern' about the 'safety' of MTBE was rooted in junk science, just like most of the rest of the stuff government tells us we should be afraid of and tries to 'protect' us from and that this initiative was pushed for and passed mainly at the urgings of the powerful farm and ethanol lobby in Washington.
The maintenance-related shutdown of one area refinery, production problems at another, and the change from winter-blend to summer-blend gasoline are exacerbating the problems.
We've already documented the reasons for this too. There is a shortage of refineries because environmentalists, regulators, and politicians won't let any more be built:
In the US, getting a permit could involve years of navigating local, state, and federal regulations and protests from environmental and community groups, analysts say.
But, if all this isn't enough, by far the most disgusting occurrence of the past few weeks have been the attacks by pandering politicians, 'Republicans' no less, going after ExxonMobile CEO Lee Raymond's $150 million retirement bonus:
Hastert also took aim at the rich pay package for Exxon Mobile Corp's retired chief executive, which he called "unconscionable."
For some background, Raymond has been the CEO of Exxon and then ExxonMobile for the past 13 years. When Exxon merged with Mobile in Dec of 1998, their combined stock price was worth $237.53 billion. Eight years later the company is worth $362.53 billion, giving it the highest market capitalization of any company in the world. This is an American success story to be celebrated, not criticized!
Obviously, Lee Raymond didn't single-handedly generate this wealth, but he must have played a key roll and his shareholders rightly decided to reward him. If anything, it looks like they didn't pay him enough (although who am I to judge what others do with their own property...)! Arguably, this man has done more to reduce the price of oil and expand gasoline availability than any other person in the United States, yet this is whom is criticized by government during times of high prices and shortages that they, the government, caused! This demagoguery is all the more ridiculous when one considers that there are 9 cents of profit as compared to 42 cents of taxes in a gallon of gasoline!
I wonder how people like Lee Raymond stay sane. However, we are lucky he is sane, very sane, as we can tell by his most recent speech, which I very much wish I had a transcript of:
Former Exxon CEO Defends $150M Pay Package / Lee Raymond blasts critics of his retirement package, says oil industry will have its day of reckoning.
4/19/06 Reuters
Never one to back away from confrontation while head of ExxonMobil Corp. for more than 13 years, Lee Raymond showed few signs of mellowing in retirement in his first public appearance following the controversy that erupted with the disclosure of his multimillion-dollar retirement package.
In a 90-minute talk at Columbia University on Tuesday evening, Raymond was unrepentant for any past decisions he had made and he blasted politicians, the U.S. car industry, Wall Street, environmentalists and other critics of the oil industry for what he said was their failure to understand the nature of the energy business, conceding only that he had been unsuccessful in getting his point of view across. <.>
The combative former CEO said Exxon's success during his tenure was entirely due to its focus on long-term goals and he had nothing but withering criticism for those who are proposing windfall taxes on energy companies, saying it would only serve as a disincentive to investment. <.>
On the topic of alternative energy sources, Raymond poured scorn on the notion that petroleum-based fuels will be supplanted in the near future. When President Bush's suggestion of using ethanol produced from switchgrass as an alternative to gasoline came up, Raymond shook his head and grinned sarcastically.
You gotta love all this, but here is the kicker:
"Back in 1998, when prices went down to $10 (per barrel), I don't recall anyone in Washington calling me up and saying 'what can we do to help.' But I didn't want them to be calling up. That's our job. We are in that business. It's our job to manage the risk. I am not interested in hearing from (politicians) when prices are at $10 and I am not interested in hearing from them when prices are at $40 or $50," he said.
Sounds like he is not interested in hearing from politicians period! Frankly, I am sick of hearing from them too, but far sicker of suffering from their actions. I'd like to hear more, much more, from people like Lee Raymond.
(Added to 'Gasoline and Government')
|
Posted 4/21/06
Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?
4/19/06 Ludwig Von Misses Institute Wow, George Rismen hits one out of the park. First he gives some background, including:
Why didn't they do this? [fire incompetent workers] Because with the UAW, such action by GM would merely have provoked work stoppages and strikes, with no prospect that the UAW would be displaced or that anything would be better after the strikes. Federal Law, specifically, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935, long ago made it illegal for companies simply to get rid of unions.
But the best is his conclusion, which readers of this site will recognize as being nearly identical to our own independent conclusion (all emphasis his):
What is happening is cruel justice, imposed by a reality that willfully ignorant people thought they could choose to ignore as long as it suited them: the reality that prosperity comes from the making of goods, not the making of work; that it comes from the doing of work, not from the shirking of it; that it comes from machines and methods of production that save labor, not the combating of those machines and methods; that it comes from the earning and reinvestment of profits not from seizure of those profits for the benefit of idlers, who do all they can to prevent the profits from being earned in the first place.
In sum, without the UAW, General Motors would not be faced with extinction. Instead, it would almost certainly be a vastly larger, far more prosperous company, producing more and better motor vehicles than ever before, at far lower costs of production and prices than it does today, and providing employment to hundreds of thousands more workers than it does today.
Few things are more obvious than that the role of the UAW in relation to General Motors has been that of a swarm of bloodsucking leeches, a swarm that will not stop until its prey exists no more.
It is difficult to believe that people who have been neither lobotomized nor castrated would not rise up and demand that these leeches finally be pulled off!
Perhaps the American people do not rise up because they have never seen General Motors, or any other major American business, rise up and dare to assert the philosophical principle of private property rights and individual freedom and proceed to pull the leeches off in the name of that principle.
It is easy to say, and also largely true, that General Motors and American business in general have not behaved in this way for several generations because they no longer have any principles. Indeed, they would project contempt at the very thought of acting on any kind of moral or political principle.
One of the ugliest consequences of the loss of economic freedom and respect for property rights is that it makes such spinelessness and gutlessness on the part of businessmen — such amorality — a requirement of succeeding in business. Business today is conducted in the face of all pervasive government economic intervention. There is rampant arbitrary and often unintelligible legislation. There are dozens of regulatory agencies that combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the enforcement of more than 75,000 pages of Federal regulations alone. The tax code is arbitrary and frequently unintelligible. Judicial protection of economic freedom has not existed since 1937, when the Supreme Court abandoned it, out of fear of being enlarged by Congress with new members sufficient to give a majority to the New Deal on all issues.
(Added to 'Unions')
|
Posted 4/19/06
Weapons Rap for Self Defense Pair
4/16/06 New York Post
Two brothers who were shot defending their Brooklyn shop from a pair of stick-up men were busted for returning fire with an illegal handgun, police sources said. The gunfight erupted at 7:40 p.m. Friday when the two bandits, entered Vinnie's Style, a clothing boutique on Flatbush Avenue.
One of the pair allegedly fired a .45-caliber pistol when the brothers, Paul and Jacob Parris, refused to get down.
Both were charged with weapons possession when cops learned the Parris' used an unlicensed 9mm pistol in the shootout, sources said.
(Added to 'Guns and Crime'.)
|
Posted 4/19/06
U.S. Research Funds Often Lead to Start-Ups, Study Says
4/10/06 New York Times
A new study of university scientists who received federal financing from the National Cancer Institute found that they generated patents at a rapi