Political Hype

To hear the media tell it, the Hutaree group is some sort of massive right-wing anti-government terrorist organization.

But if you actually take the time to check out the details, it seems to be nothing more than some Michigan survivalists that like to pretend to be a militia "training" in the north woods to resist a totalitarian government.

What concerns me most is that the small group, mostly from a single family, hasn't even really done anything. They're accused of plotting murder, but as far as I can tell never even started any specific plan.

So does this mean if a group of people are hanging out somewhere, maybe drinking a bit, and somebody starts ranting about Obama and the Democrats and boast that he will fight to the bitter end, that the thought police will report him to the authorities and he suddenly finds himself imprisoned?

I don't know whether these folks really planned specific attacks, as they are accused. And that's what bothers me most.

Certainly the story doesn't deserve the press it's getting. Nothing happened, and this so-called Hutaree militia may exist only in the imagination of the few unfortunate folks now sitting in jail.

Clearly the non-story is being played for political purposes. Heaven forbid that innocent people are being persecuted for no reason other than scoring a few extra points for Democrats.

Tipping Point

There are two tipping points we're seeing now, both based on the same trends.

The first tipping point is the shift in balance between those who rely on the government for their livelihoods versus those who do not.

Which leads to the second tipping point, which is the number of people who vote in favor of keeping and expanding their share of that government income redistribution.

My reading of polls is that we've become approximately equally divided on both counts. The rolls of retirees who rely on Medicare and Social Security has exploded, along with the rolls of unmarried mothers who rely on Federal and State government welfare to provide their housing, food, and medical care.

Recent local newspaper stories highlighted these tipping points. In one article, we found out that over half of births in local hospitals are covered by Medicaid. What the article failed to mention, I have to suspect purposely, is that those births are overwhelmingly to single women.

A second article announced that our county has now achieved a record level of unemployment. Which is quite remarkable, if we assume that record includes the Great Depression.

Unspoken is the most simple truth: Those who have a good job don't need government assistance, and of course do not need government-controlled healthcare. Married couples with children, unless both parents are unemployed, can and do take care of their own families without government assistance.

So the tipping point has been reached through the failed economy, which I argue was substantially caused by irresponsible government. Then an opportunistic Left took advantage of the opportunity to create massive new entitlement programs with the objective of creating the tipping point, ie a plurality of citizens who must rely on them for their livelihood.

There's no escaping the truth, which is that the President and the leadership of his party are Socialists. They have proven it with the Health Insurance law, and continue to prove it through their continuing agenda.

The priorities of this government going forward are reportedly:
1. Financial Reform - If you think it's only about imposing reasonable regulation on financial institutions to keep them from behaving badly and requiring future bailouts, think again. It actually empowers the Federal Government to nationalize banks whenever they deem it necessary for the general welfare of the country.
2. Immigration Reform - Think it's about sealing borders and dealing with the millions of illegal immigrants? No, it's about making those millions of illegals citizens who will complete the tip-over and provide enough votes to keep the socialist government in power indefinitely.
3. Cap & Trade - Think it's about improving the climate? No, it's the purest form of socialism. It takes money from companies that use energy to produce their products and gives it to somebody else. The somebody else is almost always a crony of the Leftist power base, pretending to make "environmentally friendly" products. This while Al Gore and his cronies pocket a commission on every transaction, becoming richer than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
4. VAT - Next on the agenda is a brand new tax on everything, assessed on every step of production.

People like me who lived through the Cold War and believed our country to be the antithesis of communist and socialist central control of its citizens never would have believed these tipping points would arrive. But they have.

So now we either bite our tongues and work harder for less money so the government can take our hard-earned wages to give to those who don't work, or we simply join the ranks of the non-working and hope for change.

Revisiting Tournament Comment

So Butler not only beat Syracuse, they did it without having their best possible game.

Although I can't offer much in the way of analysis, because I was traveling and didn't see the game. Driving, it was a frustrating process - finding the game on the radio, listening for about 10 or 15 minutes before the AM station faded out, then scanning and scanning until I picked up another station and repeating the process.

I thought is was strange that the closer I got to home, and thus presumably Butler country, the harder it was to find the game on any local stations. I actually missed most of the second half because no station in range of my vehicle, AM or FM, was carrying it.

They don't get Xavier again, but K State just barely squeaked through in overtime.

I like the Bulldogs' chances of making the Final Four, although certainly the win they need to get home for that is hardly in the bag.

Tonight we find out whether Purdue has enough for Duke. Again, it would seem a long shot in theory, but Butler's shown long shots do win sometimes.



Good stuff.

Changing the Subject

It would seem that threats to lawmakers has become a political strategy.

It began with members of the black caucus charging Tea Party demonstrators with shouting threats and racial epithets and spitting on them. In response, others have posted videos of the incident, which show no such things. And none of the caucus members have produced evidence in any form that any of those things happened.

That was followed by Democrats complaining about threats and vandalism from people angry about their votes in favor of the bill. Some released audio. Interestingly, the audio clips I've heard from congresspersons' recorded voicemails were certainly angry and vulgar and insulting. But I didn't hear specific violent threats.

And of course Republicans mentioned that, oh by the way, we've been getting the same stuff, and one congressman got his office window shot out for his opposition to the bill.

So more and more it seems that the whole flap may have been designed by the Democrats in an attempt to silence their critics by labeling them racists and terrorists. The inherent suggestion by the black caucus was that the Tea Party is a racist and unAmerican organization.

That extended to all those who oppose the government healthcare takeover, presumably to frighten "moderates" away from opposition, lest they be called racists or terrorists.

Yes, we are a polarized nation. But are we on the brink of civil war? I don't think so, as long as the opposition has the opportunity to mobilize their own candidates and boot the bums out of office in November.

March Madness

My bracket was destroyed with Kansas losing, but that's what makes it fun.

It's nice to see Butler make the Sweet 16, but any hope they have of reaching the Final 4 requires them to beat Syracuse, which would seem all but impossible.

But again, that's part of the fun of the tournament. If Butler plays a flawless game and stays close, just maybe they steal one from Syracuse and have a shot. Maybe against Xavier, who they've already beaten once.

But Heyward and Howard have to have great games for it to happen. Both weren't themselves in the previous close game against Murray State. But then again, Murray State really played oustanding defense against both, forcing other Butler players to step up for the win.

I'm traveling tomorrow, so I might not get to watch. But I can still catch Purdue - another team that doesn't seem to have much of a chance, going against Duke without Robbie Hummel.

But if they didn't have a chance, there'd be no reason to play the game.

The NBA can't hold a candle to the entertainment value of the college tournament.

This is Fun

Check out this Powerline Post.

I cracked up at the comments about Bob Dylan & Taylor Swift, plus Simon Cowell.

Fascinating perspectives.

Mental Healthcare

It would seem that the Healthcare bill is just about a done deal. Reporting keeps saying there aren't yet enough votes to pass it, but they're within a handful. It's sort of stunning to me that the plurality of Democrat congressmen are willing to sacrifice their jobs to deliver this monstrosity for their President.

Clearly they're not listening to their constituents, who overwhelmingly oppose the bill. They are in many cases rude to the callers who have been flooding their offices with telephone calls pleading for a "No" vote.

My own congressman, Baron Hill, has already demonstrated beyond all doubt that he's more beholden to his party leadership, and presumably the special interests who bankroll them, than his own district. He's almost certain to lose his seat to one of the several Republicans who've lined up for this spring's primary, salivating over the chance to take his job.

It's already been reported that he got promises from Obama to visit the district to help his campaign. He got to sponsor the recent "Pay-Go" bill, which of course was a sham designed to prop him up but really has almost no teeth to actually force goverment to live within its means. He's also been given some earmarks to bring home some bacon, and rumors are also flying that he might even have been promised a job in the Administration if he loses.

Is that integrity? The only congressman I can find who actually seems to be showing courage and integrity through this whole process is Bart Stupak. If there's anybody else standing by principle over party arm-twisting, I'd like to know who.

The bill as I understand it is such a travesty that the only possible theory on why so many Democrats are behind it is this: The bill was specifically designed to exacerbate the healthcare problem and actually turn it into a real crisis, giving them cover to impose their long-desired socialist "single-payer" system for all of us.

I actually am having difficulty conceiving any other outcome.

Affect on Mood

Personal information is taboo for my blog, but this may be as close as I get to sharing personal data, in mentioning the fact that my mood tonight is sour.

What's strange is that there isn't a logical reason for my current bad mood. Just back from vacation, having finished a decent buy unspectacular day, but still I feel angry, frustrated, disappointed, dispirited.

OK, there are a few factors that contributed to the foul mood, from business, personal, and general sources. But nothing I can't handle, and certainly nothing that should have driven me into so deep a funk.

I wonder, is it the post-vacation blues? Something I ate or didn't eat? The weather or phase of the moon? The idiots in Washington with the government healthcare mess? The accumulation of work-related challenges that hit me like a truck the second I got back to work? The personal stuff? Maybe all of the above?

Some might challenge me and advise me to shake it off, make my own luck, meet the challenges head-on. I'm glad none of those people are here telling me that right now, because I might just haul off and punch them in the nose.

Perhaps I need a vacation to recover from my vacation.

Do You Share this Thought Process?

What are the Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing." Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this now how we value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find money in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

Above from Bart Stupak.

Seriously, how can it possibly be true that half the country agrees with the point of view shared by Congressman Stupak above? We have to pass government healthcare to keep extra babies from being born and costing them millions?

Does Anybody Really Get it?

The simple and obvious truth of our current pain and suffering is not evident anywhere I can find, whether from TV talking heads, politicians, or publications. Is this because everyone just takes it for granted and assumes there's no need to state the obvious, or is possible most don't actually understand?

What obvious truth am I talking about?

Simply this: When you lose 17 or 18 percent of the workforce to unemployment, and everybody else who's still working is earning generally less than they would in a healthier economy, revenue to government takes a big hit.

Just like businesses are closing or hanging on by their fingernails, governments at the Federal, State, and Local levels who have always spent every penny of tax revenue inevitably face fiscal disaster when the taxes they collect on their constituents' income falls off a cliff along with that income.

It just puzzles me to read and hear the angst and anger of people who are seeing their favorite government programs cut. Protesters scream about losing funding for everything from schools to road repairs to community social programs. Politicians bend themselves into pretzels trying to figure out ways to raise taxes on everybody without them realizing it and voting them out of office.

We have an encapsulation of the problem in the healthcare battle. Left-wing Democrats, led by the President, are using every tool at their disposal to exploit this best opportunity in several generations to implement the one socialist program they've lusted after for generations: Nationalized healthcare.

Imagine the economy were to rebound, returning to full employment. How many people would be worried about our health insurance system when virtually all of them are employed and most employers offer insurance? Not many. And nobody but the most committed Socialists would support the current healthcare bills.

But the rhetoric of the Left side of the political spectrum is predictable. We all know about their goals and aspirations, and there's no surprise that they might choose to ignore this simple truth to push their agenda.

It's the Right side that is puzzling me. How simple is it to build an appealing campaign message that easily shuts down the other side's healthcare and soak-the-rich demagogery?

"Vote for me if you would rather have a good job than a government handout."

Unless you're a permanent ward of the State, wouldn't that simple campaign message resonate?

So why isn't anyone using it?

They've been set up

I watched the "healthcare summit" for awhile this morning, and boy, did the Republicans fall into a trap.

It didn't take long to figure out the strategy. Get the Republicans to talk about specific things they think should be done, then answer by saying, "That's already in the bill".

Aside from mental midget Harry Reid's over-the-top partisan rants, Obama and his minions have been trying to present a picture of reasonableness and agreeability. The strategy seems to be working wonderfully well. Get a Republican to say something, then respond with agreement with the statement, then emphasize that it's either already in the bill or they'd be happy to find a way to inculde it.

From a purely political perspective, the Republicans were stupid to agree to this meeting. The old law, "never play another man's game" holds especially true here. Obama is in control of the meeting and as such controls the agenda and message, which is obviously designed to make the Repubs look like partisan obstructionists to what is otherwise both a necessary and reasonable healthcare bill.

Another Interesting Argument - Credit Cards

I was reading stories about the new laws that went into effect stiffening regulations on banks regarding how they treat their credit card customers.

Credit cards have of course long been hugely profitable for banks. If they weren't we wouldn't all be getting "offers" in the mail every day for the latest new card, offering airline miles or "points" or cash back "rewards". (Side note, I stupidly signed up for one of the "cash rewards" cards once. Just before it was time to collect on that cash reward, the bank rescinded the program. Learned my lesson.)

So basically the legislation was a Democrat-backed plan to "protect" consumers from predatory bank practices. Absurdly high interest rates, fees, etc.

But according to the stories, it seems to be hurting more people than it helps. Banks have responded with several actions that have been detrimental to their customers as a whole. Even I got a notice about 6 months ago that my interest rate was getting hiked on my card. The notice was actually pretty honest in letting me know the interest rate hike was being imposed to try to maintain profitability in the credit card business.

But let's get to the basic argument.

The reason Democrats wanted to pass these regulations on the banks was because the banks were unreasonably charging exhorbitant rates and unjustified fees to many of their customers. Who could argue with that, right? It does seem that banks are rather predatory and greedy when it comes to their credit card policies.

On the other side, a conservative would generally suggest that banks hike rates and fees in an attempt to insulate them from default by their higher-risk customers. Charging 23% interest is just protection against the highly possible event that the cardholder will stop making payments altogether, and the bank will lose all of the credit card balance. Otherwise, anyone who is credit-worthy and holding a balance on a 23% interest rate credit card only has himself to blame, because in 5 minutes he or she could find a great deal on another credit card out in the marketplace, cut up the old card, and problem solved.

All arguments basically valid, as far as they go.

I'm personally not opposed to usury laws, and tend to believe it's not in the country's best interest to be laissez-faire on all bank practices. I do happen to believe that a legitimate role of government is protection of citizens from theft. Just because it's legal to charge somebody loan-shark rates on loans doesn't mean it's not theft to do so.

Where my beef lies with the whole topic is more in line with the mega banks. I think the biggest fault of government was in allowing consolidation of banking institutions into a small number of mega banks that were "too big to fail", resulting in the economic disaster we're experiencing now.

It's OK to pass basic usury laws, capping the interest rate banks can charge their customers at some multiple of Prime. That will result in banks basically cutting off lots of marginal customers from access to credit; but don't those folks need the wake-up call anyway? Those who suffer the most from the highest abuse from bankers are, in fact, those who are least responsible in terms of their debts. No laws can change their behavior, so maybe having a change in behavior forced on them by losing their credit lines is a positive thing.

That reminds me, I should shop for a new card to replace this one. If there's another bank out there that wants my business, they'll offer me a more attractive rate. (I just won't mention they'll never collect any interest from me anyway, because I pay off the balance every month.)

Recovery or Disaster?

I haven't posted in awhile, for a couple of reasons: Mainly I've been too busy, but also I haven't had a lot to write about.

Currently we've got two lines of rhetoric coming at us, once again divided by party affiliation.

The Dems are trying to tell us things really are getting better. They're "Stimulus" is really working, really!! And the only reason things aren't getting better faster is because the Republicans are obstructing and stalling their reform agenda.

The GOP tells us things are really bad, and are set to get much worse. The Democrat "Stimulus" was nothing but a boondoggle of historic proportions, and did much more to hurt the recovery than to help. Now we face unsustainable debt levels that are guaranteed to lead to runaway inflation, made even worse by the massive tax increases planned by the Democrat power base.

As for the obstruction charge, the GOP says we'd be much worse off today than we already are if they hadn't done everything in their power to stop the destructive Democrat/Obama agenda. Besides, they point out, Dems have huge majorities in congress that meant nothing they wanted to do could be obstructed by Republicans; it's the American people that spoke loudly to their centrist representative to keep the agenda from passing.

Rather than get into the politics of the argument, I'll try to approach it with a bit of common sense and economics.

The Democrat government is indeed spending almost twice what they're taking in in taxes. They have no desire to cut back any part of their spending, and would rather increase tax rates. The problem is, even if they raised taxes to 100 percent, it won't be enough to satisfy their voracious appetite.

So they sell bonds to China, and print money to pay for what they can't raise any other way. China's already pulling back and expressing frustration with the devaluation of the dollar caused by running the printing presses around the clock. That's going to raise the cost of debt, because the weaker the dollar the higher the interest rate that will be demanded by those who invest in it.

What also happens, as I can directly attest through just listening to the executives in the companies I consult with, is business is running scared right now. Even businesses that are doing well aren't expanding, because they have a well-founded fear that the Democrats will succeed with their agenda.

Whether Healthcare Reform, Cap & Trade, or simply tax increases, executives believe the regulatory and tax burdens either already imposed or on the way next year will hammer their profitability. So they choose not to invest in expansion. They choose not to hire employees, and make do with their existing staff or use temporary and part-time workers to guard against likely future layoffs.

Sounds like a dilemma. We can't spend our way out of the recession with money we don't have. Besides, I'm convinced the very Keynesian ideas the presidents' policies use are a fiction.

The only way out is to reintroduce sanity to government. Unfortunately, I hold little hope of that happening, and am not even sure this fall's elections will truly change the game.

Pick off the "low-hanging fruit" first. These are easy:
No earmarks, period. Cancel the ones passed earlier this year that haven't already been completed.
Close the Department of Education
Close the Endowment for the Arts, or make it solely privately funded
Scale back the Department of Agriculture significantly
Cancel the rest of the "Stimulus" and pull back the funds
Drop Cap & Trade
Drop Healthcare Reform but start incrementally on only those things that will save taxpayers money
Pass a Constitutional Amendment that basically says, Any taxes or tax breaks passed by the government must be open to all. If there's a tax, everybody pays. If there's a credit or reduction, everybody gets it. In other words, no more "targeted" taxes and no more political favors in the tax code.
Make taxes simpler and flatter. Everybody pays something - no more allowing 50% of the population to pay nothing.
Eliminate all non-essential projects, departments, etc. (Boy are there lots of them)

Yes, healthcare has become the government's biggest expense, primarily because of Medicare and Medicaid. Something needs to be done about that problem. But the Democrat solution of just putting everybody in them isn't the answer. There will never be bipartisan agreement on that point, thus the incremental approach of only common-sense tax saving reforms.

I know, pipe dream.

Who's Playing Politics?

Obama or Congressional Republicans?

Interesting how Obama decided on a strategy to triangulate the healthcare issue in what Republicans consider a trap, offering a half-day meeting with Republicans to "listen" to their ideas on healthcare reform. He's apparently trying to build on what he likely considered a big win in his talk with the GOP lawmakers at their retreat, where he had his supporters salivating over his "masterful" rhetoric designed to make them look like partisan obstructionists.

The GOP leaders have set preconditions on his proposed follow-up meeting, namely that the president throw away the bills already created by his fellow democrats and start over. He of course refused.

Which party is playing politics? Mostly Obama, mostly the GOP, or both equally?

Seems rather apparent to me.

It's interesting that the problem is structural. Having created an entitlement mentality among the citizenry, we clearly now have a situation where the largest demographic consumers of expensive healthcare are those already on the government plans - Medicare and Medicaid. That demographic consisting, of course, of the poor and the elderly. Those folks now account for more than half of all heath insurance payments in the country as a whole, and it's only going to get worse.

The argument isn't about whether or not that is a problem. It's about what should be done about it.

Obama and his left wing of the Democrat party believe the answer is to simply put everybody into a universal version of Medicare. The socialist ideal is at play, which says "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability". Simply take much more from the productive segment of the population and give it to the unproductive.

The GOP believe the answer is to drive the best possible economic conditions, which might at least help address the poor part of the demographic by getting them back to work for business where presumably they will get into their employer's health plans. They realize that doesn't address the exploding senior population consuming the rest of those resources, but why should they stick their necks out talking about solutions to that problem and anger one of their most potent constituencies that seems likely to return them to power; perhaps as soon as next year.

It would of course be very nice if somebody, say even the president, would catch wind of the ideas I've developed and began talking about them.

But I don't believe it's ever really been about the actual healthcare problem for many of the political class. It's about getting and holding onto power.

So unless that changes, beginning this coming November with new leaders elected to represent us, nothing good will happen. Something still might happen, but it's pretty much guaranteed to make the problem worse than doing nothing.

More Evidence Suggesting Climate Change is Politics, not Science

One of my favorite blogs is Powerline, which has this great post about what scientists who don't have a political dog in the fight are saying about the whole Climate Change myth.

I about fell out of my chair when I heard the president call for more drilling and development of American oil, gas, coal, and nuclear resources during the State of the Union speech. Until he got around to the end of that part of the speech, where he strongly suggested an offer of "compromise" with conservatives on those issues if they would only get on board with his Cap & Trade bill. Of course, he gave a not-so-subtle suggestion that conservative resistance to the idea of "climate change" was borne of ignorance or conscious choices to ignore the scientific "consensus".

I found it interesting that the president followed up his SOTU with a visit with Republican legislators, where he harangued them for 90 minutes with a message that they need to stop opposing him and using "divisive" rhetoric to stop progress.

It certainly was a well-crafted message, where he steadfastly refused to engage them on policy details, focusing instead on his pleas that they stop spreading unfair characterizations about his policies. For example, he affably suggested that Republicans were telling their constituents that his healthcare bill was "some kind of Bolshevik plot".

Besides the fact I never heard any GOP lawmaker ever call it "Bolshevik", their characterizations of the healthcare plan was consistently "Socialist". Which of course is accurate.

It seems that he was successful from a PR perspective in presenting himself as a reasonable person who is willing to compromise and meet Republicans halfway for the benefit of the country. Avoiding details was an absolute requirement for this message, because whenever the details of his policies leak out, Americans resoundingly reject them. This is a president who is determined to push through his agenda at all costs, apparently believing that fooling enough of the populace to allow the bills to pass is OK, because in the end it's going to be somehow good for us who oppose them.

This might be an interesting year, in which I think conservatives may be able to recover enough seats in congress to slow down Obama's hard left turn.

For Colts Fans

Real Analysis

Something the networks refuse to do is analyze the fundamentals of the so-called healthcare reform bills that went down in flames last week. So I'm going to take my own shot here.

The question to ask is, why were the Democrats willing to bribe their way into this massive bill that they came so close to pushing through, even though it was beyond flawed?

They say that their objective was to make health insurance more affordable and accessible to those who don't currently have it. Their widely reported justifications were based on the accusation that insurance companies will not sell to individuals with pre-existing conditions, then will routinely cancel the policies of individuals who are unfortunate enough to get sick. They go on to be outraged that insurance company executives are fat cats who siphon profits into their own pockets, partly on the backs of those customers they so callously reject.

All that is followed up with an emotionally-charged declaration that healthcare is a right, not a privilege!

Let me start with that last statement. The Bill of Rights doesn't say a word about healthcare. That declaration may sound noble to many, but if it's correct, then would it not follow that people of America also have a right to a decent home and 3 square meals a day? I'm guessing the same Democrats making this statement would answer that question "yes!"

But how can such things be rights? How can it be a right of any person to receive a house, plenty of food, and medical care, all of which presumably had to be provided by someone else, without compensating that provider in some form?

For any right to exist in a just society, how is it just to declare a right that essentially requires confiscating that good or service from someone else?

The essence of the Democrats' end goal of universal healthcare is just that; a system that confiscates goods and services from one citizen to pass on to another, while skimming a healthy percentage off the top for the government who oversees and enforces that transfer.

So to the other justifications for health insurance reform, let's deal with them individually:

Insurance companies should not make a profit from people's suffering. Sounds nice, until you consider the alternative. The Democrat alternative, as defined in their barely disguised incremental approach to ending private insurance in favor of government insurance, is certain to shift those profits into the pockets of the class of bureaucrats they put in place to administer this newer, "fairer" healthcare insurance plan.

They argue Medicare is very popular, so what's wrong with simply extending Medicare to everyone? At face value, I sort of like that idea too. If I could get insurance coverage through Medicare that allowed me to drop my outrageously expensive private health insurance plan, I'd be very happy to participate.

But I have to be realistic. Medicare's already bankrupt. They already collect about 3 percent of every dollar earned by every American, and it's not enough to cover the seniors already in the plan. They have already cut the Medicare reimbursement rates to the point where doctors and hospitals are treating seniors covered by the plan at a loss, which they must pass on to the rest of their private patients who are paying for those treatments.

So let's say everybody says, "Great, sign us all up for Medicare!". First, how much would the tax rate have to increase to cover all of us? Double? Triple? Quadruple? Would even that be enough? Then, when the doctors can no longer pay their bills because everyone's on Medicare and they can't pass costs on to other paying patients, they've already promised they will simply retire. Ultimately, we'll all have Medicare, but won't be able to find any health providers to treat us when we get sick. Because they will all have shut down from the system making it no longer economically feasible to continue.

So what about these evil insurance company practices? Yes, I have heard the stories of companies canceling policies as soon as their customer checks into the cancer treatment center. But I don't actually know anybody personally that has experienced this - do you?

And the little bit I know about contract law says that if you contract with an insurance company to reimburse medical costs, they must abide by the terms of that contract. So as a consumer, our first responsibility is to make sure there are no clauses in the fine print that allow the insurance company to dump you if you get sick. Then, if they try to do that, you have a case to sue them in court.

So maybe government can play a small role in this problem, to whatever extent it may exist, by simply passing a law that says insurance companies may not put such clauses into the fine print of their contracts, or at least that they must disclose those conditions to their customers before issuing a policy. Whatever this legislation might become, it is a far cry from what the Democrats tried to implement.

Fundamentally, I believe each of us has a responsibility to see to our own needs, whether housing, food, education, healthcare, etc. I also believe the healthcare system is in trouble today precisely because of government interference and an out-of-control tort system.

These days if you are employed, you most likely have a decent health insurance plan through your employer. The problem is the unemployed and the self-employed. The unemployed can't afford insurance, and the self-employed generally choose not to pay oppressive insurance rates for plans that don't pay until you exceed the high deductibles & co-pays.

If the government wants to reform the healthcare system, they should prioritize and create conditions that allow the citizens to force reform, rather than the big-brother approach so favored by our leftist Democrats.

1. Reform the Tort system. I have what I think is a pretty good idea for how to do this without abandoning protection for those who have truly been injured by malpractice.
2. Change the payment system. Change the system to have the citizens themselves pay for their services as rendered. We all should see and have to process the invoices, which will automatically make us more informed consumers. Insurance should be geared toward reimbursing us, not the providers.
3. Detach insurance from Employers. Make health insurance more like car insurance. We should be able to shop for and buy the policy we want in an open, competitive market. That way we don't lose our coverage after we leave an employer, and the self-employed are buying insurance the same way everyone else does.
4. Regulate, but open the market. The government can place reasonable regulations on insurance companies to make sure they act responsibly, but should also encourage companies to offer a wide range of policy options that fit individual customers' needs, and of course a pre-existing condition should affect an insurance purchaser no differently than an accident would affect a car insurance purchaser.

Too bad there isn't a single politician out there with anything close to these ideas.

Glimmers of Hope

Interesting in the wake of our freshman president's campaign promising "hope" and "change", recent events actually have provided the first glimmers of hope for me since he took office.

To have a Scott Brown come out of nowhere to beat the Democrat establishment candidate in the deepest of blue states means there seem to actually be enough people with enough sense even there to turn out to kick out the establishment.

Flipping channels the morning after that election, I happened across Meredith Viera on the Today show interviewing the new Massachusetts senator. She has always seemed to me a sweet lady, but I saw a completely opposite side of her in this interview. She was angry and combative, and pummeled Brown with a litany of accusations more than questions.

The gist of her grilling of the new Senator, as far as what I heard, was

"How dare you take over Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate with the intention of stopping passage of the health reform he dedicated his entire political career to making a reality!"

I couldn't help but once again wonder, while listening to her line of questioning, whether she really is that ignorant about why people across America oppose the healthcare bill. But of course, I also can't imagine anybody who has paid even minimal attention to the contents of the bill and the shady deals made to buy votes for it still believing it's a good idea.

I see a lot of the same on CNN, and forget about MSNBC. These talking heads are so incredibly partisan that they can't even identify a turkey when it's right in front of them in broad daylight.

There may be hope for us yet.

See Why I Don't Gamble

1 for 4 in my picks this weekend.

That's why I don't gamble. I'm a bookmaker's dream.

The NFC results didn't really surprise me, as I did pick the underdogs in both games. Although I was mildly surprised that both games were blowouts.

The biggest surprise of the weekend was the Jets beating the Chargers. Is it possible that San Diego took them for granted and looked ahead to the Colts just a bit?

Or is the Jet defense that good?

We'll get to find out.

The important thing is I had the right pick for the most important game of the weekend.

It was fun to be there Saturday night.

Football Diversions

Just for fun, a post about this weekend's NFL playoff games.

This is the weekend that pretty much anything can happen. Past history indicates that seedings are unreliable predictors of the outcome, as each division's final four teams square off.

The NFC has two interesting matchups -

Arizona will try to steal the chance to play for the Super Bowl at New Orleans, where the Saints have had perhaps their best season ever. But the Saints stumled late in the regular season, looking very average against some average opponents. Meanwhile, the Cardinals won an overtime shootout last week against Green Bay, where until the Cardinal defense sacked and forced a Rogers fumble for the winning touchdown, it seemed that neither team could stop the other.

Did New Orleans use their bye week to rejuvenate their lagging team? Or will their dream season come to an anticlimactic end against Kurt Warner's passing game?

The Cowboys go to Minnesota to try to keep their late-season surge alive. This is an interesting game, with both teams looking strong late in the year. The Vikings' running game with Ardrian Peterson seemed to tail off a bit late, but it doesn't seem to translate into predictions of doom against the hot Cowboy defense.

This game is a tough one to pick. Of the four weekend games, this seems the most likely to stay even to the end. I think the winner will be decided by a late official's call or non-call, a dropped pass, or a lucky (or unlucky) bounce of the ball.

The AFC would seem to be more predictable in theory, but I'm not ready to predict either game as a sure thing.

It would seem that the underdog Jets have no shot against the talented Chargers, playing on the opposite coast. The Jets needed the gift they received from the Colts in the second-to-last game just to qualify for the playoffs.

But the Jets also beat Cincinnati convincingly, have a very good defense, and are one of the best rushing teams in the league.

I think the Chargers will likely win, but only if they play their best and don't take the underdog Jets for granted.

Finally, in the game that has my biggest interest, the Colts host the Ravens.

Ravens fans, and apparently the entire city of Baltimore, hate Indianapolis with every fiber of their being. They feel the Colts were stolen from them, when Bob Irsay packed up the team in the middle of the night and sneaked out of the city to relocate to the Hoosier state.

So more than anything, Ravens fans want the sweet revenge of taking down the Colts in one of their finest regular-season years in history.

In theory, the Ravens team shouldn't have a prayer. They don't have much of a passing game, and must win behind a strong running game and outstanding defense.

But that approach worked amazingly well last week against the Patriots on a cold day in Massachusetts. That Ravens defense rattled Tom Brady so badly that he almost looked like some rookie quarterback, rather than one of the best at this position (outside of Peyton Manning, of course).

The Colts will try to stuff the Ravens run and ask Peyton and the gang to put up a 2 or 3 touchdown lead as early in the game as possible. Then the Ravens will have to change their game plan and start passing to get back into the game. That's when the Colts will turn loose their all-pro defensive ends, Freeney and Mathis, to terrorize Joe Flacco.

I think the Colts should win this one, but they're not likely to put up a lot of points against that Ravens defense. The game will be close because the Raven's won't allow Peyton too much room, but the Ravens offense still won't be able to keep up.

My predictions for the divisional championship games?

Chargers - Colts
Cowboys - Cardinals

I'm picking the favorites to win in the AFC, and the underdogs to win in the NFC.

Than again, my track record for picking winners isn't great.

But it will be fun to see how things actually play out.