Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Obama Health Care Bill 2
Another problem that I have will this bill and all congressional bills in general is that they contain 500 different earmarks for special interests or have misleading titles. Make a bill that focuses on the title of it and the title alone!!
Before being called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," it's title was "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." And other purposes, huh? Gee, that's not misleading. You'd think the title would reflect the central theme of the bill!
In addition to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and supposedly protecting patients and somehow providing affordable care, the Wall Street Journal also reports that it also 'overhauls the federal student-loan program... [by] shifting lending responsibilities to the federal government' (more socialism and big government), gives $655k for the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (I'm not making this up!) and has 5,223 additional earmarks. Remember, this bill is over 2000 pages long (as if a congressman is actually going to read something of that size!).
Earmark-laden legislation should be an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability. But don't quote me, quote Obama, since that is what he said about a year ago.
Before being called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," it's title was "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes." And other purposes, huh? Gee, that's not misleading. You'd think the title would reflect the central theme of the bill!
In addition to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and supposedly protecting patients and somehow providing affordable care, the Wall Street Journal also reports that it also 'overhauls the federal student-loan program... [by] shifting lending responsibilities to the federal government' (more socialism and big government), gives $655k for the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (I'm not making this up!) and has 5,223 additional earmarks. Remember, this bill is over 2000 pages long (as if a congressman is actually going to read something of that size!).
Earmark-laden legislation should be an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability. But don't quote me, quote Obama, since that is what he said about a year ago.
Obama Health Care Bill
Oh no, not another health care bill blog entry! Well, the difference is that nobody reads my blog. But anyway, it is a bad idea for many reasons. The most important reason is that health care costs are guaranteed to go up.
First insurance costs themselves:
1. This bill increases the demand for health insurance as 31 million people are about to be added to the system. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that more demand for a good or service increases its price.
2. Many of these are uninsurables. People with AIDS, incurable cancers, and previous conditions whose costs are astronomical to insure about to be pooled in. Unless these insurance companies are allowed to charge $20,000 a year to cover the cost of insuring these people, the rest of us are going to be picking up the slack.
3. State mandated car insurance. This was sold on the notion that it would spread risk and lower costs for everybody. The diversification and spreading of risk can only go so far. Did rates drop after passing state laws requiring policies? No. And why should they? There are a handful of health insurance companies out there so competition is limited. And once policies are required, they've got you now, so where is the incentive to lower rates?
4. Nothing in the bill says anything about keeping costs down for consumers. Back to (2), if they charge high risk patients astronomical prices which they can't afford, then we are back to square one.
Health-care costs:
1. Since part of the plan is to have subsidies for people earning less than $88k (uh, that's like 90% of America, who's paying for this again?) to offset the cost of insurance, the true cost of the insurance will be masked which will create more demand at doctor's offices (e.g. the extra $x can cover the cost of the co-pay). Those near the bottom rung, who will get all or most of their entire health care expenses covered will surely use the the system a lot more than they had in the past. Every little cough, sniffle or stomach pain will surely send them to the ER. Taxes and subsidies distort economic incentives.
2. More demand on doctors means more waiting and higher costs.
Additional costs:
1. Taxes are increased on anyone who has a job (higher medicare/medicade taxes) or owns a stock/bond portfolio (increase on capital gains and dividends). We know who's being targeted here, eh?
2. It adds a trillion dollars to the federal debt over 10 years. USA is beginning to look like the American consumer around 2006, wouldn't you say?
3. This bill does nothing to lower underlying healthcare costs for Americans. Healthcare is currently expensive and is going to become even more expensive once this bill takes effect. If Obama wanted to make sweeping health care improvements, increasing the cost of it is way off mark.
Since it's the large insurers who strongly lobbied for this bill, it's obvious who stands to benefit from its passager yesterday. Aetna's stock has surged about 10 percent over the last few trading days.
First insurance costs themselves:
1. This bill increases the demand for health insurance as 31 million people are about to be added to the system. It doesn't take an economist to tell you that more demand for a good or service increases its price.
2. Many of these are uninsurables. People with AIDS, incurable cancers, and previous conditions whose costs are astronomical to insure about to be pooled in. Unless these insurance companies are allowed to charge $20,000 a year to cover the cost of insuring these people, the rest of us are going to be picking up the slack.
3. State mandated car insurance. This was sold on the notion that it would spread risk and lower costs for everybody. The diversification and spreading of risk can only go so far. Did rates drop after passing state laws requiring policies? No. And why should they? There are a handful of health insurance companies out there so competition is limited. And once policies are required, they've got you now, so where is the incentive to lower rates?
4. Nothing in the bill says anything about keeping costs down for consumers. Back to (2), if they charge high risk patients astronomical prices which they can't afford, then we are back to square one.
Health-care costs:
1. Since part of the plan is to have subsidies for people earning less than $88k (uh, that's like 90% of America, who's paying for this again?) to offset the cost of insurance, the true cost of the insurance will be masked which will create more demand at doctor's offices (e.g. the extra $x can cover the cost of the co-pay). Those near the bottom rung, who will get all or most of their entire health care expenses covered will surely use the the system a lot more than they had in the past. Every little cough, sniffle or stomach pain will surely send them to the ER. Taxes and subsidies distort economic incentives.
2. More demand on doctors means more waiting and higher costs.
Additional costs:
1. Taxes are increased on anyone who has a job (higher medicare/medicade taxes) or owns a stock/bond portfolio (increase on capital gains and dividends). We know who's being targeted here, eh?
2. It adds a trillion dollars to the federal debt over 10 years. USA is beginning to look like the American consumer around 2006, wouldn't you say?
3. This bill does nothing to lower underlying healthcare costs for Americans. Healthcare is currently expensive and is going to become even more expensive once this bill takes effect. If Obama wanted to make sweeping health care improvements, increasing the cost of it is way off mark.
Since it's the large insurers who strongly lobbied for this bill, it's obvious who stands to benefit from its passager yesterday. Aetna's stock has surged about 10 percent over the last few trading days.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Taxes and free rides
Any successful person really hates taxes. Why do we hate them so much? Because they are not levied in a fair and just manner. If everybody had to pay x% of their income in taxes, that is fair. But instead we have a progressive tax system where the more successful you are, the more you have to pay. Why should I get punished for being successful when some freeloader out there doesn't pay anything? Did they chip into my costs, time, effort, and hardships so that I could go get graduate degrees to pave my road to success? No. So why should I have to pay for them?
This is redistributive socialism at its best. And the U.S. is at the top of the pack with the most progressive tax system for OECD countries.
And how is it not discrimination? Change income to some other category such as race where different ethnicities get charged different tax rates, and you'd have a firestorm in this country.
But yet it is easy to discriminate against 'wealthy' people because they are a minority (by definition) and make up a small percentage of the population. The majority throughout history has always discriminated against its minority population for their benefit.
And here's another thing. They get labeled 'wealthy.' There are two parts to wealth: stock and flow. People who are wealthy have a large stock of assets. Either they built up that stock over a lifetime or they inherited a large bundle. The other part of wealth is flow. This is the income that you make each year. A large flow of income grants you the potential to become wealthy, but that doesn't mean that everybody earning well is in fact wealthy. And one also must consider where many of these high earners live: New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.: all places that are much more expensive (and also with high state tax rates) that other areas of the country. Someone making more than 100k a year is by no means wealthy in one of these cities, but they treated as such by the tax code.
On another note, Inter-generational distribution of wealth is probably not fair. Warren buffet calls it the 'womb lottery.' Capitalism is survival of the fittest for economies where those who have good ideas or work harder than others get rewarded for it. Inheritance throws a kink into the system because it allows those who contributed nothing to society to be rewarded for it (Think: Paris Hilton). Some do turn their inheritance into successful businesses, but then that is another issue if it were fair for them to get a leg-up on everybody else.
There is a good story that exemplifies the tax burden, and while fictitious, it has a good message.
Also, recently the new york times published an updated table related to who pays taxes in this country. I couldn't find the original article for the new figures, but I found a copy of the table that shows who pays taxes in this country. Essentially, the bottom 50% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Those making more than 70k a year pay about 90% of all federal income taxes. So, by being successful we get punished and leeches gets a free ride.
This is redistributive socialism at its best. And the U.S. is at the top of the pack with the most progressive tax system for OECD countries.
And how is it not discrimination? Change income to some other category such as race where different ethnicities get charged different tax rates, and you'd have a firestorm in this country.
But yet it is easy to discriminate against 'wealthy' people because they are a minority (by definition) and make up a small percentage of the population. The majority throughout history has always discriminated against its minority population for their benefit.
And here's another thing. They get labeled 'wealthy.' There are two parts to wealth: stock and flow. People who are wealthy have a large stock of assets. Either they built up that stock over a lifetime or they inherited a large bundle. The other part of wealth is flow. This is the income that you make each year. A large flow of income grants you the potential to become wealthy, but that doesn't mean that everybody earning well is in fact wealthy. And one also must consider where many of these high earners live: New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.: all places that are much more expensive (and also with high state tax rates) that other areas of the country. Someone making more than 100k a year is by no means wealthy in one of these cities, but they treated as such by the tax code.
On another note, Inter-generational distribution of wealth is probably not fair. Warren buffet calls it the 'womb lottery.' Capitalism is survival of the fittest for economies where those who have good ideas or work harder than others get rewarded for it. Inheritance throws a kink into the system because it allows those who contributed nothing to society to be rewarded for it (Think: Paris Hilton). Some do turn their inheritance into successful businesses, but then that is another issue if it were fair for them to get a leg-up on everybody else.
There is a good story that exemplifies the tax burden, and while fictitious, it has a good message.
Also, recently the new york times published an updated table related to who pays taxes in this country. I couldn't find the original article for the new figures, but I found a copy of the table that shows who pays taxes in this country. Essentially, the bottom 50% of Americans don't pay income taxes. Those making more than 70k a year pay about 90% of all federal income taxes. So, by being successful we get punished and leeches gets a free ride.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
American Taxes
Have you ever noticed how a politician's answer to everything is to raise taxes? They just keep blowing more money on pork and when the coffers run dry -"let's raise taxes again." Really, when will it ever stop? We have come a long way from the 16th amendment income tax rate of 2%. Now, total tax rates approach 50% in some states. And at least if I felt my money was going to something good I wouldn't feel so bad about it. But no, it goes to other countries, it goes into an overbuilt military, it goes to politician's porky pet projects that benefit a small minority, it goes to farm subsidies, and it goes to supporting people who have no desire to actually do anything with their lives. The U.S. is going in the direction of socialism.
Haiti
Whenever a tragic news story comes around, it draws you in to find out more information. The earthquake tradegy aside, why in the hell has the US pumping money into this country for over two decades? According to Reuter's Alertnet, the US has provided over $1.5 billion to this country. Other countries have chipped in as well. It just reminds you of all the pork this country has stuffed into it. The U.S. should be taking care of its own problems instead of raising taxes to help other countries. It is not our duty to be the world's chaperon! And if the money stops flowing, they aren't going to like us anymore anyway, so why even bother?
And what the hell: Why is it that this country cannot pull it together? It's neighbor on the same damn island, the Dominican Republic, pulls in a GDP 6.5 times as much per capita. This is a natural social experiment that probably has a lot of answers somewhere.
And what the hell: Why is it that this country cannot pull it together? It's neighbor on the same damn island, the Dominican Republic, pulls in a GDP 6.5 times as much per capita. This is a natural social experiment that probably has a lot of answers somewhere.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama and the Economy
One thing that really sucks is that when the economy turns around, Obama is going to get all the credit even though it is a natural business cycle.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
China's Gymnasts
Well if you have been keeping up with the Olympics, you have probably heard about the Chinese Gymnast Controversy that the gymnasts were under the age allowed to compete (On the link there are also some good age revealing pictures of these little girls). A former Olympian describes the advantages to youth in the sport in a CNN video. Also on that video is a reference to a Chinese gymnast who won the bronze medal in 2004 who now admits she was underage when she competed.
For starters, I couldn't care less who won the gold and clearly the Americans were falling all over the place, so that's not what this about. It's just that the Chinese have a "whatever it takes" attitude when it comes to them. And I mean with respect to every aspect of life. Cheating is something that is considered acceptable if it advances their causes. Now obviously not all of them are like this, but overall it seems they have a different culture when it comes to intellectual property and some other avenues of life. This seems to be well documented in China related books, such as the Wall Street Journal's, One Billion Customers: Lessons from the Front Lines of Doing Business in China. My own personal experiences in grad school also confirmed this.
For starters, I couldn't care less who won the gold and clearly the Americans were falling all over the place, so that's not what this about. It's just that the Chinese have a "whatever it takes" attitude when it comes to them. And I mean with respect to every aspect of life. Cheating is something that is considered acceptable if it advances their causes. Now obviously not all of them are like this, but overall it seems they have a different culture when it comes to intellectual property and some other avenues of life. This seems to be well documented in China related books, such as the Wall Street Journal's, One Billion Customers: Lessons from the Front Lines of Doing Business in China. My own personal experiences in grad school also confirmed this.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
