This is a year old post, but I think the reasoning is sound.
One of the great ironies of life is the Uriah Heep Syndrome. In Charles Dickens's book David Copperfield, the character Uriah Heep spends the entire book reciting how humble he is. Every time he appears, he says, "I am so humble." By the end of the book, his inflated ego become abundantly clear. UHS is the syndrome where a person describes himself as being what he wishes to be, but is clearly the opposite.
I find most moderates as having severe cases of UHS. They believe that they are the smartest and best informed people in the room. As a result of this information, they are best able to assess which candidate is best by looking at each candidate issue by issue.
In practice, these moderates are not interested enough to do the research to find out issue by issue what each candidate believes. But even if there is an exception or two that does do an analysis issue by issue, moderates by definition have no political philosophy to inform their judgment. They have no knowledge base to draw on. I don't mean to say that a moderate physician has no knowledge of medicine to draw on. I mean that moderate physician has no political philosophical knowledge. Ask that physician to compare and contrast Marx and Burke. In my experience, that physician can't.
That physician has every reason to proclaim his depth of knowledge, experience, intelligence, and practicality. If not for those, the physician could not succeed professionally. Unfortunately that professional focus risks depriving the physician from being able to converse in great depth in political philosophy. He is an ideal candidate to seek comfort in declaring himself to be a moderate.
This declaration is really a failed attempt of turning ignorance of politics, economics, and law into an asset.
UHS is really likely to occur when a person does not like what that person observes in himself. To remove the undesirable characteristic, the person declares himself to be the opposite.
UHS is part of the normal tools of psychological defense mechanisms. We all do it. The chubby person that declares that he is on a diet when he eats the donut is playing a non-verbal form of UHS. The fat woman in the tight pants. The high school drop out that is worried about being disrespected. These people all have self-image that they are trying to ignore and play a different personality to the world.
The severe cases of UHS are not just minor deflections but are the person's identity. They embrace the UHS and will destroy themselves to live it out.
For Republicans to be successful, they need to stand firm on identified core philosophies and repeat the truth. When confronted with a moderate or a liberal, do not accept the false premises that the moderate or liberal use. If the moderate says, "I look at the candidate issue by issue." The Republican needs to look the moderate squarely in the eye and challenge them on the truth of this statement by playing along. The Republican could say, "Wow, how many hours of research do you do on each candidate to make a decision. I mean, take the last XXX race where Candidate A was a radical Democrat and Candidate B was a strict Conservative. Walk me through the issues."
I would submit that the moderate can't do that. They say the analysis is done, but they don't. They pick up catch phrases and recite those. But they don't understand the catch phrases actual impact.
Moderates need to be challenged. If they go Democrat, they go Democrat. Once they start moving though, the moderate is more likely to become a Republican. They're usually only moderates because the Democrats make them uncomfortable and they don't hear enough about what Republicans believe from non-Democrats.
Challenge the moderates. Win a Republican convert.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Compartimentalizing Morality
Absolutely brilliant point on environmentalism's failure in environmental issues.
Monday, October 12, 2009
So We're Running out of Gas?
We are running out of gas?
The left's hype is getting blown out of the water again.
When are we going to quit listening to the hype the Democrat's side of the discussion keep pushing? They are wrong every time we turn around.
The left's hype is getting blown out of the water again.
When are we going to quit listening to the hype the Democrat's side of the discussion keep pushing? They are wrong every time we turn around.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
FDR's Second Bill of Rights has Second Life?
Professor Epstein argues that civil educated discourse being drowned out by uncivil persons on your own side makes informative debate difficult and then shows simply that Professor Sunstein's reaffirmation of FDR's Second Bill of Rights is unworkable.
All true. The problem is that the good professors are too caught up in intellectual notions.
The US Bill of Rights works. Early criminal works because they took of one of the key advantages of controlling an opponent -- denying him part of the field of play.
The idea is simplest on a chess board. Trying to learn chess a few years back, I bought a book by Eddie Fisher. One of the key notions is limiting your opponent's ability to move. Use the edge of the board as a weapon, then push him toward that edge that he cannot course. Think of a king versus a queen. For every move the king makes, the queen can swift react and push the king into a corner before retirement becomes evident for even a beginner.
The notion of good law is that it simply prohibits part of the field of play from the criminal. Do not murder. Murder is the knowing or intentional killing of another. Done.
Don't hit people. Don't threaten to hit people. Don't steal.
How about yelling or loud music? Hmmm . . . . Let's just discourage that.
For two people in one room, you have most of the rules to provide those two sanity.
Once you start saying that you cannot intentional kill if the music is too loud, you need two lawyers. One to argue that the music was too loud. The other to argue that the complainant was too old (Remember? If the music is too loud, you're too old?). Now age is possibly the problem?
Complex rules lead to complex arguments. Simple rules, simple arguments, simple compliance.
Professor Sunstein's and FDR's failings is that they want to describe the preferred world and make it a right. They might as well say that the teenager has a right to listen to loud music. At least I will still have a job as a lawyer wearing earplugs, even if you are too old.
All true. The problem is that the good professors are too caught up in intellectual notions.
The US Bill of Rights works. Early criminal works because they took of one of the key advantages of controlling an opponent -- denying him part of the field of play.
The idea is simplest on a chess board. Trying to learn chess a few years back, I bought a book by Eddie Fisher. One of the key notions is limiting your opponent's ability to move. Use the edge of the board as a weapon, then push him toward that edge that he cannot course. Think of a king versus a queen. For every move the king makes, the queen can swift react and push the king into a corner before retirement becomes evident for even a beginner.
The notion of good law is that it simply prohibits part of the field of play from the criminal. Do not murder. Murder is the knowing or intentional killing of another. Done.
Don't hit people. Don't threaten to hit people. Don't steal.
How about yelling or loud music? Hmmm . . . . Let's just discourage that.
For two people in one room, you have most of the rules to provide those two sanity.
Once you start saying that you cannot intentional kill if the music is too loud, you need two lawyers. One to argue that the music was too loud. The other to argue that the complainant was too old (Remember? If the music is too loud, you're too old?). Now age is possibly the problem?
Complex rules lead to complex arguments. Simple rules, simple arguments, simple compliance.
Professor Sunstein's and FDR's failings is that they want to describe the preferred world and make it a right. They might as well say that the teenager has a right to listen to loud music. At least I will still have a job as a lawyer wearing earplugs, even if you are too old.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Lost our Sense of Mission?
The guys at PowerLine were commenting on the affable and clarifying Mark Steyn. PowerLine focused on the loss of will defend our culture.
Whether you call it "will" or "morale" may not make a difference. I do see a difference. Will is much more of an individual's trait. Morale is the cohesiveness of the group that reflects a collective of individual wills.
Just like throughout most of American history, America is still divided a third, a third, a third. The Democrats caucusing together is of the vintage of Anti-Federalists, Jacksonian Democrats, Copperheads, European Social Democrats. It has always gathered around the notion of a strong federal government and strong states being impossible and highly undesirable. Their rationales swing widely. At the core they just don't like the Miracle in Philadelphia. Their vision for the country starts with the proposition that the Constitution of negative liberties and we need to enshrine more positive liberties. (Good rhetorical choice of words but a terrible description of the process.) Call them the radical revolutionaries. Change away from the current institution is always good, so long it does not come to resemble the previous incarnation of the institution. In fact, new institutions are preferred over old ones wherever possible.
The polar opposite third of the population is the group centered around the Federal Constitution carrying it out as strictly as possible. Many would even suggest that the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) was part of the weakening of our Constitution. This amendment may be good or bad. If you looked at this group, they would likely either tell why it is good or be persuaded it's worth discussion. They want change, but theirs is the harder: change to what worked better in our past; preserve the institution and evolve it slowly in Edmund Burke's preferred manner.
The middle third is where all the action is. They call themselves moderate and cling to the Poor Richard (a/k/a Ben Franklin) claim of all things in moderation. A little revolution is good. A little of institutional preservation is good.
The revolutionaries don't have to have a strong vision of what they want. They are highly negative: no continuity, no stability. Change is all that matters. This focus on "no" allows them to build adherents quickly. If you are ever around a talented salesman, the salesman demonstrates the power of "no." To truly understand his talent, just imagine the insufferable, talentless salesman.
The talentless salesman wants to tell you how wonderful his product is. "This car is the greatest ever. Look at the engine, the tires . . . . Wow?! Huh?" When you say, "No, too big." The salesman either argues that is not actually big compared to a dump truck or changes his story to how the next car is the greatest. He wants you to say "Yes." He wants you to say, "Yes, that is a great car. Yes, I have to have it." He is always pushing his ideas of what you should like and gets offended when you don't say "Yes." He is just following the rule that every "yes" is a step closer to success in getting you to buy. An hour later, you are less likely to have bought a car and more likely to run out the door.
The successful salesman tries to get you to say "No" as quickly and often as possible. "Do you want a car with more than 20 mph?" If you say, "No," he has just eliminate half his inventory from the discussion with one question. If you say, "Yes," same solution, different direction. "Do you want a car for more than 5 passengers?" Smaller target again, a "No" gets you a sedan or a coupe, but a "Yes" gets you a mini-van, SUV, or truck. Three more questions and you are standing in front of the car that is most likely to be his best candidate for you.
No arguments. No long discussions.
There still be an hour for you to persuade yourself that you want to buy, and the talented salesman will serve as your pro-buying angel/devil on your shoulder. In ten minutes, though, he knows whether you are going to buy better than you do yourself.
The Democrats have managed to sell their snake oil like the most talented salesman. They get the moderates to say "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor when you are too old to pay the bills yourself?" "Do you want your children to be uneducated?" The moderates have so little foundational understanding of the debates that their "No" answers drive the debate. They know the customer wants to feel good. If the customer wanted a large, red SUV, the customer gets an SUV. Then salesman gets his commission. The salesman is not worried that the customer may be bankrupt next year because of the excessive car payment. I started this by discussion morale. Democrats have a high desire to cohere together when they are excited about institutions that need to change. Discussions focused on "no" are easy. Their problems in morale arise when they need to agree on the vision to replace the destroyed institution.
The Republicans then act like the talentless salesmen: "But look at how well designed middle-of-the-road sedan looks! Look at the moderate mix of space and fuel efficiency." They keep telling the moderates what to like. Republicans of a conservative bent have a common but loosely defined vision. Attacks on that vision are bad. Promotion of the vision is good. Republican morale is highest when the shared vision is most prominent.
Moderates don't have a vision of what they want the country to be. They want to feel good about themselves and their futures. They don't like shared visions, because they have become acclimated to being made uncomfortable about the federal vision. The Democrats' ability to find "No" answers in the sales questions works well on moderates. Moderates don't have a unifying morale and gyrate wildly.
The instantaneous success of the Republicans lately is that they now have a concrete example of Obamacare about which to seek a "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor?" "Do you want this 8% tax increase?" "Do you want government mandates of doctors, lawyers, and counselors sitting you down every 5 years after retirement age to discuss when you are going to die? A/k/a 'Death panels' that you appoint, but follow government rules." No. No. No.
Reveal to moderates the misery of the Democrat revolution(s). The debate becomes easier. The moderates become increasingly uncomfortable with the "No" answers that Republicans generate.
To accelerate this, Republicans must also play Toto in pulling back the curtain of Democrat tactics. The Great Wizard of Oz in the White House starts to look sillier when you quit focusing on the large face but focus on the weak man pulling the levers.
The growing discussion of Saul Alinsky and his writings has been a curtain-pulling discussion.
The discussion of treating moderates like saps who can be lead to desired answers by seeking "no" would accelerate it further. The use of the "no" technique by the Republicans will accelerate it further. Once everyone becomes aware of the "no" technique, discussion of visions because more acceptable.
I dispute whether we have had a loss of will. I think the two poles of the debate have very different senses of what drives morale. Each of their morales is high. Democrats are on a high by recent successes of getting into office. Republicans of a conservative bent on a rising morale because they sense their movement rejuvenating.
The moderates in middle have a sense that don't belong to either pole. They have dropping morale. That may not last. A focused attempt to break moderates' bonds to the Democrats could unleash a rising sense of morale in middle. Then what election effects will arise?
Whether you call it "will" or "morale" may not make a difference. I do see a difference. Will is much more of an individual's trait. Morale is the cohesiveness of the group that reflects a collective of individual wills.
Just like throughout most of American history, America is still divided a third, a third, a third. The Democrats caucusing together is of the vintage of Anti-Federalists, Jacksonian Democrats, Copperheads, European Social Democrats. It has always gathered around the notion of a strong federal government and strong states being impossible and highly undesirable. Their rationales swing widely. At the core they just don't like the Miracle in Philadelphia. Their vision for the country starts with the proposition that the Constitution of negative liberties and we need to enshrine more positive liberties. (Good rhetorical choice of words but a terrible description of the process.) Call them the radical revolutionaries. Change away from the current institution is always good, so long it does not come to resemble the previous incarnation of the institution. In fact, new institutions are preferred over old ones wherever possible.
The polar opposite third of the population is the group centered around the Federal Constitution carrying it out as strictly as possible. Many would even suggest that the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators) was part of the weakening of our Constitution. This amendment may be good or bad. If you looked at this group, they would likely either tell why it is good or be persuaded it's worth discussion. They want change, but theirs is the harder: change to what worked better in our past; preserve the institution and evolve it slowly in Edmund Burke's preferred manner.
The middle third is where all the action is. They call themselves moderate and cling to the Poor Richard (a/k/a Ben Franklin) claim of all things in moderation. A little revolution is good. A little of institutional preservation is good.
The revolutionaries don't have to have a strong vision of what they want. They are highly negative: no continuity, no stability. Change is all that matters. This focus on "no" allows them to build adherents quickly. If you are ever around a talented salesman, the salesman demonstrates the power of "no." To truly understand his talent, just imagine the insufferable, talentless salesman.
The talentless salesman wants to tell you how wonderful his product is. "This car is the greatest ever. Look at the engine, the tires . . . . Wow?! Huh?" When you say, "No, too big." The salesman either argues that is not actually big compared to a dump truck or changes his story to how the next car is the greatest. He wants you to say "Yes." He wants you to say, "Yes, that is a great car. Yes, I have to have it." He is always pushing his ideas of what you should like and gets offended when you don't say "Yes." He is just following the rule that every "yes" is a step closer to success in getting you to buy. An hour later, you are less likely to have bought a car and more likely to run out the door.
The successful salesman tries to get you to say "No" as quickly and often as possible. "Do you want a car with more than 20 mph?" If you say, "No," he has just eliminate half his inventory from the discussion with one question. If you say, "Yes," same solution, different direction. "Do you want a car for more than 5 passengers?" Smaller target again, a "No" gets you a sedan or a coupe, but a "Yes" gets you a mini-van, SUV, or truck. Three more questions and you are standing in front of the car that is most likely to be his best candidate for you.
No arguments. No long discussions.
There still be an hour for you to persuade yourself that you want to buy, and the talented salesman will serve as your pro-buying angel/devil on your shoulder. In ten minutes, though, he knows whether you are going to buy better than you do yourself.
The Democrats have managed to sell their snake oil like the most talented salesman. They get the moderates to say "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor when you are too old to pay the bills yourself?" "Do you want your children to be uneducated?" The moderates have so little foundational understanding of the debates that their "No" answers drive the debate. They know the customer wants to feel good. If the customer wanted a large, red SUV, the customer gets an SUV. Then salesman gets his commission. The salesman is not worried that the customer may be bankrupt next year because of the excessive car payment. I started this by discussion morale. Democrats have a high desire to cohere together when they are excited about institutions that need to change. Discussions focused on "no" are easy. Their problems in morale arise when they need to agree on the vision to replace the destroyed institution.
The Republicans then act like the talentless salesmen: "But look at how well designed middle-of-the-road sedan looks! Look at the moderate mix of space and fuel efficiency." They keep telling the moderates what to like. Republicans of a conservative bent have a common but loosely defined vision. Attacks on that vision are bad. Promotion of the vision is good. Republican morale is highest when the shared vision is most prominent.
Moderates don't have a vision of what they want the country to be. They want to feel good about themselves and their futures. They don't like shared visions, because they have become acclimated to being made uncomfortable about the federal vision. The Democrats' ability to find "No" answers in the sales questions works well on moderates. Moderates don't have a unifying morale and gyrate wildly.
The instantaneous success of the Republicans lately is that they now have a concrete example of Obamacare about which to seek a "No." "Do you want to lose your doctor?" "Do you want this 8% tax increase?" "Do you want government mandates of doctors, lawyers, and counselors sitting you down every 5 years after retirement age to discuss when you are going to die? A/k/a 'Death panels' that you appoint, but follow government rules." No. No. No.
Reveal to moderates the misery of the Democrat revolution(s). The debate becomes easier. The moderates become increasingly uncomfortable with the "No" answers that Republicans generate.
To accelerate this, Republicans must also play Toto in pulling back the curtain of Democrat tactics. The Great Wizard of Oz in the White House starts to look sillier when you quit focusing on the large face but focus on the weak man pulling the levers.
The growing discussion of Saul Alinsky and his writings has been a curtain-pulling discussion.
The discussion of treating moderates like saps who can be lead to desired answers by seeking "no" would accelerate it further. The use of the "no" technique by the Republicans will accelerate it further. Once everyone becomes aware of the "no" technique, discussion of visions because more acceptable.
I dispute whether we have had a loss of will. I think the two poles of the debate have very different senses of what drives morale. Each of their morales is high. Democrats are on a high by recent successes of getting into office. Republicans of a conservative bent on a rising morale because they sense their movement rejuvenating.
The moderates in middle have a sense that don't belong to either pole. They have dropping morale. That may not last. A focused attempt to break moderates' bonds to the Democrats could unleash a rising sense of morale in middle. Then what election effects will arise?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Another measurement of "phoney-ness"
Another measurement request: what is the ratio of arrests at tea party's or Obamacare rallies? How many union members in the numbers arrest? How many registered members of the respective parties, including LaRouche supporters?
A Measurement of Phoney-ness
To coin a phrase, let's measure "phoney-ness."
To me it seems easy, what is the ratio of cars to buses parked near the protest area?
While organized groups use buses, self-motivated protesters tend to drive themselves or car pool. Spreads the costs of transportation in smaller, de-centralized increments.
Even to the extent that such a measurement can be manipulated, it would increase the costs and logistical headaches for the organizers. More parking needs. More money to subsidize drivers from the union coffers. Etc.
Does a tea party protest have event-parking pricing? What about a union rally? Are they the same price for the same location for similar weekend or holiday timing?
I would be facinated to learn if there were differences.
To me it seems easy, what is the ratio of cars to buses parked near the protest area?
While organized groups use buses, self-motivated protesters tend to drive themselves or car pool. Spreads the costs of transportation in smaller, de-centralized increments.
Even to the extent that such a measurement can be manipulated, it would increase the costs and logistical headaches for the organizers. More parking needs. More money to subsidize drivers from the union coffers. Etc.
Does a tea party protest have event-parking pricing? What about a union rally? Are they the same price for the same location for similar weekend or holiday timing?
I would be facinated to learn if there were differences.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Government-Option Healthcare v. Microsoft
The Department of Justice has a long running history of picking fights with Microsoft (EU is even worse) over supposedly monopolistic behavior. The idea seems to be that one player is too large and must be brought down to size.
Based on Obamacare's characteristics as written in the House Bill, does that mean that the Obama Administration has no issues with Microsoft or later Google over dominating their segments of the market?
This behavior is monopsony (a term I just learned; remember use all new terms in a sentence). Monopoly is one seller for many buyers. Monopsony is one buyer for many sellers.
Obamacare is either monopsony today or tomorrow.
So if I understand Obama, he either likes single buyers (or large ones that have the power to delcare itself a monopsony) and hates monopolists or likes monopsonists and monopolists both.
Let's watch Microsoft and Google and learn.
Based on Obamacare's characteristics as written in the House Bill, does that mean that the Obama Administration has no issues with Microsoft or later Google over dominating their segments of the market?
This behavior is monopsony (a term I just learned; remember use all new terms in a sentence). Monopoly is one seller for many buyers. Monopsony is one buyer for many sellers.
Obamacare is either monopsony today or tomorrow.
So if I understand Obama, he either likes single buyers (or large ones that have the power to delcare itself a monopsony) and hates monopolists or likes monopsonists and monopolists both.
Let's watch Microsoft and Google and learn.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Fire the Journalists
I have an idea: let's fire all journalists. No one likes them. They are irritating. Their content is worthless.
With that one statement, we have just created a lot of new openings, so who should fill those chairs?
I propose people with degrees in advertising or marketing from business schools or experienced sales people. They know how to tell pithy stories. They understand that telling a good story is imperative to making a profit when the subject matter turns difficult. They know how to make you feel good about the most depressing or mundane subjects. They know how to turn grammatical variations into phrases repeated around the world by teenagers and young adults.
Journalists go to school to learn to tell stories, but advertisers tell better stories with pictures or shorter scripts. Why waste time reading 500 words of journo-babble when we can get the idea in 30 seconds or just a neat picture?
Journalists go to school to learn how to get two sources for every article, then they turn to old school chum or neighbor to be their representative of the general public (less effort you know). Advertisers and marketers are far more skilled at finding out what the general public wants and thinks and giving it to them.
Journalists go to school to learn how to take polling data and make it a tear-jerking human-interest story about one person that illustrates the point that the journalist wants to make without any regard to what the polling data shows. Marketers have experience in digging into polling data and giving any one segment of the population exactly the product they want. Marketers don't care if one segment of the population agrees with Henry Ford and only wants black cars while another segment wants bright yellow ones. Marketers will use the polling data to order enough black cars and bright yellow cars to make everyone happy. Just imagine if the newspapers were run by marketers that told the same story for two different market segments: one liberal and the other conservative. Imagine that the number of column-inches given to each version of the story could be based on the percentage of that paper's readership who share that political persuasion.
Journalists play at marketing by constantly making the papers look more and more like Romper Room but still giving us the same Henry Ford black Model T for liberal, empty content.
With that one statement, we have just created a lot of new openings, so who should fill those chairs?
I propose people with degrees in advertising or marketing from business schools or experienced sales people. They know how to tell pithy stories. They understand that telling a good story is imperative to making a profit when the subject matter turns difficult. They know how to make you feel good about the most depressing or mundane subjects. They know how to turn grammatical variations into phrases repeated around the world by teenagers and young adults.
Journalists go to school to learn to tell stories, but advertisers tell better stories with pictures or shorter scripts. Why waste time reading 500 words of journo-babble when we can get the idea in 30 seconds or just a neat picture?
Journalists go to school to learn how to get two sources for every article, then they turn to old school chum or neighbor to be their representative of the general public (less effort you know). Advertisers and marketers are far more skilled at finding out what the general public wants and thinks and giving it to them.
Journalists go to school to learn how to take polling data and make it a tear-jerking human-interest story about one person that illustrates the point that the journalist wants to make without any regard to what the polling data shows. Marketers have experience in digging into polling data and giving any one segment of the population exactly the product they want. Marketers don't care if one segment of the population agrees with Henry Ford and only wants black cars while another segment wants bright yellow ones. Marketers will use the polling data to order enough black cars and bright yellow cars to make everyone happy. Just imagine if the newspapers were run by marketers that told the same story for two different market segments: one liberal and the other conservative. Imagine that the number of column-inches given to each version of the story could be based on the percentage of that paper's readership who share that political persuasion.
Journalists play at marketing by constantly making the papers look more and more like Romper Room but still giving us the same Henry Ford black Model T for liberal, empty content.
The Middle
I have written before about my joys and frustrations in reading a particular website. He subscribes to what I would call the "single issue anger." Admittedly this unnamed website does not simply attack the opposition to Bush's immigration deform, but several other attacks on Bush's wayward behavior. The key point for him is the supposed Conservative attack on Bush's variance from the supposed Conservative gold standard.
As hated as Nixon is today and as demeaned as election strategy is too (move rightward for the primary and move to the center for the general election), he understood some basic concepts. He understood that the body politic is actually not just two parties but several groups. These groups are small and align around broader, similar concepts. These groups become successful and powerful when they aggregate larger and larger alliances together. Part of the process is dropping concepts from their main message that the larger group cannot support. Part of it is softening catch phrases to remove the harshness of tone. Moving between groups at different times is part of group building.
The part that few people wish to admit, except at times of radical transition, is that a common enemy is the biggest group builder of all. The common sentiments of frustration and anger allow people to shed old alliances and the older, larger groups start shrinking. These new unaligned voters may stay unaligned unless they find a group that shares their message and tone. The common enemy allows old hatreds to begin to appear petty compared to the new frustration and growing anger. This allows a courtship, similar to the old lyrics from the "Facts of Life" theme song: "The boys you used to hate, Now you date."
The famous French philosopher La Rochefaucauld wrote, "La haine est plus proche de l'amour que l'amite": Hate is closer to love than friendship. Obama has succeeded in causing a growing number of his passionate followers to turn on him. These ex-followers are his greatest problem because they will turn forever on him and his party.
The middle that does not wish to ever be passionate but wants to appear reasonable, those are moving away from him. He can get them back so long as they stay dispassionate. They want to reason issues out and find a middle way. These are the people that socialism and its kissing cousin fascism have always played to. Mussolini invented the modern use of the phrase the "third way." He sensed that coloring his socialism for the middle of his body politic would get him elected. He played to this desire for dispassion and made them passionate for an undefined "something else."
Obama rose to power on his version of the third way: "Hope. Change." Like Mussolini, he was less than clear on the stump of what he sought to do. He allowed the radical left to see the details to keep them happy by having white papers on his website that gave details. He knew that the middle of population would never research the white papers. They had too little passion to research his ideas. It was too big of a burden to challenge their hope for a third way. Why deal with the facts when you are comfortable in the middle.
Now Obama has done something that few have done successfully in recent American political history. He has made portions of the middle uncomfortable and angry. They are getting angrier every time they learn more about his health plan.
What's worse is these angry people start doing research on the plan and run across articles on the global warming myth. They get angrier still.
We may soon start to see a disappearing middle. The middle won't disappear because of the brilliance of current GOP leadership. The middle will disappear because they have focused anger that won't allow them to pretend they are being reasonable. They will start to see that reason has a home in the GOP's body politic (even if it is remarkably absent in the Republican party establishment in DC). The GOP's thinkers and middle America members are the real intellectual powerhouses of the country. Their ability to communicate without the DC establishment as an intermediary has created chorus of strong-minded, clear-thinking, passionate, and all-too-polite people. The middle won't be able to remain dispassionate nor to ignore the violence-prone thugs representing Obama's cause. Once the pendulum of political passion starts to sway, it is harder to bring back to rest.
That is Obama's problem. He is getting hit by the pendulum that he put in motion. The pendulum threatens to grow into a wrecking ball.
The quick answer to stopping a swinging wrecking ball is an application of an equal force in the exact opposite direction. Since that is difficult to do, the application of thug power in another direction will cause the wrecking ball of passion and resentment against Obama to careen into his fellow Democrats in Congress and spread the damage.
A disappearing middle and a careening wrecking ball leads to unpredictable results. Damage will spread far and wide. Republicans in Congress should not rest easy. The new class of Republicans will expect privileges that junior members only get when they are a large group (like the Class of 1994). They will insist on changes within Congress and the Republican Caucus. Smart members of the current Republican Caucus will avoid defending the Caucus's recent stupidities of boondoogle earmarks and reckless spending prior to 2006. They will seek strong law-and-order measures, such as border enforcement and immigration law enforcement (as two separate issues rather than one jumbled mess). They will seek simple laws that are easier to self-police, leading to smaller, less wasteful government.
Simplicity of law is liberty. Bureaucracy is the midwife of tyranny. When the middle becomes passionate about these ideas, Obama's agenda is dead.
As hated as Nixon is today and as demeaned as election strategy is too (move rightward for the primary and move to the center for the general election), he understood some basic concepts. He understood that the body politic is actually not just two parties but several groups. These groups are small and align around broader, similar concepts. These groups become successful and powerful when they aggregate larger and larger alliances together. Part of the process is dropping concepts from their main message that the larger group cannot support. Part of it is softening catch phrases to remove the harshness of tone. Moving between groups at different times is part of group building.
The part that few people wish to admit, except at times of radical transition, is that a common enemy is the biggest group builder of all. The common sentiments of frustration and anger allow people to shed old alliances and the older, larger groups start shrinking. These new unaligned voters may stay unaligned unless they find a group that shares their message and tone. The common enemy allows old hatreds to begin to appear petty compared to the new frustration and growing anger. This allows a courtship, similar to the old lyrics from the "Facts of Life" theme song: "The boys you used to hate, Now you date."
The famous French philosopher La Rochefaucauld wrote, "La haine est plus proche de l'amour que l'amite": Hate is closer to love than friendship. Obama has succeeded in causing a growing number of his passionate followers to turn on him. These ex-followers are his greatest problem because they will turn forever on him and his party.
The middle that does not wish to ever be passionate but wants to appear reasonable, those are moving away from him. He can get them back so long as they stay dispassionate. They want to reason issues out and find a middle way. These are the people that socialism and its kissing cousin fascism have always played to. Mussolini invented the modern use of the phrase the "third way." He sensed that coloring his socialism for the middle of his body politic would get him elected. He played to this desire for dispassion and made them passionate for an undefined "something else."
Obama rose to power on his version of the third way: "Hope. Change." Like Mussolini, he was less than clear on the stump of what he sought to do. He allowed the radical left to see the details to keep them happy by having white papers on his website that gave details. He knew that the middle of population would never research the white papers. They had too little passion to research his ideas. It was too big of a burden to challenge their hope for a third way. Why deal with the facts when you are comfortable in the middle.
Now Obama has done something that few have done successfully in recent American political history. He has made portions of the middle uncomfortable and angry. They are getting angrier every time they learn more about his health plan.
What's worse is these angry people start doing research on the plan and run across articles on the global warming myth. They get angrier still.
We may soon start to see a disappearing middle. The middle won't disappear because of the brilliance of current GOP leadership. The middle will disappear because they have focused anger that won't allow them to pretend they are being reasonable. They will start to see that reason has a home in the GOP's body politic (even if it is remarkably absent in the Republican party establishment in DC). The GOP's thinkers and middle America members are the real intellectual powerhouses of the country. Their ability to communicate without the DC establishment as an intermediary has created chorus of strong-minded, clear-thinking, passionate, and all-too-polite people. The middle won't be able to remain dispassionate nor to ignore the violence-prone thugs representing Obama's cause. Once the pendulum of political passion starts to sway, it is harder to bring back to rest.
That is Obama's problem. He is getting hit by the pendulum that he put in motion. The pendulum threatens to grow into a wrecking ball.
The quick answer to stopping a swinging wrecking ball is an application of an equal force in the exact opposite direction. Since that is difficult to do, the application of thug power in another direction will cause the wrecking ball of passion and resentment against Obama to careen into his fellow Democrats in Congress and spread the damage.
A disappearing middle and a careening wrecking ball leads to unpredictable results. Damage will spread far and wide. Republicans in Congress should not rest easy. The new class of Republicans will expect privileges that junior members only get when they are a large group (like the Class of 1994). They will insist on changes within Congress and the Republican Caucus. Smart members of the current Republican Caucus will avoid defending the Caucus's recent stupidities of boondoogle earmarks and reckless spending prior to 2006. They will seek strong law-and-order measures, such as border enforcement and immigration law enforcement (as two separate issues rather than one jumbled mess). They will seek simple laws that are easier to self-police, leading to smaller, less wasteful government.
Simplicity of law is liberty. Bureaucracy is the midwife of tyranny. When the middle becomes passionate about these ideas, Obama's agenda is dead.
Comments on Obama's Iconography
This video is a wonderful comment on Obama's scary use of iconography without showing the disturbing socialist iconography of the past.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Democratic Repetition of Soviet Propoganda
While this article proves nearly nothing about whether the Soviets did or did not infiltrate the Democrat Party, it describe well a set of circumstances that seems more likely than not given Democrat methodologies and stated goals.
Truly frightening.
My research on this subject and the truth behind the Vietnam War tend suggests that Soviet propoganda only failed because it did not reach full strength until 18 years after the USSR fell.
Truly frightening.
My research on this subject and the truth behind the Vietnam War tend suggests that Soviet propoganda only failed because it did not reach full strength until 18 years after the USSR fell.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Folks created mess
So Obama wants the people who created the mess out of the way.
Does that mean that he will be asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (failing to address Pres. Bush's attempt to reform Fannie Mae prior to meltdown), Rep. Barney Frank (creating the Fannie Mae system), or Sen. Chris Dodd (creating system) for their resignations any time soon?
Does that mean that he will be asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (failing to address Pres. Bush's attempt to reform Fannie Mae prior to meltdown), Rep. Barney Frank (creating the Fannie Mae system), or Sen. Chris Dodd (creating system) for their resignations any time soon?
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Obama, Democrats, and Soviet Communism?
Here are a few articles worthy of consideration as to whether we are reaping the Soviet infiltration that President Reagan observed in the 1950's in the Screen Actors Guild.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23436-terror-russia
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-regresses-to-cold-war-mythology-and-switches-sides/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-quest-into-the-magic-world-of-anti-american-mythology/
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23436-terror-russia
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-regresses-to-cold-war-mythology-and-switches-sides/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-quest-into-the-magic-world-of-anti-american-mythology/
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Obama Supports Violating Constitution . . . of Honduras
Obama's State Department revoked the visas of Honduran officials appointed by the constitutional interim government of Honduras.
How are we not to interpret that Obama believes that our Constitution should be ignored as readily when he finds it equally inconvenient.
For text of the Honduran constitution in English see this post.
How are we not to interpret that Obama believes that our Constitution should be ignored as readily when he finds it equally inconvenient.
For text of the Honduran constitution in English see this post.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Killing the Elderly
Obamacare would have the de facto effect of saving money in many entitlements:
1. Medicaid;
2. Medicare;
3. Veteran's Hospitals;
4. Social Security Retirement;
5. Social Security Disability;
6. SCHiP, etc.
Five out of the six are mostly for the aged. Each of these programs will save money for every year one of their beneficiaries dies earlier than currently expected.
Assume that Medicaid would cost $3,000 per year per patient in their last ten years of life only. In that period, that saves $30,000 per patient. Nursing homes in Indiana cost a measly $120 per day or $3600 per month or $43,200 per year. The average patient is only in for two years, so we don't actually see $100,000 per patient in Indiana. But New York or California might. Indiana's still close.
One third of patients will need this type of care. The actual projected cost per patient should be the actual cost times the probability of care or $28,512 per person over 65.
If we quit paying for life-extending care in persons aged 85 and up, that would save the last two years of life expenses on much of that 33% of the population. The $28,512 per person over a population of 2.1 million people in 2010 (National Institutes of Health, Institute on Aging), that could save $59.9 billion. For the next age cohort of 75 to 84, find a way to reduce their projected population 17 million in 2010 or 18 million in 2015 or 20 million in 2020 by 10% and you save another $59 billion on the same math.
Reduce every other age cohort through attrition of bad care by 0.5% to 1% with cost per patient of $3,000 in an America of 300 million inhabitants, you can save $90 billion per year.
I have shown a very dramatic example by reductio ad absurdum. No American will tolerate this methodology imposed nakedly. Bury the method behind rhetoric and "for the good of the country" nonsense and a quick incentive to kill the elderly will creep in.
Smaller populations reduce healthcare costs. Abort them. Let them die early. Obamacare saves money.
The problem is that healthcare costs cannot go down, as I have suggested in earlier posts.
So now the costs keep rising because supplies of providers dwindle and need to be replaced in a very expensive fashion; the ability to provide care must be rationed to maintain the current level of care for some preferred portion of the country. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's health advisors, that preferred portion of the population is late middle-aged.
In Logan's Run, the solution to knocking off people over 30 was Carousel.
Is Obamacare going to implement this?
1. Medicaid;
2. Medicare;
3. Veteran's Hospitals;
4. Social Security Retirement;
5. Social Security Disability;
6. SCHiP, etc.
Five out of the six are mostly for the aged. Each of these programs will save money for every year one of their beneficiaries dies earlier than currently expected.
Assume that Medicaid would cost $3,000 per year per patient in their last ten years of life only. In that period, that saves $30,000 per patient. Nursing homes in Indiana cost a measly $120 per day or $3600 per month or $43,200 per year. The average patient is only in for two years, so we don't actually see $100,000 per patient in Indiana. But New York or California might. Indiana's still close.
One third of patients will need this type of care. The actual projected cost per patient should be the actual cost times the probability of care or $28,512 per person over 65.
If we quit paying for life-extending care in persons aged 85 and up, that would save the last two years of life expenses on much of that 33% of the population. The $28,512 per person over a population of 2.1 million people in 2010 (National Institutes of Health, Institute on Aging), that could save $59.9 billion. For the next age cohort of 75 to 84, find a way to reduce their projected population 17 million in 2010 or 18 million in 2015 or 20 million in 2020 by 10% and you save another $59 billion on the same math.
Reduce every other age cohort through attrition of bad care by 0.5% to 1% with cost per patient of $3,000 in an America of 300 million inhabitants, you can save $90 billion per year.
I have shown a very dramatic example by reductio ad absurdum. No American will tolerate this methodology imposed nakedly. Bury the method behind rhetoric and "for the good of the country" nonsense and a quick incentive to kill the elderly will creep in.
Smaller populations reduce healthcare costs. Abort them. Let them die early. Obamacare saves money.
The problem is that healthcare costs cannot go down, as I have suggested in earlier posts.
So now the costs keep rising because supplies of providers dwindle and need to be replaced in a very expensive fashion; the ability to provide care must be rationed to maintain the current level of care for some preferred portion of the country. According to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of Obama's health advisors, that preferred portion of the population is late middle-aged.
In Logan's Run, the solution to knocking off people over 30 was Carousel.
Is Obamacare going to implement this?
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Comments on Strata-Sphere
Strata-Sphere is a blog that I read religiously. AJ is a joy to read about science, logic, and foreign affairs. I rarely disagree with those conclusions and often am educated to extraordinarily intricate levels. He does a wonderful job of making complex ideas simple.
Then he gets mad at the Republicans, particularly conservative republicans that insist on consistency. These he treats as pariahs. Admittedly I am one of those. Like every other person, I want people whom I respect to respect me in turn. I have no problem earning that respect. So, am I eligible to earn that respect?
1. Harriet Miers should never have been on the court. Justice Alito is superb. Conservatives erred in seeking an upgrade? The point of confirmation, according to the Federalist Papers, is to avoid having the presidents' friends of dubious quality be appointed without comment. How does this differ from that ideal?
2. AJ hates the attempt to block immigration legislation. Fiat justitia ruat caelum: Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. A bit bold in tone but actually in my practice a way to get things cleaned up quickly. If a case gets knotted up with a judge trying to dictate a "fair result," it often is highly inefficient and likely to reward the wrong-doer. If the judge flatly enforces the rules quickly and efficiently, the result is more likely to be that the parties resolve the issue themselves in a more efficient manner. This is the problem with the immigration debate position that AJ takes, he is interested in being fair to the law breaking immigrants. Unfortunately, he would reward the rule breakers and claim jumpers at the expense of those immigrants wishing to play by the rules. Experience has quickly shown us that refusal to give jobs in states to illegals and a weakening economy quickly reverses the net immigration flow. If we take a few more steps to tighten those up by more aggressive enforcement against cheating business owners, the immigrants leave quickly. The experience of history with immigrants is something like an eight-to-one ratio: eight leave voluntarily for every one that suffers enforcement of the rules. I suggest that ratio would go higher as the immigrants believe the free-ride of welfare, education, false automatic citizenship, and tax evasion (i.e., under the table payments) are closed down. Legal immigration will be much easier to justify.
I would add that I am in favor of immigration, but I want a small ratio from any one country. Diversity of country of origin will weaken the down side of immigration allowing more divergent strengths to appear. Too much of one profile is damaging.
3. Pushing Specter out. If jumping from the party is seen as detrimental, the party will build cohesion. Specter got a temporary advantage of going with the Democrats. The Democrats have helped the Republican cause by treating him like a pariah. Less likely to get followers. Now if a person stays, he is going to be more sensitive to primary voters. Independents naturally get mad at this result, because they don't want to lower themselves to belong to a party.
In fact, the more people that join a party and regularly vote for it in the primaries, the more the party will move toward the center. The parties would serve themselves well by making party primary participation be more valuable: discourage open primaries and make challengers easier. That will push the parties toward the center of their end of the spectrum. A party should never be in the center, because then there is less benefit from changing parties by voting. The weaker party is always the most centrist because they feel they need to imitate the winner.
I would argue that 60% of the population tells Gallup that they live and act conservatively in daily life. If the Republicans can show how their ideas better reflect these habits, we will persuade more.
4. AJ does not radical sounding language. The problem is that parties build loyalty by activating their followers passions. I wish it were not so, but people are persuaded by their emotions nine times out of ten. Put another away, market research on convincing clients to implement one legal strategy over another shows only 10% of the population can be persuade by "the bottom line" of accounting numbers. Why is a legal strategy implemented by Congress different?
In fact Democrats own most of the population either in party identification or means of persuasion because they show a reckless disregard for the truth when passions will get them what they want. Lie, cheat, steal . . . who cares, they say, just win.
I want Republicans to get the best people in the job, that strictly adhere to the rules, and argue on logic with the ability to show passion simultaneously and to clearly identify friend from foe.
Compromise where it actually moves your agenda forward. Stand firm where compromise only weakens your cause.
If that makes me a radical, then radicalism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Then he gets mad at the Republicans, particularly conservative republicans that insist on consistency. These he treats as pariahs. Admittedly I am one of those. Like every other person, I want people whom I respect to respect me in turn. I have no problem earning that respect. So, am I eligible to earn that respect?
1. Harriet Miers should never have been on the court. Justice Alito is superb. Conservatives erred in seeking an upgrade? The point of confirmation, according to the Federalist Papers, is to avoid having the presidents' friends of dubious quality be appointed without comment. How does this differ from that ideal?
2. AJ hates the attempt to block immigration legislation. Fiat justitia ruat caelum: Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. A bit bold in tone but actually in my practice a way to get things cleaned up quickly. If a case gets knotted up with a judge trying to dictate a "fair result," it often is highly inefficient and likely to reward the wrong-doer. If the judge flatly enforces the rules quickly and efficiently, the result is more likely to be that the parties resolve the issue themselves in a more efficient manner. This is the problem with the immigration debate position that AJ takes, he is interested in being fair to the law breaking immigrants. Unfortunately, he would reward the rule breakers and claim jumpers at the expense of those immigrants wishing to play by the rules. Experience has quickly shown us that refusal to give jobs in states to illegals and a weakening economy quickly reverses the net immigration flow. If we take a few more steps to tighten those up by more aggressive enforcement against cheating business owners, the immigrants leave quickly. The experience of history with immigrants is something like an eight-to-one ratio: eight leave voluntarily for every one that suffers enforcement of the rules. I suggest that ratio would go higher as the immigrants believe the free-ride of welfare, education, false automatic citizenship, and tax evasion (i.e., under the table payments) are closed down. Legal immigration will be much easier to justify.
I would add that I am in favor of immigration, but I want a small ratio from any one country. Diversity of country of origin will weaken the down side of immigration allowing more divergent strengths to appear. Too much of one profile is damaging.
3. Pushing Specter out. If jumping from the party is seen as detrimental, the party will build cohesion. Specter got a temporary advantage of going with the Democrats. The Democrats have helped the Republican cause by treating him like a pariah. Less likely to get followers. Now if a person stays, he is going to be more sensitive to primary voters. Independents naturally get mad at this result, because they don't want to lower themselves to belong to a party.
In fact, the more people that join a party and regularly vote for it in the primaries, the more the party will move toward the center. The parties would serve themselves well by making party primary participation be more valuable: discourage open primaries and make challengers easier. That will push the parties toward the center of their end of the spectrum. A party should never be in the center, because then there is less benefit from changing parties by voting. The weaker party is always the most centrist because they feel they need to imitate the winner.
I would argue that 60% of the population tells Gallup that they live and act conservatively in daily life. If the Republicans can show how their ideas better reflect these habits, we will persuade more.
4. AJ does not radical sounding language. The problem is that parties build loyalty by activating their followers passions. I wish it were not so, but people are persuaded by their emotions nine times out of ten. Put another away, market research on convincing clients to implement one legal strategy over another shows only 10% of the population can be persuade by "the bottom line" of accounting numbers. Why is a legal strategy implemented by Congress different?
In fact Democrats own most of the population either in party identification or means of persuasion because they show a reckless disregard for the truth when passions will get them what they want. Lie, cheat, steal . . . who cares, they say, just win.
I want Republicans to get the best people in the job, that strictly adhere to the rules, and argue on logic with the ability to show passion simultaneously and to clearly identify friend from foe.
Compromise where it actually moves your agenda forward. Stand firm where compromise only weakens your cause.
If that makes me a radical, then radicalism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Bankruptcy for Doctors
Doctors will face an increase in bankruptcies. As a result, websites like www.bankruptcyfordoctors.com will spring up in many places.
The key question is how bad and how fast. The key problem will be landlords on 5-year term leases and equipment financing.
Well-managed bankrupt doctors will layoff staff aggressively. Poorly managed will not pay payroll taxes or staff and increase the issues to dispute in court.
The key question is how bad and how fast. The key problem will be landlords on 5-year term leases and equipment financing.
Well-managed bankrupt doctors will layoff staff aggressively. Poorly managed will not pay payroll taxes or staff and increase the issues to dispute in court.
Parsing Universal Healthcare
Now that we know that "Universal Healthcare" means whatever the Democrats want it to mean at that moment, let's look at it in English in order to compare and contrast the results.
"Universal" means
So it means that care should be available to everyone. Do we have that now?
If you go to the emergency room, is it available to you regardless of race, creed, or color? Yes.
When will you get turned away? Triage demonstrates nothing to treat. Demanded type of care (like radiation treatment) is not offered at the ER. Inability to pay is not allowed as a reason to refuse care, so price has nothing to do with it.
If you go to a private physician, when will you get turned away? Nothing to treat. Demanded care not offered. Inability to pay.
So the quick conclusion is that Universal Healthcare already exists, if you have something that the doctor in question offers the skills and equipment at the ER but never if you have nothing to treat. Other doctors get to pick and choose their patients.
Now, let's go to imaginary Obamacare with the assumption that Congress cannot allow healthcare to make us go bankrupt. (Stop laughing! Congress will impose some limits on how much it will spend some day. Why, when, and how is harder to predict.) They will limit doctors' pay. They will limit who can be paid, if Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health advisor and brother of Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is to be believed. He wrote in The Lancet that healthcare costs should be focused on the middle aged with older allowed to die with reduced care.
So now we will have doctors getting less compensation. They will go bankrupt or retire at abnormally high rates as soon as Obamacare goes into effect. They will consequently cease providing care. Supply will dwindle overnight.
Patients will have more ability to demand care, increasing demands on the system overnight.
Those two functions alone will cause waiting rooms, where they still remain, to fill up overnight. Even if Obama offers cheaper care per treatment per patient, he will have lines because no one is able to provide the required level of care.
Obama or his successors will have to increase compensation for doctors. Costs go up. Care won't improve because the retired doctors still don't want to be in The System. Now prices go up but no improvement in quality of care.
So we don't have everyone getting treated. With this proposal, we will have moved from existing Universal Care to Obama Limited Care.
"Universal" means
u⋅ni⋅ver⋅sal–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.
6. versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.: Leonardo da Vinci was a universal genius.
7. of or pertaining to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: universal cause.
8. characterizing all or most members of a class; generic.
9. Logic. (of a proposition) asserted of every member of a class.
10. Linguistics. found in all languages or belonging to the human language faculty.
11. Machinery. noting any of various machines, tools, or devices widely adaptable in position, range of use, etc.
12. Metalworking.
a. (of metal plates and shapes) rolled in a universal mill.
b. (of a rolling mill or rolling method) having or employing vertical edging rolls.
So it means that care should be available to everyone. Do we have that now?
If you go to the emergency room, is it available to you regardless of race, creed, or color? Yes.
When will you get turned away? Triage demonstrates nothing to treat. Demanded type of care (like radiation treatment) is not offered at the ER. Inability to pay is not allowed as a reason to refuse care, so price has nothing to do with it.
If you go to a private physician, when will you get turned away? Nothing to treat. Demanded care not offered. Inability to pay.
So the quick conclusion is that Universal Healthcare already exists, if you have something that the doctor in question offers the skills and equipment at the ER but never if you have nothing to treat. Other doctors get to pick and choose their patients.
Now, let's go to imaginary Obamacare with the assumption that Congress cannot allow healthcare to make us go bankrupt. (Stop laughing! Congress will impose some limits on how much it will spend some day. Why, when, and how is harder to predict.) They will limit doctors' pay. They will limit who can be paid, if Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's health advisor and brother of Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, is to be believed. He wrote in The Lancet that healthcare costs should be focused on the middle aged with older allowed to die with reduced care.
So now we will have doctors getting less compensation. They will go bankrupt or retire at abnormally high rates as soon as Obamacare goes into effect. They will consequently cease providing care. Supply will dwindle overnight.
Patients will have more ability to demand care, increasing demands on the system overnight.
Those two functions alone will cause waiting rooms, where they still remain, to fill up overnight. Even if Obama offers cheaper care per treatment per patient, he will have lines because no one is able to provide the required level of care.
Obama or his successors will have to increase compensation for doctors. Costs go up. Care won't improve because the retired doctors still don't want to be in The System. Now prices go up but no improvement in quality of care.
So we don't have everyone getting treated. With this proposal, we will have moved from existing Universal Care to Obama Limited Care.
Thoughts on Words in Obamacare Debate
Universal Healthcare. What does it mean to you?
1. Geographic Availability. Healthcare available everywhere on US soil?
2. Gratuitous. Healthcare is free for every patient?
3. Condition. Only the middle-aged get care because the young rarely need it and the elderly are too expensive?
4. Management. The universe -- I mean, the government -- controls who get care, how they get care, when they get care, from whom they get care, why they get care?
5. Quality. All get first class care.
6. Timeliness of Care. Care is available immediately on demand?
7. Assistance in Obtaining Care. Assistance on entering The System is available to all at no cost?
8. Pricing. Healthcare prices are set so that no one cannot pay?
9. Qualitative Availability. Healthcare is available to all of equal quality?
1. Geographic Availability. Healthcare available everywhere on US soil?
2. Gratuitous. Healthcare is free for every patient?
3. Condition. Only the middle-aged get care because the young rarely need it and the elderly are too expensive?
4. Management. The universe -- I mean, the government -- controls who get care, how they get care, when they get care, from whom they get care, why they get care?
5. Quality. All get first class care.
6. Timeliness of Care. Care is available immediately on demand?
7. Assistance in Obtaining Care. Assistance on entering The System is available to all at no cost?
8. Pricing. Healthcare prices are set so that no one cannot pay?
9. Qualitative Availability. Healthcare is available to all of equal quality?
Friday, July 17, 2009
Vanishing Physician: Heal No One
We are about to witness a disappearance similar to something the comic writer Douglas Adams envisioned in his sequel to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, called So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. In the sequel, whales leave the earth and take all the fish.
What we are about to witness is the departure of private healthcare that takes with it all the physicians.
We all have heard that government will cut their pay. Often that is where the discussion ends. In fact, that is where the real consequences begin.
A doctor suddenly thrown into Obamacare will see his time even more consumed by government paperwork than currently is with insurance paperwork and CYA anti-lawyer paperwork (which won't go away, either). His compensation per patient will be set by the government. His private-pay clientele will evaporate. In essence, the soon-to-be-gone are the patients whose bills hide the existing catastrophe of government care in TriCare (that is veteran), Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Parts A and B. Those private payors are where the profits are hidden.
When profits disappear, doctors, espcially in sole- or small-practices, will be forced to close existing practices. Many of those practices are in commercial buildings with 5-year leases with options for additional 5-year terms. If the doctor just signed up for another 5-years, he will lose his profits but keep his lease liability. He will have to file for bankruptcy. If the doctor was lucky and is at the end of the lease, he may be able to negotiate a deal. Those in between are going to have to roll the dice.
So we can safely say that doctor bankruptcies will be on the rise. Those small-practice doctors will lose their life savings and have little chance to recover.
Older physicians in larger-group practices will sell their practices for a song to the younger physician-partners. Those older physicians may only be 50 or 55 and have a good decade of service left in their bones, but the headaches and loss in compensation will drive them out of practice. Why not play golf than take these slim pickings?
The younger physicians will have a higher proportion that still owe med school loans or loans for starting their practices. Their compensation hit will make their predicted revenue very small compared to what the projections were when they took the loans. More bankruptcies.
Those that survive will be pressed into ever larger groups. The groups will have to restructure how new doctors are hired. Now many practices pay off the new doctor's student loans after a few years of service. Call it a deferred compensation package. These packages will go away, first slowly, then more rapidly.
That means that younger doctors will have less money to live like they wished when they entered med school. Disillusionment will drive some into the business world. They didn't sign up to be bureaucracts. They had better visions for life.
So where will the replacements come from? India, China, Latin America. Very quickly our health system will wither because the talent leaves the building.
We have a system built on real talent and real science that is the envy of the world. We can destroy it overnight, but it can only be rebuilt over decades. Why destroy it?
What we are about to witness is the departure of private healthcare that takes with it all the physicians.
We all have heard that government will cut their pay. Often that is where the discussion ends. In fact, that is where the real consequences begin.
A doctor suddenly thrown into Obamacare will see his time even more consumed by government paperwork than currently is with insurance paperwork and CYA anti-lawyer paperwork (which won't go away, either). His compensation per patient will be set by the government. His private-pay clientele will evaporate. In essence, the soon-to-be-gone are the patients whose bills hide the existing catastrophe of government care in TriCare (that is veteran), Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Parts A and B. Those private payors are where the profits are hidden.
When profits disappear, doctors, espcially in sole- or small-practices, will be forced to close existing practices. Many of those practices are in commercial buildings with 5-year leases with options for additional 5-year terms. If the doctor just signed up for another 5-years, he will lose his profits but keep his lease liability. He will have to file for bankruptcy. If the doctor was lucky and is at the end of the lease, he may be able to negotiate a deal. Those in between are going to have to roll the dice.
So we can safely say that doctor bankruptcies will be on the rise. Those small-practice doctors will lose their life savings and have little chance to recover.
Older physicians in larger-group practices will sell their practices for a song to the younger physician-partners. Those older physicians may only be 50 or 55 and have a good decade of service left in their bones, but the headaches and loss in compensation will drive them out of practice. Why not play golf than take these slim pickings?
The younger physicians will have a higher proportion that still owe med school loans or loans for starting their practices. Their compensation hit will make their predicted revenue very small compared to what the projections were when they took the loans. More bankruptcies.
Those that survive will be pressed into ever larger groups. The groups will have to restructure how new doctors are hired. Now many practices pay off the new doctor's student loans after a few years of service. Call it a deferred compensation package. These packages will go away, first slowly, then more rapidly.
That means that younger doctors will have less money to live like they wished when they entered med school. Disillusionment will drive some into the business world. They didn't sign up to be bureaucracts. They had better visions for life.
So where will the replacements come from? India, China, Latin America. Very quickly our health system will wither because the talent leaves the building.
We have a system built on real talent and real science that is the envy of the world. We can destroy it overnight, but it can only be rebuilt over decades. Why destroy it?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obamacare set to Consume Private Healthcare
This is no joke. Rep. Kevin Brady asked his staff to map out the House Leadership’s proposed healthcare plan. The result was the attached map.
Today, some readers have pointed out that private health insurance will be forbidden. On page 16 of the Government Publishing Office’s official version of the bill you can read the section for yourself at the Government Publishing Office website. What it says is,
________________________________________
Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT HEALTHCARE
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
________________________________________
In other words, Obama will keep his promise that you will can keep your current healthcare. What it does not say is that you will ever get the choice of private healthcare again. If you have it, you can keep it -- for now. If don’t have it, you’ll never get it.
This is government competing against the private sector. As my 9-year-old son is now fond of quoting Rep. Mike Pence (R-Muncie, Ind.), “Government competing against private companies is like an alligator competing against a duck: the alligator consumes the duck.”
This bill is a flat-out a nationalization of healthcare. All new insurance has to play within the new rules. All existing policies will be shut down under their own weight, due to lack of new, young, healthy enrollees. Complete nationalization won’t be immediate but it will legally be inevitable.
Is government-owned healthcare what you would wish on your worst enemy, let alone your family and friends?
UPDATE: February 3, 2017, it is nice to see a quote from later Governor and now Vice-President Pence still holding up after nearly eight (8) years.
Today, some readers have pointed out that private health insurance will be forbidden. On page 16 of the Government Publishing Office’s official version of the bill you can read the section for yourself at the Government Publishing Office website. What it says is,
________________________________________
Section 102: PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT HEALTHCARE
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
________________________________________
In other words, Obama will keep his promise that you will can keep your current healthcare. What it does not say is that you will ever get the choice of private healthcare again. If you have it, you can keep it -- for now. If don’t have it, you’ll never get it.
This is government competing against the private sector. As my 9-year-old son is now fond of quoting Rep. Mike Pence (R-Muncie, Ind.), “Government competing against private companies is like an alligator competing against a duck: the alligator consumes the duck.”
This bill is a flat-out a nationalization of healthcare. All new insurance has to play within the new rules. All existing policies will be shut down under their own weight, due to lack of new, young, healthy enrollees. Complete nationalization won’t be immediate but it will legally be inevitable.
Is government-owned healthcare what you would wish on your worst enemy, let alone your family and friends?
UPDATE: February 3, 2017, it is nice to see a quote from later Governor and now Vice-President Pence still holding up after nearly eight (8) years.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Google Translates Honduran Constitution
Google Translate
Here is a usable translation of the Honduran Constitution. Reading this is a highly eye-opening experience for an American lawyer.
So far, not much seem to be in violation of their Constitution. I am shocked at how this chain of events in Honduran presidential politics can be constitutional, but that is why you study comparative law.
Here is a usable translation of the Honduran Constitution. Reading this is a highly eye-opening experience for an American lawyer.
So far, not much seem to be in violation of their Constitution. I am shocked at how this chain of events in Honduran presidential politics can be constitutional, but that is why you study comparative law.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
How to Make Failing Healthcare Measurable
In passing the other morning, I saw Newt Gingrich on Fox & Friends. He said something in passing that I believe a lot more attention. Since I have not done the research on his rhetorical models right now, I will treat this as accidental rather than a pattern to allow myself some room to expound.
When he was describing the failures of certain cancer treatments in Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS), he described NHS's level of care and success as being circa 1955.
That comment hit me like a eureka moment. You can explain bad healthcare all you want, but put it in terms that represents the truth but allows an easy compare and contrast.
We need to have an objective measure of success and failure. Theirs is poor quality; ours top notch. Let's show it.
UPDATE: Here is Newt's comment that gave rise to this post:
To clarify, I am proposing creating a simple spreadsheet of ailments/treatments on one axis and country on the other. The data point for each country is the "Quality of Care stated as a year." The year represents the state of the art. The state of the art is the country with highest survival rate, lowest recuperation time, shortest time from diagnosis to completion of treatment, etc.
I postulate that the US would end up at or near the current year on most all treatments, where socialized countries would tend to be in the 1950's or so.
When he was describing the failures of certain cancer treatments in Great Britain's National Health Service (NHS), he described NHS's level of care and success as being circa 1955.
That comment hit me like a eureka moment. You can explain bad healthcare all you want, but put it in terms that represents the truth but allows an easy compare and contrast.
We need to have an objective measure of success and failure. Theirs is poor quality; ours top notch. Let's show it.
UPDATE: Here is Newt's comment that gave rise to this post:
To clarify, I am proposing creating a simple spreadsheet of ailments/treatments on one axis and country on the other. The data point for each country is the "Quality of Care stated as a year." The year represents the state of the art. The state of the art is the country with highest survival rate, lowest recuperation time, shortest time from diagnosis to completion of treatment, etc.
I postulate that the US would end up at or near the current year on most all treatments, where socialized countries would tend to be in the 1950's or so.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Understanding Islam
The New York Times actually ran an interesting op-ed today. (Surprise! Surprise!) It is most interesting because I learned something interesting that I wish to research further. (I realize some may take this as a lack of intellectual curiosity on my part. My lack of interest in researching actually stems for a lack of intellectual honesty from their content. Why bother researching a known lie or impossibility that an introductory economics student can figure out?)
The notion of "commanding right and forbidding wrong" as a central tenet of Islam is intriguing. It allows me to see more clearly why Muslim countries act as they do and are so resistant to notions of liberty. I have been impressed with Danesh D'Suza's comparison of liberty-based countries to the rest of the world. He questions the ability to be moral without free choice.
From those two points of comparison, there is a lot to be studied.
The notion of "commanding right and forbidding wrong" as a central tenet of Islam is intriguing. It allows me to see more clearly why Muslim countries act as they do and are so resistant to notions of liberty. I have been impressed with Danesh D'Suza's comparison of liberty-based countries to the rest of the world. He questions the ability to be moral without free choice.
From those two points of comparison, there is a lot to be studied.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Daily Kos more accurate than news media, except CNN?!
Fordham University finds that Daily Kos's polls before the election were more accurate than the entire news media, except CNN?! Doesn't that just say it all?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Obama warns mayors not to waste stimulus money
Obama warns mayors not to waste stimulus money
Here's courage: out of bill filled with waste and favoring Democrat policies, the thief-in-chief is telling the cities' mayors that he will call them out for wasting the stimulus package!
Here's courage: out of bill filled with waste and favoring Democrat policies, the thief-in-chief is telling the cities' mayors that he will call them out for wasting the stimulus package!
Economy & Business news
Economy & Business news
So is it bailing out banks or is the mortgage bailout another boondoggle favoring retiree states?
Half of all bailouts in the states Nevada, Arizona, California, and Florida. They have 21% of the national population, and most got that way very recently.
So is it bailing out banks or is the mortgage bailout another boondoggle favoring retiree states?
Half of all bailouts in the states Nevada, Arizona, California, and Florida. They have 21% of the national population, and most got that way very recently.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
China Puts Joblessness for Migrants at 20 Million - NYTimes.com
China Puts Joblessness for Migrants at 20 Million - NYTimes.com
China is in trouble. Rush Limbaugh reported on a conversation with Bush 43. Bush reported in turn that he had a conversation with Chinese President Hu Jintau (sp?). Bush asked Hu what Hu's biggest problem was. Hu said that it was finding jobs for rural Chinese so that they don't come to the cities.
If the Chinese President is presumed to know his business and report it accurately, this is very bad news.
China is in trouble. Rush Limbaugh reported on a conversation with Bush 43. Bush reported in turn that he had a conversation with Chinese President Hu Jintau (sp?). Bush asked Hu what Hu's biggest problem was. Hu said that it was finding jobs for rural Chinese so that they don't come to the cities.
If the Chinese President is presumed to know his business and report it accurately, this is very bad news.
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
US-IRAQ: Generals Seek to Reverse Obama Withdrawal Decision
I just don't want to see photographs of Iraqis outside the US Embassy as US Army helicopters take off the roof and Al Qaeda progresses toward the panicked throng.
I just don't want to see photographs of Iraqis outside the US Embassy as US Army helicopters take off the roof and Al Qaeda progresses toward the panicked throng.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Third Jihad
The Third Jihad
Powerful movies from this group. I have not watched, but respected voices suggest you and I should.
Powerful movies from this group. I have not watched, but respected voices suggest you and I should.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Conservative Book Service
Conservative Book Service
I am in the process of assessing the status of Conservative story telling. I am fascinated by Mr. Breitbart's attempt to improve pop culture by forcing room for Conservatism in Hollywood.
The story telling, though, is going to be the ultimate source of his project's success. The audience will absorb the story, not the politics of the actors. When the story and the actor's politics are one and the same, you end up with a chicken and egg problem. Do audience come for the actor or the story. Mel Gibson has proved that this cycle can be broken with a Conservative story. So truly no dilemma. We just need to have Breitbart's project open the doors to more story telling.
So I am studying what stories already exist for when Breitbart's project succeeds. Is the terrain for the battle already well prepared and advantageous?
As I begin my search, I quickly found this Conservative Book Service page. The first impression I had was that the literature overview has one small entry for fiction amid a sea of philosophy, social science, and history.
This snapshot is frightening. Most people read fiction for enjoyment. This is the best opportunity to reach them with challenging ideas: when their defenses are down. This has been a method for success for Socialists going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau. Tell stories. His Confessions tell his story. It is easy to follow his life story. The persuasion comes second.
Conservative literature reminds me of a friend of mine that wishes to persuade everyone with the force of his logic and facts. The problem is few who matter to him will listen to him long enough for him to complete the argument. Admittedly, this is a personal weakness of mine, too, but I am striving. That effort is the key reason for my research of the topic.
Returning to the Conservative Book Service page, the writers Tom Wolfe and William F. Buckley jump off the list as Conservative writers, but few big names and many books that are about stories or literature but little story telling beyond the grandees Wolfe and Buckley.
Further Google efforts fail miserably, even on the phrase "Conservative Story-telling".
One reference I saw alluded to Reagan's gift of storytelling as part of his success. I have read that many times before. His speechwriters were known to take advantage of it. Then we have had the Bushes, Dole in public, and McCain. Dull as dirt in conveying stories to a crowd. Remember late November 1996 when Dole came out his shell and started telling stories in his own voice? The shock that hit even the Republicans?
Storytelling leads to natural humanity: humor, connection, pathos. Ivory towers? Interesting to understand the mechanics of the Economy, but little for the busy American who looks to Hollywood and Washington for frivilous and serious relief, respectively, from their own daily grind.
Take that same focus on storytelling, expand it to the arts writ large: painting, photography, plays, movies, etc. We need Conservatism to surround us. A new voice and image to represent the Founding Fathers' vision and lessons in the modern world.
I am in the process of assessing the status of Conservative story telling. I am fascinated by Mr. Breitbart's attempt to improve pop culture by forcing room for Conservatism in Hollywood.
The story telling, though, is going to be the ultimate source of his project's success. The audience will absorb the story, not the politics of the actors. When the story and the actor's politics are one and the same, you end up with a chicken and egg problem. Do audience come for the actor or the story. Mel Gibson has proved that this cycle can be broken with a Conservative story. So truly no dilemma. We just need to have Breitbart's project open the doors to more story telling.
So I am studying what stories already exist for when Breitbart's project succeeds. Is the terrain for the battle already well prepared and advantageous?
As I begin my search, I quickly found this Conservative Book Service page. The first impression I had was that the literature overview has one small entry for fiction amid a sea of philosophy, social science, and history.
This snapshot is frightening. Most people read fiction for enjoyment. This is the best opportunity to reach them with challenging ideas: when their defenses are down. This has been a method for success for Socialists going back to Jean Jacques Rousseau. Tell stories. His Confessions tell his story. It is easy to follow his life story. The persuasion comes second.
Conservative literature reminds me of a friend of mine that wishes to persuade everyone with the force of his logic and facts. The problem is few who matter to him will listen to him long enough for him to complete the argument. Admittedly, this is a personal weakness of mine, too, but I am striving. That effort is the key reason for my research of the topic.
Returning to the Conservative Book Service page, the writers Tom Wolfe and William F. Buckley jump off the list as Conservative writers, but few big names and many books that are about stories or literature but little story telling beyond the grandees Wolfe and Buckley.
Further Google efforts fail miserably, even on the phrase "Conservative Story-telling".
One reference I saw alluded to Reagan's gift of storytelling as part of his success. I have read that many times before. His speechwriters were known to take advantage of it. Then we have had the Bushes, Dole in public, and McCain. Dull as dirt in conveying stories to a crowd. Remember late November 1996 when Dole came out his shell and started telling stories in his own voice? The shock that hit even the Republicans?
Storytelling leads to natural humanity: humor, connection, pathos. Ivory towers? Interesting to understand the mechanics of the Economy, but little for the busy American who looks to Hollywood and Washington for frivilous and serious relief, respectively, from their own daily grind.
Take that same focus on storytelling, expand it to the arts writ large: painting, photography, plays, movies, etc. We need Conservatism to surround us. A new voice and image to represent the Founding Fathers' vision and lessons in the modern world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)