Archive for November, 2010

Insurance Companies Bad, Government Much Worse

November 30, 2010

Insurance companies are terrible. They don’t want to pay if they can help it. I’m way past the stage where somebody can tell me that as if I didn’t know it. I used to be the first guy anywhere to demand putting not only medical care but everything into the care of government.

A dear friend of mine had to sue his insurance company to get them to pay part of a son’s HUGE bill, which they denied as not being in their list of coverage. He won. Policies issued after that at least to others listed the prescribed device as not covered.

He was able to sue.

But nobody will be able to the faceless desk jockey in Washington who nixes your daughter’s cancer operation because it costs too much. Or the self-appointed royalty in D.C. that hatched this scheme.

The guy that Obama put in charge of Medicare today, for example, RIGHT NOW, thinks the British “health care” system’s habit of DENYING CARE is GOOD because it SAVES COST.

Repeat that last paragraph again.

Did you hear that? Medicare may have seemed treated you and yours well so far, but the Pied Piper (the disappearing tax base) is demanding that the village pay up. And the new guy in charge is a wtich doctor who will gleefully turn you down. With no recourse.

That’s EXACTLY the reason that a government agency is much worse than an insurance company.

You have to listen to what I’m saying, not the mind-nulling chants we hear so much blaming corporations for everything. Why don’t they tell us how much government destroys things, bungles things.

You say you can’t believe govt care could be worse than the private companies, but there is a way right now to test that against what you already know.

Medicare: Consider the present. There are stories all across the country of doctors in New York, Boston, Texas, all over, who are refusing to take new Medicare patients. Some surveys say it’s 25 percent refusing.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/us/physicians-refuse-medicare-patients.html

The Medicare bureaucracy has people who sit behind desks and push paper and use stale information to calculate the prices they will dictate to a doctor that takes their members. It’s not enough in New York for one procedure, too little in another, and….

..so (us) elderly are getting ever fewer selection of caretakers, and the options that remain open are ever worse, because the medical professionals and institutions that are known as the best are closing the doors.

And it can only get worse, especially when the economy hurts. Ever fewer healthy employed producing the tax base for the ever more infirm, and our children are going to get burned and scorched.

Expanding this Ponzi scheme to unconstitutionally force our children to pay up or go to jail (it’s only a fine now, they’ll call it unpatriotic later), will only break the health bank. You and I right now are in on the tail end of the younger boomers that will benefit the most from that Ponzi scheme, but already that benefit is shrinking VERY fast.

There’s not enough tax base, too much government, too unnecessary foreign military budget.

Believe me, people, my passion for the poor and the needy is hotter than it ever was when I was a firebrand socialist determined to help bring down capitalism. The more of our lives we trust the government with the worse are lives we will be, and too much government is much worse for the poor than too much capitalism.

–Let us learn from the wisdom that is expressed in the division of powers described in our constitution, and the expression of natural rights in the Bill of Rights. We cannot trust any government, because it is populated with people, and we cannot trust people who rule over others.

“That government is best that governs least”.

–trutherator

Advertisements

The proper use of statistics

November 28, 2010

Well, Freakonomics is an example of a book full of numbers and statistics that on their face seem to make a point. Numbers and facts. I was able to see the planet-sized problems with some of them.

Easiest to see through for me in part was the assertion that the legalization of abortion by the Supreme Court in 1973 led to the decrease of crime in the 1990s because there were a lot of criminals that were never born.

My first thought, was, well, based on that thinking, and not counting abortion as a crime anymore, we could legalize murder and bring down the numbers that way too.

The other thought was that it was a typical liberal elitist holier-than-thou expression of the arrogance of self-appointed “intellectuals”, the Margaret Sanger idea of eliminating the poor and unfit for a better society.

John Lott in Freedomnomics murdered their assertion with regional and demographic statistics that showed that legalizing abortion actually increased crime when other factors held equal.

His thoughts on the apparent causal mechanisms as to how it worked were that the availability of abortion actually increased births to single mothers with all the numbers that go with that: more problems for the children raised in single-parent families, including crime, poverty, vulnerability to physical and mental illness, so on.

In the Grip of the Internet Monopolists – WSJ.com

November 28, 2010

See the Wall Street Journal here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_tech

I read this article with interest, because Mr. Wu articulated a tendency I’ve worried about over the years, and not even just regarding the Internet dominating heavies, but in other sectors. Consolidation is not too friendly to maximizing competition, and it is not very friendly to newcomers.

In my view, since free markets –emphasis on free

In the Grip of the Internet Monopolists – WSJ.com

November 28, 2010

See the Wall Street Journal here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604993311538482.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_tech

I read this article with interest, because Mr. Wu articulated a tendency I’ve worried about over the years, and not even just regarding the Internet dominating heavies, but in other sectors. Consolidation is not too friendly to maximizing competition, and it is not very friendly to newcomers.

In my view, since free markets –emphasis on free

Berners-Lee: Social Networks Are a ‘Threat to the Web’ | News | Communications of the ACM

November 27, 2010

An interesting take on the social media web sites that keep the information to themselves:
http://cacm.acm.org/news/102176-berners-lee-social-networks-are-a-threat-to-the-web/fulltext

You can’t really blame them too much, but it’s up to the users to look for providers of both goods and services to be fair to us.

I really, really, really do NOT like the lock-ins of the big vendors, and the way the biggest ones manipulate their users –that would be you and me, the consumers– to keep them locked into themselves.

Google has just cut off Facebook from getting one’s contact lists from Google, until Facebook shows reciprocity. It’s a notch back from their previous policies of allowing free export of one’s information to anywhere one chooses, AND it shows that Google regards them as a real competitor.

But then Google is not giving away its de-facto on-line advertising monopoly, either. And in other ways, Google is distorting the search world with its selection algorithms. Past the original and very public part of their algorithms giving more weight to web sites that appear most often as links in other places, there are some factors like “expert” designations that are more arbitrary.

And there are some web sites that advocate views that do not line up with the views held by most of the Silicon Valley power hitters like Google’s, that have set up charts that implicate Google in stifling some unpopular views. One web page in particular it seems was delisted from ads based on the particular effectiveness of a video where a document technician analyzed the Internet version of Obama’s birth certificate.

To those who say “Good”, consider whether you would say that if it were YOUR ox being gored.

But calls for a public option this or that, like a “public option” search engine, is absolutely the WORST idea that anybody can come up with. The temptation to subject it to political biases and the corruption that comes with it, whether corporate, socialist, fascist, or otherwise, is too much for any political structure.

Forget it.

–trutherator

Berners-Lee: Social Networks Are a ‘Threat to the Web’ | News | Communications of the ACM

November 27, 2010

An interesting take on the social media web sites that keep the information to themselves:
http://cacm.acm.org/news/102176-berners-lee-social-networks-are-a-threat-to-the-web/fulltext

You can’t really blame them too much, but it’s up to the users to look for providers of both goods and services to be fair to us.

I really, really, really do NOT like the lock-ins of the big vendors, and the way the biggest ones manipulate their users –that would be you and me, the consumers– to keep them locked into themselves.

Google has just cut off Facebook from getting one’s contact lists from Google, until Facebook shows reciprocity. It’s a notch back from their previous policies of allowing free export of one’s information to anywhere one chooses, AND it shows that Google regards them as a real competitor.

But then Google is not giving away its de-facto on-line advertising monopoly, either. And in other ways, Google is distorting the search world with its selection algorithms. Past the original and very public part of their algorithms giving more weight to web sites that appear most often as links in other places, there are some factors like “expert” designations that are more arbitrary.

And there are some web sites that advocate views that do not line up with the views held by most of the Silicon Valley power hitters like Google’s, that have set up charts that implicate Google in stifling some unpopular views. One web page in particular it seems was delisted from ads based on the particular effectiveness of a video where a document technician analyzed the Internet version of Obama’s birth certificate.

To those who say “Good”, consider whether you would say that if it were YOUR ox being gored.

But calls for a public option this or that, like a “public option” search engine, is absolutely the WORST idea that anybody can come up with. The temptation to subject it to political biases and the corruption that comes with it, whether corporate, socialist, fascist, or otherwise, is too much for any political structure.

Forget it.

–trutherator

Bad boy Tory actually telling the truth

November 26, 2010

But I’m still glad the Americans didn’t import royalty to over here but sent them back over there. If only the Ruling Political Class would stop trying to subjugate us again…

Howard Flight: ‘Welfare cuts will encourage the poor to breed’ | Mail Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333009/Howard-Flight-Welfare-cuts-encourage-poor-breed.html

–The Trutherator!

More evidence: Central planning for healthcare is VERY unequal

November 26, 2010

NHS postcode lottery exposed: Maps tell you where you get good treatment | Mail Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332992/NHS-postcode-lottery-exposed-Maps-tell-you-good-treatment.html

They call it a lottery. What a bungling mess. All kinds of disparities, like a higher per capita hip replacement rates simply because more orthopedic surgeons are assigned to some areas. They call it “lottery” but they should call it “ripe for corruption”.

They don’t say anything about what areas the better care for this or that is concentrated, but I’ll bet you the suburbs where all the Russian Commissars live(d) had (have) the best concentration of care…

Dig this:

Professor Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, said: ‘If performance across the NHS can be brought up to the level achieved by the best, then much of the pressure on local NHS budgets can be relieved without having to cut services for patients.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332992/NHS-postcode-lottery-exposed-Maps-tell-you-good-treatment.html#ixzz16M9RiuiZ


Forget it! No matter what they do, circumstances, demographics, conditions, environmental factors, all kinds of things are changing things all the time in any given geographic area. Central planning will never catch up.

No central plan can outdo unleashing (and freeing) the free market principle to handle it on its own. And nothing is as fair. Money and privilege work the same way under a health care centrally planned dictatorship as with private, with the added grief of arbitrary and petty decisions resulting in even more disparity in care…

-aec

Tom DeLay Guilty of Money Laundering in 2002 Elections (or Not?)

November 26, 2010

Moral of the story: Democrat Party gerrymandering is okay, Republican Party is not, especially if it’s an embarrassing gadfly to Republican Party establishments and articulate spokesman for speech that haters hate:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/24/tom-delay-guilty-of-money-laundering-in-2002-elections/

–aec

Why do I support liberty?

November 25, 2010

Altruism: And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. (Luke 6:31)

Self-interest: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Galatians 6:7

It’s what’s right: Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Prov 14:34

Joy: When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. Prov 29:2

More input to moral and material prosperity: Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. Proverbs 11:14

–Many more of course–

It is the basis of the United States Constitution, among other things: “..to secure the blessings of liberty..” Respect for law by authorities is our protection..

–trutherator