Libya and Japan: Obama’s “My Pet Goat” Moment

by T.L. James | 8:43 pm, March 16, 2011

Why act like a leader, when you can play golf, pick your NCAA brackets, and take (yet another) fancy vacation? It’s good to have your priorities straight.

Another Reason Michael Bennet Should Not Be Elected – The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

by Elliot | 8:11 am, October 30, 2010

One piece of legislation that Barack Obama passed that has serious detrimental effects on business is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.  Some background.  There is a 180 day clock to bring a discrimination lawsuit for failure to pay a person equally based on being a member of a protected class.  The idea [...]

Heads We Win, Tails You Lose – Massachusetts Changes Rules to guarantee a Dem. Kennedy Senate successor

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 2:23 am, September 18, 2009

Late Thursday night, the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts state House of Representatives passed a bill designed to ensure that Democrat Governor Deval Patrick can quickly appoint a Democrat to fill deceased Democrat Ted Kennedy’s open Senate seat in order to guarantee an uninterrupted filibuster-proof Democrat majority in the U.S. Senate. The bill was immediately moved to the [...]

Joe Friday schools Barack Obama on Healthcare ethics – Friday Funnies

by Ikonoclast | 1:33 pm, September 14, 2009

Some (Joe) Friday funnies – even if it’s not on Friday. Sergeant Friday tells a delinquent (President) that it’s not right to steal, no matter how “noble” the cause: Just the facts, Ma’am – just the facts.

Mandate, Not Public Option, Defines Obamacare

by Ari Armstrong | 1:39 pm, September 10, 2009

Rather than “hope and change,” Barack Obama offers a warmed-over Republican policy — Romneycare — that has already failed in Massachusetts. The core of Obama’s fake reform (described most recently in his address to Congress) is not, as many conservatives suggest, the “public option.” It is instead the proposal to force people to buy politically-controlled insurance. (For details on the Massachusetts fiasco, which Obama hopes to replicate on a national scale, see the articles by Paul Hsieh and Michael Cannon.)

It is the mandate that ties together the various tenets of Obamacare, particularly insurance controls (regarding coverage and pre-existing conditions) and expanded subsidies.

Regarding pre-existing conditions, I’ve pointed out, “Forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions means allowing consumers to wait until they get sick to buy insurance… The logical consequence of forcing insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions is to force everyone to purchase insurance…”

Obama made the same point in his speech: “Unless everybody does their part [and purchases insurance under compulsion], many of the insurance reforms we seek — especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions — just can’t be achieved.” Just so.

Nevermind the fact that federal policies largely created the problems of uncovered pre-existing conditions.

Obama admits, “More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too.” But why is health insurance (and not any other sort of insurance) tied to employment for most Americans? It is because of federal tax distortions that drive expensive, non-portable, employer-paid insurance.

As I’ve noted (and again), the vast net of continuously changing insurance controls also helps to effectively outlaw stable, long-term policies that would remedy the problem of pre-existing conditions.

For more on this issue, please see Paul Hsieh’s outstanding article, “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability.”

Obama wants to force insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions and also force insurers to cover preventative care (which would, incidentally, outlaw my high-deductible plan and force my wife and me to buy dramatically more costly insurance). The inevitable result of such controls is to jack up insurance premiums (leaving aside Obama’s fantasy that giving people more “free” health care will somehow curb costs).

Mandated insurance requires expanded subsidies. After all, you can’t force somebody to purchase a product that they literally cannot afford. If Obama follows the lead of Republicans, his “tax credits” will in many cases be direct subsidies.

Obama hopes to cheat a little on his mandate, claiming “there will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage.” (Whether you can “afford” this politically-manipulated “coverage” will be determined by the federal government.) Apparently Obama would subsidize these “hardship” cases through some combination of tax-funded welfare and tax-funded insurance.

With or without the “public option,” the core of Obamacare remains the same: force everyone (or nearly everyone) to buy insurance, federally control what insurance people can buy (making it more expensive), and forcibly transfer more wealth to pay for health.

Obama Wrong About Mandatory Auto Insurance

by Ari Armstrong | 11:19 pm, September 9, 2009

I watched Barack Obama’s address on health policy tonight on television at Liberty On the Rocks at the Denver Tech Center. Both NPR and Fox 31 sent reporters to cover the speech and the free-market response to it. I’ll have more to say about the speech in coming days. For now, I want to correct but one of Obama’s remarks:

“That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

It is simply not true that states “require you to carry auto insurance.” Rather, you must buy auto insurance (or face fines) only if you drive an automobile on politically operated roads.

For example, Colorado’s statute 10-4-619 states that “compulsory coverage” applies to “every owner of a motor vehicle who operates the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state or who knowingly permits the operation of the motor vehicle on the public highways of this state.”

In other words, if you don’t own a motor vehicle, or you don’t drive your vehicle on “public highways,” you aren’t required to buy auto insurance.

It is indeed interesting that Obama sees a politically controlled industry as the model for health care.

Obama’s proposal to force everybody to buy politically controlled insurance is not like the requirement to buy auto insurance for public highways. Under Obama’s proposal, there is no escape and no exception. If you don’t buy insurance that politicians and their appointed bureaucrats approve for you, you face hefty fines. If you want to self-insure, or if you don’t like the politically-approved insurance, that’s tough. You will be forced to buy it. Because Obama is all about choice, competition, and freedom. And two plus two equals five.

September 10 Update: Wesword’s Michael Roberts picked up on the NPR coverage of Liberty On the Rocks and also quoted this blog post. As I pointed out in the comments, this post made a delimited point quickly. I’ve written much more about mandated insurance elsewhere.

Rationing inherent in Obamacare: Sources for Gazette Article

by Ari Armstrong | 9:48 am, August 17, 2009

The Colorado Springs Gazette published my article, “Rationing inherent in Obamacare,” on Sunday (despite its August 14 posting date). Please read the entire article there. Here my purpose is to provide related links and context.

Barack Obama’s line about “not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” may be seen on YouTube. Unfortunately, the clip omits some of the context. Thankfully, ABC has published the complete transcript of the June 24 broadcast.

Turning to the second page, we find the following lines:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that’s something we can achieve.

My short answer is, “Who is this ‘we,’ compadre?”

John Lewis’s evaluation of HR 3200 is available online. You can also read the entire text of the bill for yourself.

The sign from the July 29 Colorado Springs rally is shown in the second photo from a review by Americans for Prosperity. I covered the August 6 Longmont rally on my web page. The information about Mike Sola is available via YouTube and the Detroit Free Press.

As a couple of examples of British headlines, here’s one about a heart surgery that was initially denied; here’s another about painkilling injections” (via Patient Power). John Stossel’s report, which includes information about England and Canada, is at ABC.

Watch the Independence Institute video on Oregon rationing:

I got the transcript of Obama’s appearance in New Hampshire from the LA Times.

But, again, for my core arguments as to why rationing is inevitable under Obamacare, read the Gazette article!

Rally and Protest during Obama’s Town Hall Visit to Grand Junction 8.15.09

by elpresidente | 2:02 pm, August 12, 2009

Latest details for protest during President Obama’s visit to Grand Junction this Saturday: Date: August 15, 2009 Start Time: No earlier than 10:00 am and no later than 11:00 am Place: Lincoln Park, corner of 12th & North Avenue, Grand Junction CO 81501 Map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Lincoln+Park:Grand+Junction+CO+81501#a/search/l:::Grand+Junction:CO:81501:US:39.0748:-108.549:zip:Mesa+County:1/m::14:39.07357:-108.55026:0:::::1:1:1::/so:Lincoln+Park:::d::25:::::/e Event: Hands Off My Health Care Rally and Protest Hosts: [...]

Denver Post editorial backstabs Colorado Soldiers

by Captain Arapahoe | 12:17 pm, July 25, 2009

The Denver Post Editorials board has reached a despicable new low. This Saturday’s editorial, “The Reality of Closing Gitmo“, is bad enough from a strictly policy perspective.  The Post’s admonition that “there should be no excuses” for failure to quickly shut down Gitmo is quite simply ridiculous, and flies in the face of both logic [...]

Stop the Stampeding! A modest legislative proposal

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 9:55 am, July 7, 2009

Coming fast on the heels of the rush for a vote on the “Cap and Trade” (more accurately, “Cap and Tax” – the “largest tax increase in history“), the government takeover of GM, the $787 “emergency” passage of the “Stimulus” (er, Porkulus) bill, etc. etc. ad nauseum, the current unseemly haste to pass “Comprehensive Healthcare” and confirm [...]

keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either

  Of course not! Why would anyone conclude that errors are geographical? Errors are errors and attempts to reinflate the British economy using the same hot air compressors that we use here aren’t going to work any better over there than they have here.

• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience
• Rich Americans Are Fleeing the Country
• ObamaCare Advisers Predict Death of Health Insurance Companies