"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by the government with totalitarian powers."
Friedrich August von Hayek
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Health Insurance and Auto Insurance
It is beyond sad when our highest ranking elected and appointed officials openly display their ignorance as to how markets work. The unconstitutional and disastrous "health care" bill is being analogized with auto insurance, however this is either due to complete ignorance (regarding topics such as insurance and
risk) or outright coercion with the intent to control and ultimately plunder and redistribute in order to maintain and gain further control.
Ed Morrissey of hotair.com writes about the administrations recent attempt to deceive us in his recent post "Holder and Sebelius trot out the auto-insurance canard":
This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it. Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.
There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.
Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.
Finally, let’s use another related analogy: fire insurance. If we forced insurers to write comprehensive policies on burning homes, we would have no insurers left in the market. However, Holder and Sebelius want health insurers to do the same thing — and need the mandate to force all of us to assume that risk through the higher premiums that subsidize it. And, by the way, the government is doing exactly what Holder derogates in the essay — forcing insurers to write policies after the accident/fire/illness.
The need to reform the health-care economic model is real. Holder, Sebelius, and Barack Obama have gone in the wrong direction through the imposition of government mandates and the calcification of the third-party payer model. We need to break that model for routine health maintenance and return insurance to the role of indemnifying against substantial loss and end the tax incentives for the market distortion of the employer-based health care model.
A free market system is the only path to both higher quality of care and lower prices. The fact that the people charged with representing us do not understand this is embarrassing.
risk) or outright coercion with the intent to control and ultimately plunder and redistribute in order to maintain and gain further control.
Ed Morrissey of hotair.com writes about the administrations recent attempt to deceive us in his recent post "Holder and Sebelius trot out the auto-insurance canard":
This is such a bad argument that it staggers the imagination why the administration would still be making it. Drivers carry required insurance to cover damage done to others, not themselves, for one thing. It’s not applicable at all. Furthermore, states impose the insurance requirement, not the federal government, because states license drivers and vehicles. Driving is, after all, a voluntary activity conducted on public property (roads); there is no requirement for licensing or insurance for those who drive only on their private property. People who don’t drive on public roads aren’t required to buy a license or the insurance.
There are other problems with this analogy as well. Those who do have auto insurance only file claims when significant damage occurs. Auto insurance doesn’t pay for routine maintenance, like oil changes, lube jobs, and tire rotation. That’s why auto insurance is relatively affordable.
Also, auto insurance is priced to risk. If a driver lives in a high-crime area, then the premiums will rise to cover the risks associated with theft. If they drive badly (get moving violations and accidents), premiums will go up, or in some cases, the insurer will drop the driver. Policies are priced for risk according to age as well; the youngest and oldest drivers pay more due to their propensity for causing losses. Those who drive well and present a lower risk get rewarded with lower premiums. Right now, the federal government is preventing insurers in some instances from risk-pricing health insurance to impose government-approved fairness. That means we all pay more, removing the incentive to lower risk.
Finally, let’s use another related analogy: fire insurance. If we forced insurers to write comprehensive policies on burning homes, we would have no insurers left in the market. However, Holder and Sebelius want health insurers to do the same thing — and need the mandate to force all of us to assume that risk through the higher premiums that subsidize it. And, by the way, the government is doing exactly what Holder derogates in the essay — forcing insurers to write policies after the accident/fire/illness.
The need to reform the health-care economic model is real. Holder, Sebelius, and Barack Obama have gone in the wrong direction through the imposition of government mandates and the calcification of the third-party payer model. We need to break that model for routine health maintenance and return insurance to the role of indemnifying against substantial loss and end the tax incentives for the market distortion of the employer-based health care model.
A free market system is the only path to both higher quality of care and lower prices. The fact that the people charged with representing us do not understand this is embarrassing.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Social Security: The National Ponzi Scheme
Social Security is yet another government created disaster and ticking time bomb.
The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth
Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?
The Real "Mother Of All Ponzi Schemes": Social Security
Social Security: The Biggest Ponzi Scheme
Social Security is the Biggest Ponzi Scheme Ever
Social Security a Bigger Ponzi Scheme than Madoff's
Ron Paul: Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
Social Security: National Ponzi Scheme
The National Ponzi Scheme
Social Security Is a Fantasy and Ponzi Scheme; How to Fix It
Social Security: The Ultimate Ponzi Scheme
Social Security Ponzi scheme unraveling
Stopping the social security ponzi scheme
Not In 25 Years, Social Security Is Bankrupt Now
Social Security: Government 'Ponzi' Scheme Turns 75 with $41 Billion Shortfall
Retiree Ponzi Scheme Is $16 Trillion Short
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
When NPR Recognizes That Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
The Biggest Ponzi Scheme on Earth
Why is Social Security often called a Ponzi scheme?
The Real "Mother Of All Ponzi Schemes": Social Security
Social Security: The Biggest Ponzi Scheme
Social Security is the Biggest Ponzi Scheme Ever
Social Security a Bigger Ponzi Scheme than Madoff's
Ron Paul: Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
Social Security: National Ponzi Scheme
The National Ponzi Scheme
Social Security Is a Fantasy and Ponzi Scheme; How to Fix It
Social Security: The Ultimate Ponzi Scheme
Social Security Ponzi scheme unraveling
Stopping the social security ponzi scheme
Not In 25 Years, Social Security Is Bankrupt Now
Social Security: Government 'Ponzi' Scheme Turns 75 with $41 Billion Shortfall
Retiree Ponzi Scheme Is $16 Trillion Short
Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
When NPR Recognizes That Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme
NY State Senator Kevin Parker Found Guilty
New York State Senator Kevin Parker, Brooklyn Democrat, has been convicted of misdemeanor charges:
State Senator Kevin S. Parker was convicted of misdemeanor charges on Tuesday stemming from a confrontation with a photographer for The New York Post, but he was cleared of more serious felony assault charges.
State Senator Kevin S. Parker was convicted of misdemeanor charges on Tuesday stemming from a confrontation with a photographer for The New York Post, but he was cleared of more serious felony assault charges.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Marxism in America
Unfortunately, Marxism appears to be much more prevalent in our society than one would think.
Here are the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, many of which sound all to familiar:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Here are the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, many of which sound all to familiar:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
From the Government, Here to Help
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan - President's News Conference - August 1986
Ronald Reagan - President's News Conference - August 1986
