About Me

Name: Always To The...
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

What Government Rationing Always Means In The End

Video: Are the elderly cost effective?

Greg Hengler at Townhall captures this revealing moment in the Senate Finance Committee hearings on health-care reform. The speaker, Professor Stuart Altman of Brandeis University, tells the committee that resources get wasted in the American health-care system, especially for one segment of the population. Professor Altman says he’s reluctant to mention it, but why waste money on in-depth treatment for people who won’t live long anyway? Better to warehouse them and save the resources for the young

Once again, we have people taking the shortage, rationing approach to its logical conclusion. In a non-shortage, free-market approach, people can choose for themselves whether to pursue cost-effective strategies based on their own resources, and the free market would incentivize the creation of enough resources to meet the demand. Only by restricting choice and setting prices will resources become scarce, which we have seen gradually for the last several decades in our own heavily-regulated health-care system, and seen dramatically in the various single-payer systems around the world.

What happens when the state controls all the resources? New resources do not develop, and the government winds up rationing care based on its own priorities, and not the priorities of the patients or caregivers. Professor Altman’s suggestion that the elderly get hospice treatment to save scarce care resources is exactly the kind of decisions the state will make for its citizens, and it won’t be limited to the elderly, either. Anyone whose value does not show a positive “cost-benefit” ratio to the state will also likely wind up without the kind of care necessary to stay alive and healthy.

Progressives who back this plan get offended that people with more resources can get better care, just as they can get better housing, better food, and better entertainment, among many other things. Like in all other arenas, their prescription for equality of result will mean that everyone gets treated equally poorly, and that we will eventually start culling out the weak in favor of the strong. We’ve essentially returned to the eugenics arguments of the early 20th century, a dark period of human history we should be avoiding rather than embracing on the floor of the Senate.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Smoot-Hawley Of The 21St Century?

Video: The damage Obama’s international tax will do

Our friend Dan Mitchell at the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has taken a look at Barack Obama’s plan to “close loopholes” on American business taxes from overseas profit, and concludes that this could be as damaging to the economy as anything this administration has yet done.  He calls the existing taxes on foreign revenues a “discriminatory” tax, one that already puts American business on a poor competitive footing abroad.

. . . the new policy means that American businesses will pay a high penalty for being American.  Using Dan’s example, a business based in the US would pay more than three times as much tax on its international business than one on the Netherlands.  It won’t take much more than a year or two of those kinds of losses before the business begins looking for Amsterdam offices instead of New York digs.

Even if they don’t, who pays for those taxes in the end?  Not the businesses; businesses pass costs along to consumers and labor in higher prices and job reductions.  As prices go up, the businesses become less competitive in the markets both here and abroad, and consumers make other choices that fit their budgets.  Result: American businesses fold, and imports and trade deficits increase.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“That’s Treason.”

Wanda Sykes: Maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker

9/11 jokes comparing your political opponents to terrorists are very, very bad, except of course when they’re not. As Jim Treacher says

Video: Wanda Sykes dumps all over Rush Limbaugh


Sykes to Palin: Pulling out isn’t how you practice abstinence

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nice Guys Do Finish Last

No, seriously, the right needs to fight dirty

. . . piece for Pajamas Media called “The Right Needs to Play as Dirty as the Left.” The theme of that piece could be summed up in these two paragraphs:

Too often today, liberals are using below-the-belt tactics against conservatives and paying no price whatsoever. Meanwhile, those on the right like to pat themselves on the back for being above it all. This is like a boxer priding himself on never taking off his gloves while his opponent nearly beats him to death with his bare firsts. But in the end, there’s not much to be said for lovable losers. Conservatives should realize that fair play isn’t going to pay any dividends.

While we conservatives don’t have to stoop quite as low as the left has, we do need to start giving them a taste of their own medicine, if only to make them think twice about the way they’re treating our side.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Budget Cuts

Stupid: $17 billion is a lot of money outside D.C., says Obama

Ed crunched the numbers on Obama’s ridiculous budget cuts this morning but I thought you’d enjoy video of The One insisting, with all apparent sincerity, that they’re really quite substantial once you remove, um, all relevant context. Watch here. It’s as supreme an insult to the intelligence of average Americans as anything he’s said thus far as president, including reminding people to wash their hands to avoid swine flu. To put the cuts in perspective, imagine a family that’s already deeply in debt realizing they’re on pace to spend $50,000 this year — and “scaling back” by foregoing one $250 purchase. One half of one percent. That’s what we’re talking about.

Actually, here’s an even better perspective. Remember, Bush’s last budget deficit was less than one quarter the size of what this year’s will be under Obama.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Chutzpah

Obama to force Israel to give up nukes?

The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs.  Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes.  The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ticking Clock

Cartoons By Michael Ramirez 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Neverending Fable

The Halliburton canard, again

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

News

A Listening Tour Means Pandering to Voters. We Need a Conservative Teaching Tour!
When Democrats lose, do they move right? No! Yet so many Republicans want to move left, and get rid of the "social issues" -- abortion and illegal immigration.

The Obama Sitcom Rolls Along: Geithner to Close Tax "Loopholes"
"Geithner and Obama use the word 'loophole' to convey the idea that businesses are cheating. A 'loophole' is a law.  Every tax deduction is a 'loophole,' but the premise that people like Obama start from is that all money is Washington 's."

Dems Plan to Put Private Health Care System Out of Business
You just wait until they get into what doctors can charge, and how you can be treated.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):  Obamacare Will Destroy Private Health Care

"If you have the money to buy a Rolex, why would you go walking on Fifth Avenue and buy a $60 knock-off? If you can vote for a real liberal Democrat, why vote for a Republican wannabe?"

. . .
sacrifice is not what builds greatness -- and forced sacrifice isn't sacrifice. Besides, the goverment never sacrifices, does it?"
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Way It Should Be

Presidents don’t prosecute their predecessors

In the span of 220 years there have been 43 changes of presidents, and always this rule, never written but never broken, has prevailed: Presidents let their predecessors be judged by the merciless jury of history, not by the temporal verdicts of courts.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Where Does It End?

Hate crimes law violates Constitution in two ways

AOL Hot Seat Poll: Do you support hate-crimes legislation?

But this is really an endless loop, and that particular effort underscores Jazz Shaw’s point about the 14th Amendment. Let me pose a hypothetical: if someone murdered a white supremacist specifically because of his political beliefs and color of his skin, wouldn’t that also be a hate crime? Shouldn’t they also be protected under this legislation? Or should the state position itself to approve of certain kinds of hate and not others?

Update: Here’s an even better question. What about crimes committed by neighborhood or family feuds? If I murder my next door neighbor because I hate his guts, shouldn’t I be tried with a hate crime?


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Playing On Home Turf

Souter’s retirement: High risk, moderate reward for Obama

Based on Obama’s appointments thus far, expect a mediocre candidate that will be just middle enough to get a few Republicans on board.  Don’t expect it to go quietly, but the Republicans probably won’t stage any extraordinary action to block it, unless something arises like tax problems or other issues that rise to incompetence or corruption.  That’s actually the way presidential appointments should be handled, as elections have consequences.  After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue.  Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments.

Update: Michelle profiles the three leading candidates.  Gird your loins, indeed.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »