Category Archives: Reason

UPDATED: Astounding Healthcare Revelations (NOT)

Debt, Economy, Government, Healthcare, Reason, Regulation, The State

In “Heeere’s Health-Scare” I posited an absolutely revolutionary concept (NOT): that it was a mathematical improbability to expect “an expansion of government through an enormous entitlement program to drastically reduce the deficit and debt.”

Apparently that no-brainer has been recognized by an aide to the ruling Solons. Chief Medicare actuary Richard S. Foster grew a brain or got some courage, or both.

“In signing the measure last month,” writes the NYT, “President Obama said it would ‘bring down health care costs for families and businesses and governments.”

But Mr. Foster said, “Overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion,” or nine-tenths of 1 percent, compared with the amounts that would otherwise be spent from 2010 to 2019.

In his report … Mr. Foster said that some provisions of the law, including cutbacks in Medicare payments to health care providers and a tax on high-cost employer-sponsored coverage, would slow the growth of health costs. But he said the savings “would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from the coverage expansions.”

AMAZING. Why did I not think of that!? It takes an actuary to convince the country that when you cut expenses, expenses go down. And that when you steal from Peter to lavish on Paul, Paul’s expenses diminish.

Unbloody believable.

Oh, the actuary’s report also stated what I reported in another column, on August 7, 2009, where I contended that BHO was “Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured.” For less than ten percent of the population, to be precise.

Mr. Foster’s report said that “34 million uninsured people will gain coverage under the law, but that 23 million people, including 5 million illegal immigrants, will still be uninsured in 2019.”

But illegals use ER facilities liberally for free. Going by statism’s logic (read lies) there has to be some savings in there somewhere.

UPDATED (Aug. 11): Via NewsMax:

“A published report saying the Obama administration knew that its healthcare proposal would increase costs instead of reducing them is “troubling,” according to a senior House Republican leader.

Administration officials from the president downward used claims that the legislation would reduce healthcare costs to get the votes of wavering members of Congress.

Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius knew about a report from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary prior to the House’s March 22 vote, indicating the bill would increase healthcare costs, according to an April 26 report appearing in The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler blog.

The bill passed by a 219-212 margin with several self-proclaimed fiscally conservative Democrats voting in favor, believing it would reduce costs.”

UPDATED: Viva Vuvuzela?

Africa, Race, Reason, South-Africa, Sport, The West

“The Vuvuzela And World Cup: A Symbol Of The End Of Civilization”: This is interesting comment by one of Larry Auster’s readers; I’ve been urged to comment about it by one of ours. Here’s my problem with sweeping, slightly hysterical deductions about the incessant horn blowing at the Soccer World Cup as a symbol of the destruction of western civilization: As a writer who reasons rather than emotes, I’m not mad about indulging in such deductions. For one, the leap from horn-blowing to civilizational demise omits some rather crucial in-between steps such as I have been covering in my South Africa essays.

The flight into symbolism also leaves unexamined the phenomenon of British and European soccer hooliganism.

(I sincerely hope that this is what draws you to this site over others: immutable fairness—reasoning from fact and first principles, and not from symbolism. You known how to show your love.)

In any event, read Patrick H’s comment, and have at it (or at me, for that matter):

“I am wondering if you are going to comment on the inadvertent (and thereby revealing) comedy of the destruction by liberalism of the World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa.

The agent of liberal destruction is a horn. Specifically, a long plastic device called the vuvuzela. The employment by South African spectators of the vuvuzela as incessant accompaniment to the soccer matches on the pitch has–and I must insist I am not exaggerating–destroyed the experience of viewing the games almost completely. The use–constant, unrelenting–of this, ah, instrument, by thousands of fans produces a tuneless monotonous drone or hum that operates at the level of a roar (a bit like a bunch of great big kazoos might do–but without any melody). And it simply never stops. The effect on television presentations is remarkable. It sounds like the games are being played in a hive full of thousands of gigantic bees. All other sound is effectively eliminated: crowd roars come through dimly–probably because the vuvuzela-ists drop their horns to join in the collective huzzah when an occasional ball wanders near the net–but chants are gone. Singing: gone.” ….

UPDATE (June 16): As a courtesy to one of my readers I commented in passing on this topic. Larry Auster and one of his readers have decided to die on a molehill over my criticisms off this tack, framing it, grandiosely, as an “objection.”

They’d like to commandeer my blog to indulge this pettiness. Sorry.

I care not a whit as to how conservatives argue—increasingly they sound to me as irrational and emotional as liberals.

Larry’s reader claims the missive was farce; fair enough. Yet Larry wishes to continue debating the thing (on my blog) as if it were not; as though horn blowing as emblematic of a liberal/atavistic society were a serious argument.

Both refuse to plug their logical lacuna—explain European soccer hooliganism. It’s not that hard. The idea, moreover, of proceeding from the particular to the general is surely predicated on galvanizing more than one fact in support of your case. In the case of South Africa, that too is easy.

As one wag put it, “South Africa has blown it,” but I’d argue—and I’d have facts, not feelings, on my side—that it’s not necessarily the noisy horns that signify the end of civilization there and the triumph of liberal egalitarianism; it’s the piling bodies, looting of land and property, radical affirmative action (BEE), etc.

Update II: The Palin Premise

Ann Coulter, Crime, GUNS, Hollywood, Political Philosophy, Reason, Republicans, Sarah Palin

WHAT STRIKES ME again and again about what goes for conservatism these days is the feeble arguments used to make a case—they’re so, well, liberal in their illogic.

Via the Charlotte Observer: “Sarah Palin headlined the NRA convention in uptown Charlotte Friday afternoon, speaking to a crowd of 9,000 gun rights supports at Time Warner Cable Arena.”

MSNBC TV has just reported (falsely, I hope) that Palin went on to call on Hollywood to clean up its violence-glorifying, crime-impacting ways before demanding that law-abiding citizens give up their guns.

First, implicit in this stupid exhortation is the unfounded notion that graphic visuals cause violence. How like Tipper! In their censuring attempts, conservatives like Palin remind me of Democrat Tipper Gore and her comical attempt in the 1980s to censor rock lyrics.

Also following from the Palin premise is that, should Hollywood clean up its act, so to speak, we gun owners will indeed consider giving up the right to protect sacred life and property.

Can’t this woman ask my girl, Michelle Bachmann, to help her formulate a logical thought!

Update I (May 15): Thanks to Jack Slater (Letter of the Week) for putting things into perspective as to Palin. I ask Myron to repeat some of his classic observations about the woman. No one is listening; you have to repeat ad nauseam.

(Incidentally, the only individual on the NRA Invited Speakers list who deserves accolades for his efforts on behalf of liberty is … the Democrat (once Reagan appointee), Jim Webb.)

With few exceptions, no amount of analysis I’ve provided on this blog has moved the Republicans who read it (and yes, that was a pejorative) any closer to the truth. Coulter, Palin; Limbaugh, Hannity—they can rest assured. Their futures and fortunes are guaranteed by a blind following as ignorant as it is loyal. All you puppies want is to wag your tails for your masters or mistresses, and forget their hypocrisy and intellectual corruption over the years. I won’t even advise that you read my Palin archives (avoid it) on the main site and on the blog; I know you are more comfortable with feeling warm and fuzzy than following the facts and the principles.

Palin is wrong on almost everything except on energy. On energy and environmental issues she is indeed an ace. That’s all.

Coulter recently appeared on CNN together with some actress, Aisha Tyler, an avowed Obamaite (Tavis Smiley was excellent compared to… Anderson Cooper). The lefty was better than the conservative Queen Bee who could muster only a few silly, spiteful quips in support of freedom.

If you believe these characters are the republic’s last hope, then you deserve their brand of freedom (although Iraqis don’t). They and the wars they’ve whored for are, by and large, what got us into this financial morass.

Update II (April 16): McCain supports Gov. Brewer. Palin is worse than useless on immigration. Anyone who cares about what Peter Brimelow calls the “National Question” will apprise himself of Palin’s hollow, “we-are-a-nation-of-immigrants” positions. She motivates her support for protecting the border with reference, mainly, to national security—not crime, sovereignty, the transformation of the country’s character.

The other characters for whom everyone goes to bat aim to bring the country back to Bush and Laura’s party (Laura approves of BHO’s Kagan appointment). It’s curious that readers would see this as serving to awaken Boobus Americanus.

“The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back.”

And their supporters play musical chairs along with them.

Updated: Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia

Federalism, Homeland Security, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Terrorism, WMD

The excerpt is from “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia,” now on WND.COM:

“Rachel Maddow’s gayness (and goggles) is the most interesting thing about her. What I’m trying to say here is that the MSNBC TV host has a mundane mind, which, rest assured, will insert and assert itself during an upcoming special presentation, “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist.” ….

A far more interesting choice for presenter of the forthcoming MSNBC feature on McVeigh would have been the brilliant belletrist Gore Vidal.

Like Maddow, Vidal (aged 83) is a gay leftist. Unlike Maddow, he manages to dazzle with his original insights. (Unfashionably, Vidal has also poked fun at assorted anal activists and at all manner of “vulgar fagism.”)

Vidal “became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh,” and considers McVeigh “a true patriot, a Constitution man.”

Gore Vidal is rare in recognizing the legitimate federal insults to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that motivated McVeigh to commit his crime. He is also unique, on the Left and Right, in acknowledging that McVeigh was not a rube, but a thoughtful man who had fought for his country and was familiar with its foundational principles and documents.

As the most able counsel for the defense (McVeigh’s), the iconoclastic octogenarian would have given his viewers something to mull over; mundane Maddow will not. …

The complete column is “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia.” Read it on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update (April 16): Inferring motivation, or psychologizing about the reason Vidal respected some of McVeigh’s arguments are species of ad hominem. I avoid them, for the most; I don’t take them seriously when others make them. In fact, that’s MSNBC’s stock-in-trade; impute motivation (“racism” always) to your foe and attack him based on assumptions about his inner workings, rather than deal with the facts and merits of his argument.

So, our (much-welcomed) commenter claims Vidal had a homoerotic fixation with McVeigh, and therefore everything he claimed to respect in McVeigh is not credible. That line of reasoning is illogical.

A quote from McVeigh:

I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We’ve gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that’s where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

I agree with that. And if a “stormtrooper” agrees with the above statement, then consider that a stormtrooper, McVeigh and I agree about the statement. Other than to argue in circles, so what?!