Sunday, February 28, 2010

Reality Check: Eliminating Pre-Existing Conditions Is Not Free

Let's be clear at the outset. I favor restricting insurance companies' ability to deny coverage based on existing bad health conditions. Note I said 'restricting'.

The problem insurance companies have (which is also our problem) is lots of people don't purchase health insurance so they'll have more money for other stuff. Then, when they get sick, they want to buy insurance to cover what they have so they don't have to pay so much for the care they need. What they're doing, of course, is forcing/expecting the rest of the insured pool of people to subsidize their care but they won't contribute to the pool to help others. What they want (ie, feel entitled to!) for themselves they're unwilling to do for others.

The whole point of 'group insurance', whether it be for health, death/dismemberment or other (there are hundreds of different forms of group insurance), is to protect everyone in the pool against some catastrophic event. We all pay a little so no one has to endure significant hardship due to one of life's vagaries. It's the humane thing to do.

When we were a more rural/agricultural society, it's how people lived because life, in general. was challenging if not usually hard. But it was a good kind of 'hard' life. It had its rewards. It was satisfying. Neighbor helping neighbor was often a matter of survival ... personally and for one's neighbors. Strongly knitted and supportive communities survived ... most thrived, in spite of extraordinary hardships. Group insurance is rooted in that kind of thinking/attitude and is successful because many more people still think that way than not.

Problem now is the increasing percentage of people who feel entitled to the good life or to 'stuff' regardless the impact on others. An increasing percentage of people in America have an increasing sense of entitlement and a decreasing sense of responsibility to be a good neighbor and contributor to the common good. What far too many people don't seem to understand is that to have the kind of good life that's truly satisfying, one needs to contribute to the greater good and work hard to 'make' a good life for one's self.

If you want more 'stuff' or a 'more comfortable life', you need to do whatever it takes to become qualified for higher-paying work. So that you can not only take care of yourself and your family but so you can contribute to the good of the community. We should all work to be a net contributor to society, not a net drag on it. It doesn't always work out well but that should be our goal. Otherwise, when the percentage of selfish individuals reaches a certain point, everyone loses including the selfish ones.

So, back to the Pre-Existing Conditions challenge. If we eliminate insurance companies' ability to use that, those of us who do have insurance will pay A LOT MORE IN PREMIUMS. Insurance companies won't exist if they don't make a profit, right? What WILL happen if we eliminate their ability to disallow coverage of people who come into it with the condition they want to get covered? The SIMPLE answer is it will cost them A LOT MORE MONEY because people will tend not to buy insurance until they're sick so they'll be a huge net consumer of the available health care dollars. Eliminating pre-existing conditions WILL cost the insurance companies a lot more money so what will they do? Maybe increase everyone's premiums? Well, duh!!!

The 'simple' solution is to require everyone to have insurance. Then we could eliminate insurance companies' use of pre-existing conditions. People wouldn't come into insurance pools only when they're sick. We cannot have it both ways. If people aren't required to buy insurance AND we eliminate pre-existing condition clauses our insurance rates WILL GO UP, probably a lot.

I prefer another solution because I don't think requiring Americans to buy a particular product is constitutional. It's at least inconsistent with constitutional principles and principles that make a Republic possible. What I'd do is restrict (not eliminate) the use of pre-existing conditions and to apply conditions on people who start insurance for the purpose of treating an existing condition. They should be required to remain in the pool long after they've gottent the care they seek and they should pay an above average premium until some time after they're cured. People who have insurance while healthy should receive a discount for a healthy lifestyle. Probably several other things make sense to do but you probably get my point.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Bankrupt USA Possible? Our Arrogance And Irrational Economic Policies Make It Nearly Certain.

Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy and several other EU countries are not far behind. Three big problems there. First, their national debt is around 10% of the GDP. Also, approximately 10% of their citizens work for the government. And total cost to employers of unionized employees has grown dramatically.

Our national debt ratio in America is also around 10%. 8% of Americans worked in government in 2007. Since government employment has grown dramatically in the past two years, it's safe to say it's approaching 9% in America. Total cost of unionized employees has grown dramatically over the past 20 years. To assess whether the cost of unionized employees is causing economic problems, check which employers and states are in financial trouble and why.

The reason a large percentage of government workers is a problem for any economy is that government doesn't create wealth. It ONLY consumes wealth. The larger government becomes, the less economic resources are available to grow or sustain an economy. That black hole like sucking sound you hear is the health of our economy being sucked right into oblivion.

Financial commitments to unions in America (that the average American can't even dream of having) have put two of our biggest companies, GM and Chrysler, as well as many, many others in trouble. In fact, without major concessions by unions last year those auto companies would likely have folded. Several state governments are in danger of various defaults or even bankruptcy, the worst example being California with a mind-boggling $540 Billion of debt. Most of their financial burdens are financial concessions and obligations to unions that are completely unsustainable and totally irrational in retrospect.

America is in nearly as bad a condition financially and economically as several other countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy. Think it can't happen here? Wake up! It CAN! Our arrogance thinking it can't happen here will prevent us from doing what we need to do in order to prevent it. If we don't SOON shrink all governments by a large amount, reverse irrational surrender to union demands and reverse the trend toward astronomical debt our economy can and WILL collapse.

Saturday, February 6, 2010

KSM Trial In New York City: Irrational Rationalization

If KSM were to go on trial in NYC, wouldn't ANY competent defense attorney immediately request a change of venue? And is there any doubt that it would HAVE to be granted?

I've heard liberals say on TV they think he should be tried at the Twin Towers site to send him a message and to give those killed there the last word so to speak. Talk about a biased environment!

Also, we've all heard the Obama administration (both the top guy in our judicial system AND the office of the military's Commander In Chief!) assure(!) The American People KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists will be convicted and will most likely get the death penalty under our civilian judicial system as justification for it being okay to try them in NYC.

I'm sitting here scratching my head over all this, saying to myself "what's wrong with this picture?" There's something about these statements that seems like warped reasoning to me. Consider the following.

  • If we want him to be tried in NYC under our civilian system of justice, don't we have to deny him the right to a change of venue? Can anyone doubt that, if requested, a change of venue would HAVE to be granted? If ever there were a case where the jury pool is undeniably biased, wouldn't this qualify as the 'poster child' for when a judge would have to grant a change of venue? What are the chances that there are any potential jurors in NYC who haven't heard about the Twin Towers event and have no particular opinion or bias about it?
  • If we deny him the right to a change of venue, doesn't that do the exact opposite of what the supporters of a NYC trial want? How can one say a trial there in a civilian court validates and demonstrates the superiority of our civilian judicial system if we deny KSM ANY rights normal to that system? Doesn't forcing him to be tried there in spite of our normal judicial rights prove our judicial system isn't fair in the absolute sense?
  • Isn't it absolutely clear that, if his right to a change of venue is not denied, his lawyer would request a change of venue? Any lawyer in this country seeking justice who considers getting his client as fair a trial as possible to be his primary responsibility (ie, wants to keep his license to practice) must(!) request a change of venue in this case. Wouldn't it be malpractice not to request it?
  • If KSM is denied the right to request a change of venue OR his lawyer requests it and it is denied, is there any doubt that would be a good basis for appeal? Is there ANY doubt that the original verdict would absolutely be thrown out on appeal on that basis?
  • Is there any doubt a change of venue would be granted? That means, if we give him all the normal rights a defendant MUST have under our judicial system, he won't even be tried in NYC anyway. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of, the whole justification for, putting him on trial there in the first place?
  • There's another reason why he now CANNOT get a fair trial in NYC. The White House, various Democratic leaders and even the Attorney General of the United States(!) have tried to assure us that NYC is an acceptable location to try KSM and other Twin Towers terrorists because they're certain those guys WILL be convicted and will probably get the death penalty. Talk about biasing the trial! What lawyer worth his salt wouldn't appeal KSM's guilty verdict on that basis and what judge worth his salt would not grant it? If our civilian judicial system is in fact completely fair, is there any doubt that KSM's verdict would be overturned on the basis of such bias?
  • Even if it were now switched to a military tribunal trial we may have just guaranteed the verdicts will be overturned on appeal because the ultimate boss of the military people (the office of the Commander In Chief!) has biased THAT kind of trial too by declaring these guys will be found guilty. It is easy to imagine that these guys will now go free no matter what we do.
So, either we deny him his right to a change of venue which would guarantee the verdict would be appealed on the basis of denial of his right to a fair trial or he'll get a change of venue which makes this whole effort for a NYC trial moot and a complete waste of time. In fact, haven't we now guaranteed that whatever guilty verdict comes about (wherever he goes on trial) will not only be appealed on the basis of prejudice to convict but most certainly will be overturned?

The only option is to try KSM and the other terrorists in a military tribunal. It may be that even that would allow them to go free now that representatives of the Commander In Chief, the top dog in the military chain of command, have said they will be found guilty.

Does any of this make any sense whatsoever to you? I completely don't get it. Either I'm not making sense of it correctly or our Democratic leaders aren't. It seems to me like incompetence and irrationality to an extent that makes no sense whatsoever.