A few more weeks...

I've been following the health care bill rather closely, and looking at all the wrangling in the Senate now has reminded me of a question I heard at several health reform conferences in DC over the summer. Panelists at more than one conference were asked, "do you think health care reform will be passed before the year is out?" There were several yeses, several nos, and most concurred that something would happen, but it might not be as comprehensive as was expected. My view at the time was that Congress would ram through an entitlement expansion bill that did little to address costs. Well, looks like I was both right and wrong. This bill is going nowhere before the year is out, but if anything, it will end up as a costly Medicare expansion without cutting costs. But I think there is a reason why so many aspects of the bill have been failing in the Senate over the past week or two. They've cut many of the core aspects of the bill because they represent naive, idealistic liberal theories that do not work in the real world. Just look at the remarks of Sen. Bernie Sanders' remark that the bill "eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies." Really? So this bill is saving the nation billions of dollars despite the CBO's estimate of near a trillion dollars? They are trying to ram this bill through, but hopefully our intentionally slow and balky legislative system will weed out the illogical and irresponsible parts of this "reform".

Uncertainty

This is probably one of the best articles I've read that explains the opposition to the current health care "reform". I had actually never thought of explaining it this way, but it makes a lot of sense.

Why Does the Public Oppose ObamaCare?

The logic is that while people may support certain aspects of the bill, they reject the bill as a whole because of the extreme uncertainty involved. The average voter recognizes that they may receive some benefits from the plan, but has no way of knowing how it will really affect them. Due to the very technical nature of the bill's language, the average voter can't tell whether or not they will have to pay more or whether they qualify for a subsidy, not to mention what the long term effects will be on the economy. Additionally, voters on average have low confidence in Congress's ability to write good legislation, thus creating doubt on the legitimacy of the bill as a whole. In any case, the article says it better that I can. All I'm saying is that while the status quo is in no way ideal, the current bill is no way to fix it.

Hate crimes

Here's a great article about a serious issue:

Gregory Kane: Hate crime laws attempt to criminalize thoughts | Washington Examiner

This is certainly an inflammatory subject, but I would side with the author: homicide is wrong no matter who you are or who the victim is. The article cites several awful murders involving minorities, and that there are established laws to prosecute the criminals to the furthest extent of the law. But hate crime legislation singles out certain groups of offenders as "worse" because of their motives, and crimes against certain victims as "worse" because of the victims' group. This means in practice, as the author points out, if a white person kills a black person, the stricter provisions of hate crime law will apply, but if a Latino kills a black person, it's just another murder. I would argue that this violates the 14th amendment, but I would have to look into it more. In any case, while people should learn to get along and be civil with people unlike themselves, racism will always exist and people will always have their opinions. Homicide will always be prosecuted, but peoples' thoughts or opinions, even if prejudiced, should not.

Take a bite out of crime

Here is a great clip I recently found on youtube. After completing mandatory military service, the Swiss are required to keep the firearm they trained with, thus creating a constantly armed and ready national militia. I believe that a (responsible) armed society is the best deterrent to crime and other threats to freedom. I think about how sick I felt when I was reading a book about the Armenian genocide in the early 20th century. The very first thing the Turks did was to disarm the Armenians. They went to every village and collected every firearm. The Armenians complied, trusting that it was in their best interest. But when Turks and Kurds massacred millions of Armenian men, women, and children, they had no defense. We are blessed to live in a very stable and safe country, but it's still vitally important that citizens have the means to safeguard their families and liberties.

Reality

I wish I had this documented, but I don't. Over a year ago, before the Nov. elections, I said something to the effect that the whole "Obama personality cult" would be very disillusioned when they discovered that their idol was just another politician. I figured that the wave of euphoria would die quickly, and judging by this Washington Post article, I'm right. I guess it wasn't that prophetic of a prediction; everyone should have realized that the personality worship of this past election campaign was unfounded. I love the quote from the article: "[Liberals] saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy -- and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest." Well surprise surprise, Pres. Obama isn't the nation's savior--no one person can be, even in the highest executive position. It's not the purpose of this post to Obama-bash--there are plenty of people that do that better than I-- but I just wanted to feel vindicated for my incredulous view of the "cult", which while still surviving, is quickly dying down.

Media...anyone in there?

Just a side note- can anyone explain why CNN.com's home page had FOUR articles on Tiger Woods today, but not a single article on the senate health care debate? And Tiger has had major headlines for something like five days straight, while our elected officials are busy trying to ram through a $1 trillion (give or take a few hundred billion) government health care takeover? Maybe I need to find a new news source. Actually, one I really like is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/. It's one of the better news compilers I've found- it takes articles from many sources and sides, and puts them all in one place. I check it several times each day. Sure, many of the articles are biased and polarized, but sometimes that's what I like! :)

A penny saved...

Time to confess. As a college student, I don't make a lot of money. Somewhere less than $15,000 per annum, which I guess is about normal for most students. But I LOVE to spend. Last month I bought a new home theater, and traded in the old Ford for a flashy BMW. I got a sweet new gaming computer, well, actually, two. (Just in case one breaks). This thanksgiving break we toured Europe and treated ourselves to first class seats. How do I afford such a lifestyle working just 15 hours per week? Easy- it's called DEBT! So what if I don't have the money now, I'll just pay it back in small installments for the next... however many years.
Ok, I'm obviously exaggerating. But it's not an exaggeration for certain people we voted to direct the course of our nation. The US government "makes" a lot of money each year, yet still runs a massive deficit, just as I would if I spent like I just described.
I honestly can't understand how fiscal restraint could ever be a partisan issue. For one, neither Rs or Ds have done a very good job lately at it. But apart from their track record, I fail to see how having massive debt could ever be considered good policy. This recent Newsweek article articulates the risks associated with out-of-control debt (it's long, but it's a good read). Fixing the debt issue is not something to put on the back burner- this is serious, as Dubai recently showed us. I, for one, don't want to see high inflation rates and down-rated US securities just because some politicians didn't know the meaning of a balanced budget.