Americanly Yours

Jim Bunning, the current Senator from Kentucky has decided not to run for reelection in 2010, leaving an open field in both the Democratic and Republican primaries.

Rand Paul, the son of Congressman Ron Paul has decided to run for Senator Bunning’s seat.

Rand Paul is not just a son of a Congressman following in his father’s footsteps.  He has been very involved in Kentucky politics for the last 15 years.  He founded a group called Kentucky Taxpayers United in 1994 and has run the organization ever since.  Under Rand Paul’s leadership, this organization has become very influential in influencing State legislators to push for lower taxes.  Rand Paul is a strong supporter of Austrian Economics as well.

Rand Paul is also a successful doctor, and understands the health care issue very, very well:

Dr. Paul’s supporters are holding a moneybomb for his campaign tomorrow.  The recent moneybomb for Peter Schiff was successful–he raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single day.  Tomorrow, Dr. Paul’s supporters are hoping that his moneybomb can raise over $1 million–becoming the first Senate campaign to raise $1 million in a single day.  We can make this happen, but only if those who favor free markets are willing to invest a little money.  A small donation–even $10 will help Dr. Paul win what is sure to be an expensive primary battle.

For more information–or to donate, please visit either the official site of the moneybomb, or Dr. Paul’s official campaign page.  The moneybomb page has plenty more YouTube clips of Dr. Paul speaking.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

“We have to do something!”

This cry is sounded repeatedly by those who are demanding some type of health care reform from President Obama.

Its hard to argue with their logic.  After all, health care costs are soaring and [according to some] there are nearly 50 million Americans lacking health insurance (although they are not without health care itself). Insurance premiums are rising faster than income, and Medicare will run out of money in 2019, potentially leaving millions of retirees without coverage, or causing taxes or government borrowing to rise rapidly.

I agree that something needs to be done.  However, I disagree about what exactly should be done.  Even the proponents of the Congressional plan agree that it is far from perfect, but they continue to repeat the mantra that “we have to do something.”

Well, we do have to do something, right?

The American people arent so sure.  According to a new Rasmussen poll, 54% of American voters–a larger majority than the percentage of Americans who voted for President Obama–believe that passing no health care reform would be a better option than passing the plan currently before Congress.  Only 35% say that the current bill would be better than “doing nothing.”

And it is now being reported that the President has dropped his demand for a “public option.”  If this is true, it could leave behind an expensive bill that does little to change the current system.

This plan is being pushed through Congress at a rapid pace.  President Obama has set artificial deadlines for when he wants legislation on his desk, yet health care reform is a massively complex issue that a new administration shouldnt reasonably expect to tackle in such a short time.  How this Nation to decide on a complex long term health care reform plan in only a matter of weeks?

I am one of the 54% of American voters who prefers “doing nothing” over passing the current plan.  However, that doesnt mean I favor doing nothing in general.  Here are some of my ideas for health care reform:

1)  End (or significantly reduce) income taxes for individuals working as medical doctors, nurses, medical practitioners, etc.

Doing this could dramatically lower the costs of medical care.  Ending or cutting income taxes for medical workers will essentially allow them to earn the same amount of money for charging less for their services.  This would also encourage those considering becoming nurses or medical staff to return to school and become certified in their fields, as well as encourage older medical workers to work for several more years (if they are able to keep more of their earnings, they could be more willing to work longer).  While this could add to the National debt if spending is not cut, the Nation would save a considerable amount of money in added health care costs.  And of course, I would support this plan only if it included spending cuts to balance out the lost revenues.

2)  End (or significantly reduce) immigration restrictions for individuals working as medical doctors, nurses, medical practitioners, etc.

Ultimately, costs in any industry, including health care, are dependent on supply and demand.  Any doctor, nurse, x-ray technician, etc. who is able to speak English should be offered instant American citizenship.  There are large numbers of such people all over the world who are interested in becoming American citizens, but who are unable to do so because of current immigration laws.

3)  Allow insurance companies to sell plans across State lines.

Federal law currently prevents insurance companies from selling plans across State lines.  This is just plain illogical.  This leads to inefficiencies and increased costs for both the business and the consumer.  Imagine if cell phone companies had to comply with similar restrictions–a company like Verizon would be prevented from having a National plan, they would have to have a different plan and pricing scheme for each State and D.C, and the cell phone user’s costs would be higher as a result.  The same is true for health insurance.  Allowing insurance companies to sell plans across State lines would essentially create a National insurance market where customers could go online to a site like e-healthinsurance.com and select a plan from companies headquartered anywhere in the Nation.  Taking this step would also allow insurance companies to cut unnecessary staff–potentially passing savings on to consumers.  There is no reason for a company like Blue Cross to have to have 51 different organizations to create and price different insurance plans.

Remember that just because we “have to do something” does not mean that we should have to do “anything.”  There are good as well as bad reforms, just as there are good and bad treatments for any disease.  A doctor with a seriously ill patient should look at all the options and diagnose the patient carefully and as accurately as possible before treating the patient.  Treating the patient before diagnosing him and reviewing all of the options could be catastrophic.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

A friend sent me an article from RedState.com yesterday entitled “Call For Informants:  If You Oppose Obamacare, Even in ‘Casual Conversation,’ the White House Wants to Know About It.”  This article quotes the White House’s website which says:

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

So, I decided to send them the following email:

To whom it may concern,

I recently saw a nasty rumor about the health care bill on the internet.  According to this terrible misinformation, the health care bill will add $1 trillion to the National debt between 2010 and 2019 and will still leave 16-17 million people without health insurance!

This awful propaganda can be found here.

Yours in Liberty,

Phred Barnet
404-202-1360

——————————————
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

For the record, the link was a link to the CBO’s analysis of the health care bill which contains the following text  “According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.”

Yeah, Im a smart ass, but this is a very weird thing for the White House to be doing.  Its definitely improper, and may also be illegal.

I recommend sending the White House your own smart ass email.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Im sure that everyone has heard about the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  This is another one of those government programs that sounds like a good idea until you really think it through.

In an effort to both stimulate the economy and aid the environment, Congress and the Obama Administration enacted a $1,000,000,000 [$1 billion] which allowed people to trade in old cars with low gas mileage and receive a discount of up to $4,500 on new cars with high gas mileage.

Because protecting the environment was one of the goals of this program (and to protect against fraud), dealers were required to pour a solution into the engine of the car that was traded in which permanently disables the car.  The car is permanently taken off the road and is recycled.

Sounds good, right?  Not quite.

Who buys new cars?  People with money, of course.  The rest of the driving population buys their cars used from people who feel the need to buy a new car every few years.  By disabling used cars, the government is permanently removing their supply from the market.  Doing so prevents lower and middle class Americans from buying that vehicle, and has the net effect of raising the prices for used cars.

Someone who is still driving the 1995 Cadillac DeVille that they bought from their neighbor 7 years ago probably isnt very likely to go out and buy a 2010 Honda Accord, even under this program.  But, they would be much more likely to purchase the 2003 model DeVille that their neighbor bought after selling the 1995 DeVille 7 years ago.

But, rather than allowing the market to work in this fashion, the “Cash for Clunkers” program removes the 2003 DeVille–a perfectly good car–from the market and makes it tougher for the person still driving the 1995 DeVille to find a used car that fits his budget.

My personal opinion was that one of the reasons that this bill was passed was to protect the United States’ “investments” in [read:  theft of] General Motors and Chrysler.  It is clear to all that Congress and the Administration intended for this program to stimulate the economy and help the environment.  But I also believe that the government wanted to use this program to inflate the revenues at GM and Chrysler to make the American people less uneasy about the bailouts of those firms.  Think about it.  If you had just made a hugely unpopular move like taking over two iconic American automakers, you would do anything possible to convince the public that it was a good decision.  This includes funneling money to those companies to make their revenues look good.

My guess is that this program will actually hurt GM and Chrysler as compared to their competitors, namely Ford.  Why?  Well for one, a new Rasmussen poll found that 66% of Americans have at least “a somewhat favorable opinion of Ford.”  The same poll found that “General Motors is viewed favorably by 38%… and unfavorably by 56%”  It also found that 34% have at least somewhat favorable opinion of Chrysler “while 55% see the company unfavorably.”  The American people are angry at the other two companies for taking taxpayer funds, and Ford is now perceived as the only American automaker that isnt owned by the government.

They also make much better cars now than they used to.  I love my 2007 Ford Fusion.

In another poll that was published on the same day, Rasmussen also found that 46%of Americans are more likely to buy a Ford because they did not take a government bailout (13% said they were less likely and 37% said it didnt make a difference).  41% OF Americans also believe that quality of GM’s cars will get worse now that the government owns the company, while only 19% think it will get better.

[Investors like me know this.  For the sake of disclosure now that the FTC has announced that it is going after bloggers, I am a proud stockholder of Ford Motor Company and have seen the stock rise by about 18% in the last week.  Still, I am 100% opposed to this program.]

Additionally, the government’s intention was to get people to purchase cars with much better fuel efficiency and the new Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41 MPG and was rated higher than the Toyota Camry Hybrid, making it an attractive choice for anyone who decides to trade in their clunker.

If the intention was to increase the revenues at GM and Chrysler, this program will backfire, as do most government programs.  My prediction is that the market shares of Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia will rise at the expense of GM and Chrysler.

This program also raises further questions about the competency of the government.  Love or hate this program, it was administered poorly.  No, this doesnt “prove that government cant run our health care system.”  It should, however raise at least some concern about the capability of government to administer programs.  It should also serve as a warning that when the government offers people a massive discount to use a service, people will take advantage of it (people respond to incentives).  The government and taxpayers should at least use the example of this program to think about what the effects of what will be perceived by many to be free health care will have on an already strained system.

This program should remind us to be weary of government estimates.  The $1,000,000,000 [$1 billion] allotted for this program was expected to last at least until the program’s anticipated end date of November 1st.  Instead of lasting for 4 months as estimated, it lasted less than one month before it exhausted its funding.  If the government was this wrong–way wrong–on estimates for its costs of giving out coupons for discounts on cars, can you imagine how far off could its estimates of the costs of administering a $1,000,000,000,000 [$1 trillion] “free” health care program be?

Its worth thinking about.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

For a long time I did not have health care.  I was fresh out of college and was relatively healthy.  For me, there was no real need for health insurance.  But, a year and a half or so ago I decided that it was in my best interest to sign up for a health care plan.

I spent about two weeks using sites like ehealthinsurance.com comparing literally hundreds of plans with all kinds of different features until I found the one that suited me best.

I selected an HSA from Kaiser Permanente.  An HSA (Health Savings Account) is similar to an IRA, but for health care savings rather than for retirement.  A person enrolled in a HSA is allowed to contribute up to $3000 tax free each year to their account.

Under Federal law, these HSA’s must be paired with a HDHP (High Deductible Health Plan).  For example, my plan has a $1200 deductible, but everything after that is covered 100% by Kaiser.

I love my plan.

The point of having the high deductible plan is to encourage patients to keep their health care costs down.  If a customer knows that they have to spend the first $1200 of their health care expenses out of pocket, they are more likely to avoid unnecessary health care expenses.  Conversely, a health emergency is extremely unlikely to lead to major financial distress, as the maximum out of pocket expenditures are only $1200.

I mentioned above that an HSA is similar to an IRA and that I am legally allowed to contribute $3000 tax free to my account each year.  This allows individuals to save money for their future health care expenses.  For example, if I deposit the maximum of $3000, but only spend $1500, including all medical bills and over the counter and prescription drugs, I am left with a surplus of $1500 in my account.  This money can be kept in an interest bearing savings account, invested in a money market, or invested in the stock market.

This type of plan obviously doesnt suit everyone, but it is a great plan for people like me:  young, relatively healthy people with minimal health care costs.  Because I enrolled in this plan while young and healthy, I can use the unspent funds remaining in my account to save for when I am a sick old man with high health care costs.

In fact, while insurance premiums were expected to rise around 8% this year, my premium actually dropped by 3.6%!  It dropped because I kept costs for both me and my insurance company under control.

As I said above, I am an informed consumer who spent quite a long time comparing plans until I found the plan that I felt was best for me.  This plan has some great features, encourages saving and allows me to contribute money on a pre-tax basis.  It has also resulted in my premiums actually going down in a time when most people are seeing rather large increases.

My plan is great as it is, but if the government wanted to make health care more affordable, they would remove contribution limits on HSA’s, allowing consumers to place much more money in these plans.  They could also allow users of any health plan to enroll in an HSA, rather than limiting HSA’s only to those with high deductible plans.  Making these reforms would lead to lower costs for many Americans, and would create an incentive for the young and healthy to save money for the future when they face declining health.

Sadly, the Democrats’ health care plans will outlaw my health insurance plan.

I dont even understand why anyone would want to outlaw this plan–it really is great– but there seems to be a lot of things that I dont understand these days.  Are these Congressmen so conceited that they actually believe that they are capable of making a better decision about my own life than am I?  None of these people have ever met me.  None of them can possibly understand my health care needs better than I do.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook