This is Polifrog's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Polifrog's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Polifrog
Inyo Valley
Recent Activity
First Democrats sold us on the the fancy that is the ACA...It didn't work. Your solution? Sell another fancy? It's time to grow up, Dave. Have the American sense of character to buy that which you need or, if wisdom leads you, to prepare for the eventuality that you may someday need to buy that which you need. As for Americans, what keeps you from trusting them? Why must their healthcare dollars be spent by entities others than themselves? When individuals are removed from the equation by Democrats not only are those individuals no longer able to affect positive change in the market but we have a real example of Democrats leading our nation to turn its backs on the Enlightenment. Individualism is empowerment yet you and the Democrat Party would diminish individualism and lead us back to the darkness that preceded the Enlightenment. Current examples: == Real Americans demoted to part time work due to the ACA? The Democrat reaction.. Meh. == More Americans, neighbors, friends out of jobs due to the ACA? The Democrat reaction..Meh. == More Americans without health insurance today than before the ACA? The Democrat reaction.. Meh. == A president that ignores the plain language of law? The Democrat reaction.. Meh. There is no greater darkness than the unAmerican Democrat reaction to the horror that has been the ACA.
Toggle Commented Feb 20, 2014 on Cul-de-sac at EdCone.com
1 reply
That's a good point about the statistics. They do not represent the law and are bound to change. Had the law been enforced as written rather than delayed by the executive then the cost of ensuring each individual who had been uninsured prior to the ACA would be much higher than 27 individuals forced out of health insurance by the ACA. Of course the delays in regard to the ACA are temporary and when they run their course that 27 who lose their insurance so that one other individual may gain health insurance will most assuredly rise. So, you are right to note that the numbers will change over time. That said, I take issue with something else you said: I would have preferred single payer national healthcare paid for through taxes. What is single payer? We all recognize the market breaking nature of monopolies in which a single supplier supplies many consumers. Likewise most of us recognize the market breaking nature of a monopoly's antithesis, a monopsony, in which exists a single consumer amid multiple suppliers. If one recognizes the danger of a monopoly, one should also recognize the inherent danger of a monopsony or what you call "single payer". When someone calls for "single payer", they could just as well be calling for "single producer". Each are as damaging to a market as the other. ==== What is your solution to cover the nation's uninsured and keep costs from rising 10% a year? If you don't like the ACA, you should address the problems it's trying to solve with a better solution. I prefer solutions based on American virtue, that amalgamation of individualism and science better known as the Enlightenment. For example, one solution to our health-care difficulties could have been to require healthcare insurance payments to be paid not to healthcare providers, but to the purchasers of health insurance. This simple requirement would have shifted the power of consumerism to the individual who would benefit from shopping their healthcare wisely. Additionally this would have put market pressure on healthcare providers and costs would have fallen for all of us including the poor who would have found healthcare as well as healthcare insurance more affordable. Simple ... a stroll next door without running around the government block.
Toggle Commented Feb 19, 2014 on Cul-de-sac at EdCone.com
1 reply
Hey Dave... If the ACA were viable not only would it not be reliant upon Medicaid expansion, but the nation would be able to scale Medicaid back due to the supposed savings it was claimed the ACA would generate. One must admit that if the ACA had been able to generate the promised average savings of $2500 more people would have been able to afford healthcare and fewer would have been dependent on Medicaid. Unfortunately that $2500 as well as all the other promises surrounding the ACA were less honest than a sham-wow sales pitch. Consider for a moment what would have happened if North Carolinians had been told years ago that at this point under the ACA that the cost of insuring 13,000 previously uninsured individuals would be 345,000 newly uninsured individuals. Then imagine if they had been told that Democrats would later come along and claim that these once self insured now uninsured individuals should have been allowed to hop aboard the expanded medicaid train and that McCrory is to blame for the ACA's failure in NC. Yet here we are with some people calling for Democrats to grow a back-bone, to stick with their lies, rather than accept reality that the ACA is bad for North Carolina. Americans are indeed fortunate to have governors like McCrory across America, governors who in rejecting Medicaid expansion removed from the ACA a mechanism by which the scheme's failure may have been hidden. The result has been a clearer picture of the ACA's utter failure. It is shameful that Democrats chafe at this sort of honesty in governance. Would you have truly preferred to have been forced to expand Medicaid just to support a healthcare plan that only fills the pockets of healthcare insurers, healthcare providers, and least we forget their frequently political affiliated boardroom lackeys, via a rising tide of prices shouldered by you, me and your neighbor.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2014 on Cul-de-sac at EdCone.com
1 reply
Of course the ACA, like Prohibition once was, is a dead end from which Americans wish to move forward. According to the HHS NC ACA enrollment is running at around 160,000 Sounds great. Of course the HHS ignores the question of how many of those 160k enrolled thus far had insurance prior to being kicked off their preferred individual plan by the ACA. Although the data is scarce indications are that 90% of those enrolled in the ACA had insurance prior to being forced out. And how many have paid for this insurance through the ACA? The HHS counts all those who have have chosen a plan even if they have not paid for a plan. They term this metric "enrolled", but enrollment is not the same as a paying customer. According to CNN;20% to 30% of those who have "enrolled" in the ACA have not paid. We'll go with the lower end at 20%. ==== So we can lower that initial 160k supplied by the HHS by the 20% that have not paid for their chosen plan which leaves 128K truly enrolled in the ACA in NC. And of those truly enrolled only 11% did not previously have insurance, about 13 thousand. Finally we should compare that number of those enrolled to the the number of North Carolinians who have lost their insurance due to the ACA. According to the News Observer that number stands at around 473,000. To sum up: Since the ACA has kicked off in NC: == 473,000 have lost their insurance due to the ACA. == 115,220 of those then bought insurance through the ACA exchange. == And almost 13,000 once uninsured gained insurance. == That means 345,000 more North Carolinians are without insurance since the ACA kicked off. None of this includes the pain of those demoted to part time work or fired altogether due to the ACA and if the current discussion among Democrats is any indication, Democrats care nothing about these newly jobless individuals. ===== The ACA is hurting North Carolinians and ACA dead-enders do North Carolinians no favors.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2014 on Cul-de-sac at EdCone.com
1 reply
Germany and other countries with high-quality healthcare at much lower prices than our own: "Really?" As we are seeing, the price of healthcare can be reflected in more than just the cost of, say, a broken arm. The cost of healthcare can also be spread around the economy in the form of lowered job prospects, lower take home pay, less patient choice, lower quality healthcare and higher costs for insurance coverage. Make no mistake, the ACA saves no money, it simply redistributes the costs of healthcare to those who have no influence in regard to bending the cost curve down. ==When one pays for healthcare via lower take home pay, by what method may they affect the cost of healthcare? ==When one is demoted to part time work due to the cost of healthcare, how may they lower the cost of healthcare so that they may return to full time work? ==When one finds themselves with fewer doctor choices as a result of the cost of healthcare, how may they affect change on the market so that they may once again have choice? The dawning reality for Americans is that it is a gross oversimplification to measure the cost of healthcare by the cost of the service alone whether that service be the cost of a broken arm or the cost of insurance. So, yes.... really, government intervention has raised the cost of healthcare in the US as well as other countries. One might say it is axiomatic.
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2014 on More free advice for Kay Hagan at EdCone.com
1 reply
You could start here. Some of these "older Americans who lost jobs during the recession" live in NC. Put them on TV, now. As Jim Buie might say, Other than anecdotal evidence, what economic analysis can you point to that has already, hastily, come to this conclusion, a month and a half after Obamacare went into full effect? The real question is, of course, what does a Democrat say to those who have been demoted to part time work as a result of the ACA or to those who have lost their jobs entirely due to the ACA? Do Democrats simply blame the interminable bad economy that has followed their Keynesian strategy? Many progressives paid a political price for supporting Prohibition, a mistake with more popular support (at least prior to 1930) than the ACA. Interestingly, it was only after 1930 and the onset of the Great Depression that anti-Prohibition forces gained political steam. It is not hard to imagine that the same progressives who supported Prohibition, feeling their offices slipping from their hands as the repeal of Prohibition gained traction, pointed to the Great Depression as a distraction. Of course, those progressives had an advantage over today's Democrats in that their prior support for Prohibition did not exacerbate the Great Depression. Democrats today do not have that same advantage. Democrats should, therefore, be careful when distracting voters with a poor economy that is arguably the result of a Democrat misallocation of resources toward healthcare when they should have been focused on the economy.
Toggle Commented Feb 17, 2014 on Backbone transplant at EdCone.com
1 reply
Thanks, Fred. I have not read that. However, as is the norm, I'd like to turn more philosophical... ====== Setting aside that the ACA not only resulted from but is operating as a pretense of democracy, I wonder how one can support the ACA as Ed does. Ed said, The first point: If we have some form of universal access to healthcare, as we do, and if there is no serious movement toward denying this universal access (that is, denying any care to those who can't pay), then there should be some form of universal insurance coverage. The second point: If our current form of universal access is broken, which it is, then we should find ways to improve it, such as making non-emergency care more widely available. While his points were admittedly difficult to argue with prior to the ACA we are no longer living at a point prior to the ACA; we are living under it. We now know its reality. The reality of the ACA is in line with the predictions made by its detractors. It is undeniable that there are now more people without insurance coverage than before the ACA. Furthermore, of those who have signed up only 10% had no insurance prior to the availability of the ACA. That means 90% of the ACA's new customers were kicked out of the insurance plan the they were promised they could keep. The ACA has done nothing for the 30 to 40 million uninsured who were dwelled upon prior to the ACA's passage and Americans as a whole are now worse off due to the ACA. Remainder of comment edited by ec. Post is about ACA and the Hagan race, comments should be, too. Save the fanfic about about my imagined political philosophy for other venues.Thanks!
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2014 on More free advice for Kay Hagan at EdCone.com
1 reply
I heard a good phrase today, "Running around the block to get next door." And I believe it aptly describes why prices for not only healthcare, but education as well rises faster than inflation despite the anti inflationary nature of technology on each. In both instances government has, with the intention of curbing costs, interfered with the market and has in each case driven costs higher. The solution? More government interference with the ACA in one hand and college loan expansions in the other. The result? Higher costs for each.... running around the block to get next door. I suppose I take it as axiomatic that the American virtue of trusting citizen solutions over government solutions begets actual solutions.
Toggle Commented Feb 10, 2014 on More free advice for Kay Hagan at EdCone.com
1 reply
Fred, It is interesting how quickly the CBO retreated from their analysis upon the executive's revisionism of the ACA. Either they don't even bother with pretense, that the executive acts without planing or, most likely, the CBO has been forced to work on the fly due to law that has become less and less a law in the American tradition and more and more something so foreign to Americans that they have difficulty recognizing it for what it is. Regardless, it is clear that a delay in even parts of the ACA results in improved job expectations... But perhaps Ed's right...Democrats should embrace the suck.
Toggle Commented Feb 10, 2014 on More free advice for Kay Hagan at EdCone.com
1 reply
For starters, the ad reflects the reality acknowledged by the Burr/Coburn/Hatch proposal -- our healthcare system really was broken and something has to be done to fix it ... I missed the assumed argument that before, during and after the passage of the ACA that nothing was broken in our healthcare. As I recall the two arguments were, one, "we need more government to fix healthcare" and, two, "we need lees government to fix healthcare." The former argument won out in the form of the ACA. Now we find that things are worse. == Insurance rates are higher. (we were promised an average $2500 savings) == Deductibles are higher. == More people have been forced off insurance than those who were once uninsured have gained insurance. == More people are out of work due to the ACA. (As the CBO notes ... free stuff is as much a disincentive to work as a tax.) == Once full time individuals have been forced into part time work due to the expense of the ACA. == Many of us have not been allowed to keep their doctor ot their insurance plans as promised. Ed, many of these are structural issues. ...I suppose your free advice for Kay is free for a reason.
Toggle Commented Feb 10, 2014 on More free advice for Kay Hagan at EdCone.com
1 reply
Here is someone who would eschew Matheny's vacuous embrace of micromanaged economic plans that benefit big whales, big government and to a lesser degree Greensboro as a whole. Rand Paul spoke to Greensboro on the topic of economic development last night: …I have an idea that will empower Americans and give them the opportunity to thrive. My plan is to create economic freedom zones in distressed areas all over the country, including my home state of Kentucky, which will leave more money in the hands of the people who earn it. In economic freedom zones, we’ll cut income and business taxes to a single flat rate of 5 percent. We’ll cut payroll taxes for employers and employees so folks will go home with more money in their paychecks. Burdensome, job-killing regulations will be removed, and business will expand. More money and more jobs will flow back to the areas that have suffered the most in this economic crisis. School choice will be expanded. Ryan points out the opportunity cost associated with rejecting ideas based on their simplicity, in this case trusting Americans to create collective positive results from the fertile soil of individual need and desire. It is that easy ... simply trust your neighbor.
Toggle Commented Jan 29, 2014 on What is Zack's plan? at EdCone.com
1 reply
It appears "Zack's Plan" is not easy, it's just vacuous. So while simplification, "easy" as some might denigrate it, is a hallmark of brilliance, those who would reject simplification as off topic are themselves simpletons embracing needless complexity.
Toggle Commented Jan 29, 2014 on What is Zack's plan? at EdCone.com
1 reply
I look forward to seeing what this plan is. Here's to hoping it is easy.
Toggle Commented Jan 27, 2014 on What is Zack's plan? at EdCone.com
1 reply
This may seem juvenile, but Why "Replacements" Ltd.? Their site offered no explanation that I could find.
Now, House Republicans are pushing a one-year delay. This plays right into the Democrats' hands because it helps them escape accountability for Obamacare during the 2014 election cycle. Does the one year delay delay all of ObamaCare, including the addictive sweeteners, or just the requirements that apply to the individual such as the penalty/tax and mandates?
Toggle Commented Sep 29, 2013 on Richard Burr, GOP Goat at Triad Conservative
Zimmerman was a quasi-vigilante. Vigilantism arises when local citizens feel endangered, and perceive that police are not doing an adequate job. If vigilantism is to be regarded as a problem, then the solution must be effective, strong police work. But some of the most prominent voices in the black community seek to undermine the police. This certainly is true in Greensboro. Oh, my...
Perhaps this is the division I am looking for. Congress/State. Congress has failed liberty, but perhaps the states can do the job our statist congress will not. I'm thinking there might be something to this: while still attempting to slow progressivism via the traditional failed venues, the executive, judicial, and congress we should consider picking up a tool long ignored and possibly forgotten by liberalism ... amending the Constitution via the several states. I have yet to see the proposed amendments.
Toggle Commented Jul 11, 2013 on All-American Liberty at Triad Conservative
While I have always felt great patriotism toward country I have felt little of the same toward the American Government. However I am now at the point where I am having difficulty separating government from country. I don't like where I am right now, but mostly because I see no solution. And having tried it once I don't favor a split country, though if Texas were to secede that would have a certain appeal to me. I tend to favor a migratory solution such that states lost to statim are left by liberty seeking inhabitants for purple states. In this way a relatively small number of individuals could lever their influence and affect positive change against both the resistance of government and the lethargy of the citizenry. This could not only conceivably shift the libertarian/statist balance of power but do so in a low impact way that governance would be hard pressed to resist. There is another name for this...fantasy. No, I don't like where I am right now.
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2013 on All-American Liberty at Triad Conservative
This fourth I am reminded of these words not only in a patriotic sense but in the way that they were originally intended: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Sad...
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2013 on All-American Liberty at Triad Conservative
The previous comment was incomplete. I believe libertinism has spawned a new "church lady" and her name is Liberal, Democrat, Progressive, Green, etc... Some might call her Bloomberg. I tend to think of her as Liberal Temperance. The reality is that liberty in the absence of self restraint is anarchy and it takes no more than the whiff of anarchy for a new order of restraint to be imposed by government. And liberals love to impose restraint. 'You drive too much. You spend too much. All your health-care belong to us. You eat too much. You people visit our national parks too much. No salt for you. And we have a law for that.' On and on and on... The choice is ours, individual restraint and liberty or state restraint without liberty.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2013 on All-American Liberty at Triad Conservative
There is a new "church lady" in town and her name is Liberal, Progressive, Green, etc... The reality is that liberty in the absence of self restraint is anarchy and it takes no more than the whiff of anarchy for restraint to be imposed by government. The choice is ours, individual restraint
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2013 on All-American Liberty at Triad Conservative
Though no less offensive, it would be cheaper to rename Martin Luther King Jr Drive **Hollywood Drive** if Greensboro so needs a touch of Hollywood. Yes! Stars included.
I look forward to it.
Our government has failed liberty, our political parties are failing liberty, and with the atrophy of the TeaParty, the disinterest toward libertarianism, and the support for feckless Republicans, the individual too is failing liberty. When liberty is not even demanded by the citizens to the degree necessary to overcome the intransigence of governance I do not know where you are digging. "Vessel" -- Triad Conservative I like that term. It connotes a certain transience. Individuals, political parties and governments are each poorer vessels for liberty than the prior. Regardless, each is no more than a vessel for liberty, each a home for liberty for only a time. Just as liberty was passed from the founders to their descendants, and liberty in varying degrees passed from the Whigs to Republicans, liberty passes from nations. Unfortunately as far as nations are concerned I see no evidence that liberty has ever passed into a nation. Is it America to which you have fealty or is it liberty? They are increasingly not one in the same. Patriotism can be blind, hope for a political party disappointing, and trust in a delusional citizenry unforgiving.
Bubba: The solution is to maintain common good sense approach to programs like this, and for the Republicans in power to remeber they're not Democrats buying votes from a victims' group. I don't know, Bubba. When I cast a look back over the last 100 years I see no slowing of progressivism. While it has stumbled on occasion, even earning multiple black eyes from eugenics to prohibition to failed policies regarding poverty and economics none of these failures are commonly associated with progressivism, liberals or Democrats. Progressivism is immune to failure. Obama. Again and again the argument is made that the fault is in too much liberty, too little regulation, too little government, or this or that bureaucracy does not exist. And again and again those arguments are accepted. There is a reason for this. I believe it is that the spark of liberty can only be found at the birth of a government and in the hands of individuals, a moment during which the influence of amorphous governance is not corrosive to liberty as it is a moment when governance is not yet in existence. It is when government comes into existence that the corrosion of liberty begins. Perhaps this corrosion propels progressive success or perhaps progressivism is the corrosion of liberty in name. Regardless it is axiomatic that liberty wanes in the company of waxing governance. And furthermore, while the spark of liberty is found in the hands of individuals creating government, the spark of liberty, despite conservative, TeaParty, or Libertarian desire, can not be found in governance itself. That is the root of our disappointment in McCrory. We expect liberty to flow from those we empower but find ourselves far more frequently disappointed than pleased with our representatives. That is because they are not individuals creating government but rather individuals working within existing liberty stifling governance. And more personally it also explains why I am increasingly giving up on conservative candidates and more generally giving up on a fight that in the face of 100 years of failure has proven to be no more than effort wasted. Perhaps I am giving up on America, leaving it to its destiny. I have come to believe that the only way to keep liberty alive is through periodic reignition as there is no rekindling of liberty on the coals of previous success. As a result I am increasingly on the lookout for a new start to liberty. It might be in a state that chooses secession, it might be in a movement in which those who desire liberty go "Mormon" on a state and through relocation overwhelm that state's politics such that it represents the views of liberty and possibly even chooses to secede. It might be found in the unforeseen. Do you see the spark of liberty ... anywhere, Bubba? ======== BTW after Google pulled the rug out from under my reader, I created a WordPress based reader for myself that focused on local politics and econ; I later realized I had put together an aggregator with a very effective filter.