Monday, December 28, 2009

Broken Hockey Sticks and Other Climate Change Deceptions

Read Biship Hills Blog "The Yamal implosion" for the best explanation I've read to date about the infamouse "hockey stick" graph that shows a supposed unprecedented warming in the 20th century. But…When Steve McInty revised the dataset with a greater number of core samples from Fritz Schweingruber's collection, which Keith Briffa left out of his analysis, the results were mind boggling. The sharp up spike that appears in Briffa’s graph at the end of the twentieth century had vanished.

Here is a graph depicting the IPCC (Keith Briffa & Mann) "Hockey Stick" that shows dramatic warming in the 20th century:

Here is Steve McIntyre's graph overlaid on top of Briffa's "Hockey Stick":

Thursday, August 6, 2009

The Immorality of Socialized Health Care

We have all heard the arguments against government “anointed” health care: The high unsustainable costs, the monopolies it will create, the special interest it will create, the lucrative contracts to favored constituencies it will create, the forfeiture of choice, the rationing, which ultimately leads to a total government takeover.

All are valid arguments; however, let’s not forget the most fundamental argument of all, which is: Health care is NOT a right.

A right is a moral sanction of mans actions. It says one’s actions are proper and good. Therefore to violate a man’s right is immoral and evil. The fundamental right, of which all others are corollaries, is the right to life. What this means in practical terms, is the right to live for one’s self not for the sake of others. The primary implementation of mans rights is to pursue a standard of living of one’s own choosing free from force or coercion. The only moral purpose of government, then, is to protect these rights. If government extends it powers beyond protecting these rights into the aggressive role of confiscating people’s wealth for the greater good of society, government becomes a tyrant plundering the people.

Any artificial right, such as the right to health care, destroys the real rights of people by forcing them to pay for the health care of those who cannot afford it. This is aggressive force to take one’s income and give it to another.

It is neither moral nor well intended to lay claim to the rewards of someone else’s productivity. It is vicious and predacious to demand a good or service without compensation, or to force someone else to pay for it. A right by its very nature makes no claim on someone else’s property or income, a right as our founders conceived it, only applies to the freedom of action not the compulsion of others. In other words these new rights, such as in the case of universal health care, which require the coercion of others cannot be a right. Such new rights are in fact immoral and evil.

What government health care—or any other form of government created publicly funded program that redistributes wealth or subsidizes one group at the expense of another—does, is it turns the productive in society into serfs of the state.

The CNN Propaganda Machine Spinning Obamacare

On Sunday I was working out at the gym and watching CNN. The pundit being interviewed—no idea who she was—made a very confusing comment. After reviewing the healthcare legislation that is now before the House of Representatives she commented there is nothing in there that would create a single payer source for health care coverage.

I have to call her out on that statement. According to Investors Business Daily, who sought clarification on the bill from the House Ways and Means Committee, reports the bill provides prohibitions against insures signing up new accounts after the bill goes into effect.

In the bill listed under "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," in the "Limitation on Enrollment" section on Page 16:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.”

The House Ways and Means Committee told Investors Business Daily that in fact the bill prohibits those who currently have private health care from changing it. And those who leave their employer to work for themselves won’t be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, a democrat from Illinois, was speaking to a group of socialized health care supporters when she admitted that one goal of Obama’s socialized health care plan would be to kill private insurance companies in the process of “reform.”

Barak Obama himself reported he wanted to instill a single payer source universal health care system.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

However 80% of Americans are happy with their current health plans and as more details are released the Democrat health care plan is rapidly loosing public support so the news media like CNN, who worship at the alter of Obama, have to step up efforts to spin Obamacare to make it more palatable to the masses.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Can We Really Afford Universal Health Care?

The predominate argument made by the President and congressional liberals for pushing their health care agenda is that it will save the government money in the long run by containing costs. In his usual histrionic fashion Mr. Obama argues his health care plan is vital to controlling future costs and deficits.

"If we do not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit," Obama said. "If we do not reform health care, your premiums and out-of-pocket costs will continue to skyrocket. If we don't act, 14,000 Americans will continue to lose their health insurance every single day. These are the consequences of inaction. These are the stakes of the debate we're having right now."

In yet another foolishly candid moment, Vice President Joe Bidden, in a tryst with the AARP told attendees at a town hall meeting that without the Democrat health care plan the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

The Democrats want to spend their way into a healthy economy, which throughout history has never worked. The only way to pay for it is to tax an already overtaxed people or borrow the money further increasing the deficit.

Can government spending really save the economy? It has never worked; every time it has been tried it was a dismal failure. It was tried during the great Depression and it failed, Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, wrote in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…We have never made good on our promises…I say after eight years of administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started…and an enormous debt to boot.” The result of Jimmy Carter’s price fixing and tax and spend polices to combat the 1970’s recession was stagflation. Maybe the Democrats in Washington think it will work this time—what is the definition of insanity again: Repeating the same behavior expecting a different outcome? I digress.

According to Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, the house plan shows no fundamental changes hat would reduce the costs of federal health care spending by any significant amount. Instead, the legislation significantly increases the costs the federal government will be responsible to pay.
The CBO estimates the cost will run $1 trillion and will only cover one third of the 48 million uninsured Americans. Furthermore the CBO reports 23 million Americans currently insured will loose their private health care plans.

An editorial in The Washington Times suggests it could be even more expensive costing upwards of $4.5 trillion. The article points out mistakes the CBO made in their calculations, grossly—though not intentionally—underestimating the costs. According to the article the CBO didn’t consider small businesses that employ 10 or less workers. Such businesses account for over 12 million employs and pays out 18.5 billion in health insurance per year. This adds up to $185 billion over ten years that the CBO didn’t take into account in their analysis.

The Washington Post article also quotes estimates made by the Lewin Group a health care policy consulting firm, that estimates that 119 million Americans will switch from their private health care plans to the government plan and if this happens the cost could easily swell to $4.5 trillion over the same 10 year period.

No matter how it all plays out the real burden to Americans will be astronomical; trillions of dollars will be added to the deficit over the next 10 years, millions will loose their private insurance plans, at least 16 million Americans will still be without coverage, and competition between insurance companies and consumer choice will be eliminated by government mandates.

Mr. Obama, who wishfully promises: "we will pass reform that lowers cost, promotes choice and provides coverage that every American can count on, and we will do it this year,” is promoting a fantasy world that in reality will lead to unsustainable deficits, hyper inflation, and a total government takeover of health care.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Happy Independence Day

As I survey the crowds of flag waving 4th of July celebrators marveling at the grandiose displays of fireworks bursting above, I wonder, if they understand what it means to have individual rights.

I ask myself, do they realize the Boston Tea party was a protest against a government created monopoly? And if so, do they make the connection between then and what is happening today with our own government created monopolies; such as Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve, education (K-12), and others?

Do they consider that the battles of Lexington and Concord began over the confiscation of privately owned firearms? Do they make the connection that today we have places in America where gun ownership is virtually prohibited while in others it is strictly limited?

Do these revelers really understand that we are less free and more heavily taxed than our ancestors under British rule?

Is this really a celebration of the American Revolution—the taking up of arms against one’s own tyrannical government…I wonder which side they would have been on—or is it just a celebration of cool flashy lights in the sky?

Happy Independence Day everybody.

Quote of The Day

Barack Obama has said his favorite President is Abraham Lincoln. But Obama and Lincoln are on the opposite sides of the ploitical spectrum. As Obama heads us down the road to socialism, here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say:

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.---Abraham Lincoln