Insurance May Be Obstacle to Free Market Pricing

The current downward economic spiral has caused many Americans to adjust their budgets in an effort to save money. Costs are rising on everything from basic necessities to consumer goods while income is stagnating and unemployment rises. One major area that consistently consumes family spending is insurance products.

The principle of cost sharing and risk management has become a necessary evil in light of the high cost associated with unforeseen events and catastrophes but insurance now seems to be accepted as a means to providing a way of life.

The most talked about example is our health care system which causes insurance rates to increase annually by as much as 40%. Obviously, this model cannot continue to outpace wages and inflation and hope to carry on business as usual. Insurance companies are often accused as the cause but there is enough blame to go around. Insurance companies have just as much right to make a profit as any other industry yet medical providers try to pass the buck to insurance companies when they are questioned about exponential increases in their fees.

As a cancer survivor, I know first hand the value of medicine from research and development to diagnostics and treatment but I am also aware of the bloated nature of the industry. One example is the new heart scan technology that when first introduced, most insurance carriers would not cover and the subsequent price was about $300 while 25 year old CT scan technology is commonly negotiated down to about $3,500. The small office where I receive regular CT scans does an average of fifteen scans per day six days a week roughly totaling $2,730,000 a year in gross revenue. Even after operation cost for radiologists, technicians, equipment purchase/service and office overhead, it is still a tremendous profit margin.

The problem has become that the use of insurance has trained us to think that someone else is paying for our use of these services and no forethought is given to how much it is actually going to cost. Rarely if ever do we predetermine what doctor we will consult with or what medicine we take based on the price. This is perpetuated by the medical profession’s mantra “you can’t put a price on your health” but a price can be placed on health if by accepting any cost it would jeopardize ones ability to carry on the rest of their life. The medical industry is simply not market based because the end users are not determining the prices based on their ability to pay. We have allowed fees to be established between two parties that both profit from our lack of involvement in the process.

For far too long, employees of large companies who provided full benefits have taken for granted medical usage but current trends are causing employers to pass their insurance costs directly on to the workers. As these self-funded rates increase so does the awareness of the problem of exploding insurance premiums and their inability to stomach these costs. Small business owners and the self employed have long known of the problem and now represent a growing number of uninsured workers due to unmanageable rate increases.

Insurance policies can also be an attraction to those seeking to profit through frivolous lawsuits. Medical malpractice is clearly a growing cost to health care providers and homeowner’s are often encouraged to purchase umbrella policies for legal occurrences outside the realm of natural disasters. Many professional trades are now required to carry liability policies which cover errors and omissions to offer a method of recourse for damages.

This seismic shift in our view of insurance has ironically caused our utter dependence on it. Insurance is not an anti-capitalistic concept and has historically been a way to protect us from risk, but now appears to be transforming into a perceived entitlement. We are told by politicians that we have a right to health care, a comfortable retirement and an education. Is a college preparedness policy going to be offered so we won’t have to worry about saving for college tuition? Our dependence on insurance appears to be here to stay and will not diminish until we decide how much of our income we are willing to spend on it.

Verdict Still Out on Fairness Doctrine

For the past several years, there have been references to re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine to control the airwaves and now the debate has new life due to statements by key Democratic legislators. This time though, it may also include the internet and other media outlets.

The basic premise of the Fairness Doctrine is intended to allow equal time for opposing viewpoints but has primarily been directed at conservative talk radio sensations like Rush Limbaugh. Specifics of how such mandates would be carried out and enforced has been vague thus far and has many on the right justifiably fearful.

If this succeeds it would clearly be an attack on free speech and the First Amendment of the Constitution but there are doubts how far this could actually go. Media vehicles such as syndicated radio, broadcast and cable news networks, and endless internet forums have proven to be major economic forces that will not be silenced easily or without a fight assuming that the laws would apply equally to all media.

The deeper discussion is to have a clear understanding of reality. Networks like the defunct Air America (I was one of the 23 regular listeners) did not fail because of conservative strong arm tactics but rather because it had no substantial audience…translation; they were not profitable. If anyone thinks that giants like Clear Channel and Fox would not air more liberal shows if they were proven to be profitable, they are delusional; look at the liberal entertainment side of the Fox network if you have any doubt. At the end of the day ratings win and ratings mean money which eludes to the old adage that if money talks, you know what walks.

The simple reason that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham do so well is because they appeal to a demographic that actually listens and watches. Remember that NPR, Alan Colmes, Stephanie Miller, Tom Joyner and similar liberal pundits also exist but we are not hearing cries for them to be equaled out by an opposing viewpoint. Will the blatant bias of major organizations like NBC, CBS or ABC also fall under the umbrella of analysis?

There is no argument that Fox News overwhelmingly appeals to conservatives but this is because of its op/ed formatted shows. Its top rated programs are not the hard news segments which have been “fair and balanced” but rather its admitted right wing commentators. I would love to see a breakdown on the political demographics of viewer ship for all major news networks because I suspect that a fair amount of viewers to the more left leaning CNN and MSNBC are still conservative yet liberals will not watch FNC. This is why I contend that more conservative TV viewers are more inclined to watch news programs.

If House Democrats do indeed propose the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine, it will happen because they desire to silence the opposition. This will not only include political speech but you can bet that religious broadcasting will be high on that list as well. It will be justified with the banner of ridding our land of hate and intolerance or any number of redefined verbiage that elevates liberalism as the only defender of humanity.

Inner City Politics Continue Plight of Poverty

If the past months have not revealed anything else, it is that poverty stricken urban areas are desperate for change even if they may not fully understand what kind of change. This has applied to all demographics including black and white communities and to a lesser degree; the Hispanic population.

Americans can not possibly move forward or consider alternatives to inner city issues without first examining history. By and large, these communities have voted Democratic for decades and have had almost exclusively democrat representation ever since. Those elected have consistently implemented liberal ideals in the form of multiple welfare programs (General Relief, ADC, WIC), housing assistance, business loans and a plethora of similar stimulus packages. All may have been born of good intentions but most all of these programs have failed miserably in their stated goal of providing opportunities to rise above their circumstances.

As a student, I worked in an inner city clinic of Columbus for four and half years and got to see on a daily basis the state of affairs that liberalism has wrought on our country. As a real estate professional today, my frequent assignments in these areas has revealed no upward movement a generation later. Crime rates continue to soar and drug use, broken families and failed businesses make up the landscape. The only sense of community is often between gang members.

Home ownership has been made possible in recent years by the lowering of lending standards yet inner city housing markets are predominantly investor controlled. Foreclosures have been rampant and vacant boarded-up properties drive values down leaving little equity growth for existing owner occupants.

Economic conditions continue to stagnate and worsen as the cycle continues of electing the same old politicians. These manipulative leaders use the struggles of the poor against them by feeding them a steady diet of class warfare, racism and a sense of entitlement. Their only goal remains to strengthen their power and financial position. Rep. Charles Rangel even defended his $774/month lease of a luxury automobile by claiming “my constituents appreciate it”. Is that because they can only dream of owning such a car?

When will the people in these neighborhoods and communities realize that Republicans can not be blamed for their circumstances when after forty plus years of liberal policies have been enacted on their behalf, they remain in the same position? Maybe it is time for a new direction that has seemed to work very well for suburban areas…conservative principles.

Obama Wins By Turning Water to Kool Aid

The results of Election Day 2008 should not have come to a shock to anyone. The final days and hours of the campaign brought forth such emotion from Obama supporters; the press could not ignore the trend that was occurring and subsequently reported little else.

In total euphoria, quotes from Obama supporters ranged from vague to obsurd. Some were claiming their jubilation that they would not have to worry about how to fill their gas tanks or pay their mortgages while others quoted generic catch phrases like hope and change were now possible. The mood was frighteningly parallel to a cult-like atmosphere where followers almost appeared brainwashed in their declaration of submission to the President Elect. Even Oprah Winfrey could hardly contain herself from an emotional orgasm when interviewed by the media.

Obamas elixir has consistently been all encompassing tag lines designed to appeal to the masses. Seldom does he ever divulge his true convictions unless caught on film in an intimate forum (ie. Joe the Plumber) nor does he rely on past accomplishments to illustrate his capabilities and historical contributions. He has instead fed us a heavy dose of ambiguous slogans and a monotone speaking style that appears non-confrontational. In fact, the very first time I saw him was in a round table discussion as a State legislator and I clearly remember thinking to myself “if the Democrats nominate this guy, he will win”. It was not based on any substantive points he made but rather exclusively on his demeanor and it appears I was prophetic. The vast majority of the groupies that worship at the Obama altar are eerily similar to the Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate cult except in this case, they don’t lose their lives physically but rather sacrifice their intellect and freedom for a leader who appears messianic.

It is not good for any leader to possess this much control over any persons mind whether they are Democrat or Republican. Thinking for ourselves and not trusting in failed concepts of the past is what promises a bright future. In regards to hope and change; I have hope that these easily swayed voters will figure out what they truly believe, will then reconcile it with their decisions and then will act on conviction and not emotion. That will be the real change we need.

Olbermann Skit Is Admission of Bias

Saturday Night Live is no newcomer to political satire but celebrity host Ben Affleck nailed an impersonation of Keith Olbermann that was so funny it may not have even been humor.

Olbermann is the host of MSNBC’s Countdown show and nightly tirades against Republicans and conservative principles despite claiming to be objective. His diatribes are often characterized by cleverly crafted insults that reveal his obvious dependence on a thesaurus. What Olbermann is not, is a journalist. He routinely belittles right wing commentators Bill O-Reilly and Sean Hannity but doesn’t seem to understand that he and fellow MSNBC host Rachel Maddow are their left wing counterparts. Many have said his anger is contrived but a look into his eyes during the “Worst Person in the World” segment of the show seems to reveal a seething vitriol that borders on hate…interesting for a guy who heralds tolerance.

The mere fact that the SNL skit had Ben Affleck, a self-avowed Liberal, perform the Olbermann routine was somewhat humorous but more importantly SNL airs on NBC which is the parent company of MSNBC. The only issue with the skit was its long length which eventually started to wear on viewers, not unlike Olbermann’s Countdown. Though he may be MSNBC’s flagship show, many wish he would have stuck to his sportscaster gig.

Pro-Choice Supporters Must Make Decisive Choice

A recent news story reported that Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden was addressing a Catholic group where he quoted Thomas Aquinas in defending his stand for abortion. His assertion being that there is no clear definition of when life truly begins.

When we engage in the debate over abortion, this is the only logical place we can possibly start. Assuming that both sides can agree that the concept of murder is morally and lawfully wrong, they both must make the determination of where life begins to support their position. If the proponents and opponents of abortion do not make the distinction of what is life and what is not, then they are on shaky ground. They must then face the fact that if they are even slightly wrong in their timeline, then they might in effect, be supporting murder. If one randomly selected the third trimester as the “life-point” then an abortion after this point would be murder.

The point must also be made that whatever “life-point” is selected, it must be clearly supported and consistent and contain no loopholes. If it is defined by a trimester stage, then how can a mother be absolutely sure of what day the sperm entered the nucleus of the egg or if it is at birth, what is birth? Proponents of partial birth abortion must believe it is when the body has completely exited the birth canal yet others might believe that the umbilical cord must be cut. Life at conception is certainly the safest position to take since it starts at the origination of pregnancy and therefore has no prior point to contend for life.

It is asinine to claim the mantra of the issue only being about a “woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body”. A woman clearly does not have the right to end the life of a child after one week, one month, or one year simply because she concludes that a child would be an inconvenience. The determination that this child was a life was already made at some point.

Abortion is not a simple issue but everyone in the debate must first have some kind of foundation. Once some basics are established, only then can the various scientific, moral and Scriptural arguments be applied.

Undecided Epilogue

Just hours after posting "Undecided Voter or Uninformed Citizen", Fox News just ran a trailer of a John Stossel report that will air later this week on ABC. In the preview, Stossel hits the street to ask simple political questions to which he receives a barrage of ridiculous and even silly answers. Just after the clip, a focus group of more undecided voters were asked regarding the Stossel report, if these uninformed voters should be voting to which the majority answered absolutely not.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, this is simply unbelievable and makes my point in the earlier post that this so called "middle ground" voter is largely not a well-reasoned group. Unfortunately, this is what Presidential politics is all about these days and illustrates why both parties live and die by 30 second sound-bites. The majority of the voting masses could not comprehend anything more and clearly make no further effort to inform themselves.

People get the government they deserve.

Undecided Voter or Uninformed Citizen?

As the 2008 Presidential election nears, the media has given us a large dose of polling data that indicates that Senator Obama is likely to win due to the large influx of new registered voters and a sizeable shift in the undecided category. While I do generally agree that this is the case, few seem to be asking deeper questions about what these groups really believe or know about either Senator Obama or Senator McCain. NBC political reporter Chris Mathews has frequently utilized the term “low information” voter particularly in regards to those attending McCain/Palin rallies but is this more indicative of Republicans than those about to vote Democrat?

Recent headlines have reported that organizations such as ACORN have registered thousands of people to vote and have even taken them to early voting locations to cast their ballots. While the premise of “getting out the vote” sounds good in theory, there are valid concerns that there may be more to this than the left wants us to believe.

Despite the increasing reports of multiple registrations and fictitious voters, the more important question should be where these groups are focusing their efforts. Most of the new voters are in two key demographics…college students and poverty stricken communities. College students typically have a high trend to vote more progressive and therefore liberal and low/no income voters are historically more likely to support a ticket that promises benefits. We rarely if ever see these same organizations fighting for college votes on conservative or Christian university campuses or setting up shop in the suburbs at a soccer match. This in part is due to the fact that they know their audience and part due to their partisan directives. The homeless have also been a source for new votes here in Ohio and a Federal circuit court even ruled that a park bench must be accepted as a valid address for voter registration. These groups are without a doubt just not as informed about political issues as many of the voters are on the more left and right end of the spectrum. College students have had little time to figure out their world view in light of limited life experience and many in poverty fall prey to the class warfare tactics of the left due to their circumstances. I don’t mean to imply in any way that such demographics shouldn’t be voting but rather am simply pointing out who it is that liberal organizations and the Democrats are relying on to win.

Another recent study indicated that only about 15% of the general population knew who Nancy Pelosi was and that seems to be very telling that very few actually read, watch or listen to any news outlets. This is scary considering that Pelosi is the Speaker of the House and third in succession to the Presidency.

Focus groups always seem to have people who claim they have not made up their mind, yet during debates and roundtable discussions, they inevitably conclude they will likely vote for the candidate who made them feel better. Knowing that the two mainstream parties are vastly different on most issues, how could anyone who claims to be informed and knows their own convictions, be torn about who they are voting for?
I encourage all to vote but only if they are engaged in the debate and have a reasonable understanding of various issues, ideologies and where the candidates stand on each. After all, how can anyone be informed if they don’t first understand what they believe and more importantly why they believe it.