This is too clever. I know.

In seeking solutions to our health insurance crisis, the most immediate action needed is to separate insurance from employment and allow the free market to organize efficient methods of pooling risk and resources. The tax system currently protects our inefficient scheme, to the benefit of some and the detriment of others. Fixing the flawed tax structure would detach the ability to purchase reasonable insurance from the requirement of joining a specific form of the corporate workforce, namely employment with a large company. The free market could then find the best solution(s).

In trying to resolve this, there’s a political argument we’re married to, which hinders real progress. Special interests have a stake in keeping the status quo. Most often it’s reduced competition, but any whim of the favored is accepted almost without question if the price is paid. We have to move beyond that. But what about saving traditional health insurance?

We’ve encouraged health insurance through a specific method of provisioning for decades. Everyone has the same right to cheap healthcare, as long as they join a company large enough to take advantage of group purchasing power and expense tax deductibility. If you differ from that viewpoint, that’s too bad.

Is it too bad? Should an individual’s preferences matter? Should we adjust the way society works just to accommodate people who have different needs? That’s absurd in the push to reform health insurance accessibility in America. Anyone who respects liberty understands that different people have different requirements. One solution may not work across the entire spectrum of individuals.

So why is the same logic not absurd to the people pushing for amendments to outlaw civil marriage reform?

I guess they haven’t over-reacted enough

I’ve witnessed the disturbing manner in which many Phillies phans have rushed to convict pitcher Brett Myers. I haven’t changed my mind about how to process his situation as a phan. His reputation is in shambles, most likely due to his own actions, but he does not deserve the rush to judgment. There will be time to condemn Mr. Myers later, should a conviction or guilty plea come. I think that’s still the reasonable view, which is why this story about his scheduled start tomorrow is bizarre to me:

Local groups dedicated to ending domestic violence have no plans to protest tomorrow’s Phillies game. Brett Myers is scheduled to make his first appearance at Citizens Bank Park since being charged with domestic assault and battery on his wife in Boston during the early morning of June 23.

“We are not planning a protest and I’m not aware of anyone who is,” Heather Keafer of Women Against Abuse said yesterday. “I think the fans have had great response in the past, and I’m hopeful they’ll continue their pressure to make sure that he’s held accountable for his actions.”

If they were planning to protest a man who is innocent until proven guilty, I’d be among those (maybe a party of one) protesting the protest. But to the point raised in this initial excerpt, that last sentence doesn’t bode well. I shouldn’t have to stop momentarily to point out that Mr. Myers’s actions are still alleged. Ms. Keafer’s call for the continued abandonment of American legal principles by the public is disturbing. Is she so unsure of the public’s acceptance that she’s on the correct side that she must encourage the mob’s mentality?

Continuing:

Keafer said the Phillies met last week with the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in an effort to develop a domestic violence policy. Women Against Abuse and three other domestic violence agencies in the city are members of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

“They’ve had one meeting so far, and part of that proposal is also to help support the Philadelphia domestic violence hotline, which is run by Women Against Abuse and three other domestic violence providers in Philadelphia,” Keafer said. “What we’re trying to do now is work with our state coalition to help the Phillies come up with a domestic violence policy and possible inclusion in their code of conduct.

It’s not a stretch to say that domestic violence is unacceptable. I doubt the Phillies disagreed before the alleged incident involving Brett Myers and his wife. Given their actions since his arrest, however belated (and over-reactionary) they may have been, it’s reasonable to assume the team understands the seriousness of this issue. They get the message, like everyone else. No surprise there. So why is this (alleged) incident by a player sufficient to encourage what appears to be nothing more than a shakedown of the Phillies?

With six zeros and two commas, nine equals ten

I’m not affected by Canadian lottery tax questions, but I’m strangely comforted to know that America isn’t the only nation obsessed soaking the rich for no better reason than they have more money.

Each week Ontarians spend hundreds of millions of dollars for a chance at quick riches and early retirements; while each week more stories surface about infrastructure costs skyrocketing and hospitals and schools crumbling. Reports of water and sewer systems needing upgrades abound, and the cost to even barely maintain roads puts ever-increasing tax burdens on residents.

Every Wednesday and Saturday night people young and old hope they are the holders of the next multi-million dollar ticket while the Ontario Lottery Gaming Commission awards prizes ranging from $1 or $2 to mega-millions. And unlike our neighbours to the south who pay a full 38 percent on all lottery and casino winnings, Ontarians receive 100 percent of their winnings and are exempt from any taxation on those winnings.

Fine so far, since taxing lottery winnings seems reasonable under the given assumptions that winnings are income and income should be taxed. That doesn’t have to imply any notion of progressive taxation, although that 38% figure jumps out. If there should be a lottery, tax it. Whatever. But as we’re conditioned to expect, this is the fun part:

It’s time municipalities start pushing the province to tax lottery winnings in an effort to raise the necessary funds to ensure future financial viability.

Would a 10 percent flat tax on all winnings in excess of $50,000 really impact the winner that much, or deter them from playing lotteries?

Does someone really need all $10 million in lottery winnings, or would $9 million be equally life-changing?

That’s not a justification for taxation. That merely exposes a belief that one person wants something and another person has the means to acquire that something. Since those two aren’t the same person, the first person decides it’s reasonable to take what he needs, by force of government. There’s nothing wrong with that, since he who has $9 million remaining should not worry about the extra million. The winner’s concern for the remaining million demonstrates how much he hates roads, hospitals, clean water, and children. Mostly the children.

The logic throughout is classic big government socialism, but that’s just telling the story. The last paragraph of the editorial shows it:

The costs to maintain what infrastructure we have are only going to increase. Municipalities need to start pushing now for more ways to generate funds that will be distributed among them in a non-competitive manner.

Or the municipalities could prioritize expenditures in a competitive manner and determine what’s most needed. It’s just a thought.

Cross-country network of dollars communication

Since politicians have already shown their economic ignorance through copious central planning, the unintended consequences caused by advances in communications technology will surely surprise them. I’m not surprised:

Rural phone-service subsidies are so bloated and inefficient that providing wireless or satellite phones is cheaper, an economic analysis prepared for a senior citizen advocacy group suggested yesterday.

Taxes to support the universal service fund, which is intended to pay for higher costs of serving rural areas, are growing so fast as to force some low-income people to drop phone service, said Thomas Hazlett, a George Mason University economist who prepared the analysis for the Seniors Coalition.

“It’s perverse when shifting tax money around for the universal service fund results in more people leaving the network than joining it,” said Hazlett.

Why I should subsidize those who choose to live in rural areas is a question I will never accept. Since it’s not up to me, I worked around it (and other similar questions of fees and taxes) years ago when I abandoned traditional phone service¹ almost five years ago. Now I use a combination of cellular and VoIP. I’ve never missed the land line, and I’ve definitely never missed the higher costs. I changed because I assessed my needs and made the decision that new technology satisfied my communication needs. No politician could know that.

More importantly, how much faster would rural customers have received phone service if politicians had let the free-market sort out customer requirements? Of course, that question is merely interesting because of the multiple interest groups involved. Each group wants it own special consideration, which only makes the tax structure confusing and the collection process more bureaucratic. For example:

Universal service subsidies have become so widespread that rural phone companies on average collect only 27 percent of their revenue from customer payments, Hazlett found. Even so, many rural customers are opting to drop traditional wired service to go wireless because “it’s cheaper, and they like the mobility,” he said.
…

Many rural carriers receive subsidies that exceed $1,000 a year per customer, with some subsidies topping $10,000 a year per customer, Hazlett said.

There will be no incentive to innovate in that atmosphere. Why bother, when the government will take from those living in cities and give through subsidies to those who don’t. There is no sense in this, other than politics. But politics rarely makes for good economics. It’s time to cut the apron strings and let each customer bear the cost of his choices.

¹ I have a land line today, but it’s the minimum service and is used only to provide communications for my home’s security system. Fees or not, I want emergency services contacted when necessary. I don’t think that gives politicians an open invitation to tax me for the economic inequality-du-jour.

Protecting America from the Constitution

The House legislation to bar federal courts from hearing constitutional challenges to “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is a bad idea. Whether its goal is to solidify federal recognition of the Christian God as ruler of America or to allow state and local courts to better reflect the supposed will of the people to force everyone to worship the same, nothing good can happen if the Senate passes its version. I suspect the Senate will choose to be the chamber where bad bills go to die, so I’m not particularly worried.

Instead, it’s worth highlighting two quotes from the debate. First:

“We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,” said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. “It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.”

Actually, our history cries out for religious tolerance and governmental indifference. Many of the first settlers of the New World fled religious oppression. That some of them wished to impose their own oppression here is worth noting, specifically because it failed. As evidence see the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is our true spiritual heritage. But, if this debate is about not rewriting history, how to explain this:

  • 1892 to 1923: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1923 to 1954: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”
  • 1954 to Present: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

It seems history can be rewritten. All Rep. Wamp wants is for us not to rewrite the historical rewrite. Wouldn’t honesty be a part of the Family Values Tour 2006, or whatever Republicans are calling this wrecking ball publicity stunt?

Second:

Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who sponsored the measure, said that denying a child the right to recite the pledge was a form of censorship. “We believe that there is a God who gives basic rights to all people and it is the job of the government to protect those rights.”

I believe that there is a Constitution which gives basic rights to each person and it is the job of the government to protect those rights. The facts support my position. The current state of civil liberties protections in America, as exhibited by the House and Senate, indicates that many of our leaders in Congress share Rep. Akin’s misconceptions. Instead, Rep. Akin holds a view of our government which allows him to enforce laws not supported by the Constitution, and to deny rights that conflict with what he believes people should do. Denying a child the ability to say the Pledge of Allegiance, with its recent addition of “under God”, may be censorship, but I wonder what he would call forcing a child to say something he doesn’t believe? Perhaps the honorable gentleman from Missouri thinks every child can’t wait to recite “under God,” but it’s also possible that some children notice the inherent flaw in American spiritual strength that forced religious patriotism represents.

He’s a political promise keeper

Two quick points on President Bush’s veto explanation, now that he’s actually used that power. (I know, I’m as shocked as you that it took him this long to discover a real power. With all the imagined powers he now has, you’d think he would’ve already burned through all of his real powers. Anyway…)

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” Bush said at the White House, following through on his promise to veto the bill. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect. So I vetoed it.”

First, if I was mistaken in my post yesterday, so is President Bush. Hopefully every Congressman who voted for the bill should call him out if he’s wrong. Otherwise, this is just politics as usual. Ahem…

Second, of all the reckless misadventures of the last 5½ years by the Congress and the Administration, this is the first to “cross a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect”? Right. Perhaps the President needs a better moral compass, one that involves civil liberties and fiscal responsibility.

Imagine the fun of National Healthcare!

I can’t imagine a better story to support my contention from yesterday that the federal government should not be funding medical research than this story:

Federally funded “pregnancy resource centers” are incorrectly telling women that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma, a minority congressional report charged yesterday.

The report said that 20 of 23 federally funded centers contacted by staff investigators requesting information about an unintended pregnancy were told false or misleading information about the potential risks of an abortion.

The pregnancy resource centers, which are often affiliated with antiabortion religious groups, have received about $30 million in federal money since 2001, according to the report, requested by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). The report concluded that the exaggerations “may be effective in frightening pregnant teenagers and women and discouraging abortion. But it denies the teenagers and women vital health information, prevents them from making an informed decision, and is not an accepted public health practice.”

It’s not essential to take the specific topic of abortion out of this debate. Like it or not, abortion is legal in America. If the federal government should be funding science, or not funding science for moral rather than constitutional reasons, does it not have the obligation to tell the truth? Or is the truth, as based on evidence, too inconvenient to fit with a specific political agenda? Just like I don’t want my tax dollars paying for circumcisions, religious Americans probably do not want their tax dollars paying for abortions. This isn’t a complicated argument. Keep the government checkbook out of science.

I hope Tom Clancy is not a prophet

If Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman paid any attention to national politics, he’d know that Gambling Is Bad and Americans Hate Gambling. But, until the House gets around to outlawing Las Vegas, Mayor Goodman is in charge. And Tom Clancy has him working feverishly to protect Las Vegas from its no doubt imminent economic collapse, thanks to his new “terrorists invade Las Vegas” edition of Rainbow Six:

“It could be harmful economically, and it may be something that’s not entitled to free speech (protection),” Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said of the game’s realistic scenes, which he had not personally viewed.

“It’s based on a false premise,” Goodman said, adding federal and state leaders have repeatedly assured him that Las Vegas is “the safest place imaginable” nearly five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the East Coast.

“I will ask … whether or not we can stop it,” Goodman said of the game’s planned November release.

In other news Destroy All Humans has completely turned me off the idea of visiting strange towns filled with stereotypical bumpkins. I might end up dead with my brain stem extracted through mental powers. Or worse, I might end up the victim of mind control and be forced to sing and run around in circles. And I definitely fear being in a hotel when a UFO launches a sonic boom or two at the structure’s foundation, thereby causing it to collapse. Why didn’t someone acknowledge that the game’s makers don’t deserve free speech because the resulting fictitious game might scare me?

As stupid as Mayor Goodman’s comment is, I’m going to happily give (hopefully legally take from, of course) Las Vegas some of my money next month when I’m there on vacation. He’s worrying for nothing.

Source: John Dvorak

Look through the way back machine

I read a lot more than I could ever or would ever post here about the recent studies linking circumcision to HIV prevention. My basic opposition to using that possible link hasn’t changed. It’s illogical to assume that the future, possibly risky sexual activities of a newborn should force a decision on his genitalia so prematurely. Such an irreversible decision should be delayed until he can decide. Nothing has changed in my stance.

Today, though, I thought of an example. Using basic generalizations, most new parents won’t have to worry about their child engaging in sexual activities for 15 to 20 years. Maybe a little optimistic, as I’m sure most will skew to the earlier range, but the point is the same. This long time frame gives science a chance to catch up. It also provides parents with a huge window in which to sneak in a few lessons in responsible personal behavior and the power of unintended consequences, but parents have mostly bypassed that in the nascent rush to change their reason for circumcising. The underlying desire to cut remains unchanged.

Here’s the example which shows the flaw in that rationale. Almost 15 years ago, I sat in my brother’s dorm room with a group of friends. We’d all heard there would be a shocking press conference. When it finally aired, we all watched as Magic Johnson retired from the NBA because he was HIV-positive. None of us could believe it, because more than losing one of the game’s greats, we knew his announcement was his own death sentence. He had HIV, which meant a horrible death from AIDS was soon to follow. That was the accepted wisdom.

Today, 15 years later, Magic Johnson is very much alive. He returned to the NBA twice, and now owns a successful chain of movie theaters. To my knowledge there are no indications that he is hampered or near death. Science caught up enough to keep him alive. More than that, his life isn’t merely an existence held together by machines and hospital beds and inactivity. He’s living with HIV. Where it used to be a death sentence, he can now manage his disease. I imagine it’s worrisome, but we no longer operate under the assumption that it must be fatal, and imminently so. That’s the power of science.

So, knowing that we’ll likely make significant progress in the next 15+ years, no one should use a possible correlation between HIV and the male prepuce as an excuse to abandon common sense. Life will always have risks, but those risks can be mitigated by responsible behavior. Responsible behavior can be taught and learned at any age. Given that the foreskin, once removed, can never be replaced, surgical amputation is extreme by today’s standards. But today’s standards are the wrong measure when dealing with infants. The future is where HIV risk will be relevant to today’s infants. Parents should look there and imagine what the answer should be.

Whatever it is, the answer is not circumcision today.

The Is he serious? Quote of the Day

From the article discussing President Bush’s threatened veto, explaining why he has kept his veto pen in its original packaging. (I guess it’s like collectible Star Wars figurines – worth more unopened.) Enjoy:

“By working closely with Congress — and by threatening vetoes when they were called for — discretionary spending has been kept in check and there hasn’t been a need to veto a spending bill,” said Scott Milburn, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.

I understand that Mr. Milburn has to toe the line, but seriously, wouldn’t it be better to say “No comment” when the reporter calls seeking quotes for a story on the lack of presidential vetoes? Discretionary spending has been kept in check? Who’s his speech writer, Tom DeLay? At least I got a chuckle out of it.