Avik Roy has produced a superb summary of the first year of ObamaCare and projections for the second and subsequent years: Year One of the Obamacare Era A look back, [...]
healthcare

Collapsing civilizations happen infrequently. The process, at least in the beginning, is slow and unnoticed. Even in advanced stages, most people are oblivious to what is happening. They mistake a symptom, economic hard times, with the cause, political corruption.
At some point the political leadership realizes their Ponzi scheme is nearing an end and their positions are at risk. As political fear increases, government behavior changes. Governments begin to do things that would otherwise be unacceptable, even unthinkable. These changes are rationalized as necessary for the good of society when in fact they are mainly made to protect the leadership class.
The US government has passed this point as evidenced by the heretofore unimaginable amounts of taxpayer money used to bail out banks, use of the Federal Reserve in ways never intended and an inability to accomplish even the most rudimentary tasks of government (controlling corruption, producing a budget, controlling spending, etc.).
Contracts and the law no longer seem to matter. That was apparent in the GM bankruptcy when bondholders, in a preferred position in a bankruptcy, had their rights abrogated arbitrarily so that the government could reward unions. It is further apparent in President Obama’s flaunting the Constitution by bypassing Congress. But perhaps the seminal and defining event might be the MF Global failure.
MF Global has scared many investors, casting doubt upon our developed financial system. They are worried about whether their money is safe in brokerage houses and other financial institutions like banks. The law was violated in the MF Global situation, as explained by Mac Slavo and Barrons:
As the financial house of cards collapses around us, investors who think they are holding real assets with the claim ticket being a stock certificate, bond or even precious metal warehouse receipt better wake up.
The latest revelation from the MF Global ponzi debacle proves, yet again, that if it’s not in your possession you don’t own it. Take heed.
It’s one thing for $1.2 billion to vanish into thin air through a series of complex trades, the well-publicized phenomenon at bankrupt MF Global. It’s something else for a bar of silver stashed in a vault to instantly shrink in size by more than 25%.That, in essence, is what’s happening to investors whose bars of silver and gold were held through accounts with MF Global.
The trustee overseeing the liquidation of the failed brokerage has proposed dumping all remaining customer assets—gold, silver, cash, options, futures and commodities—into a single pool that would pay customers only 72% of the value of their holdings. In other words, while traders already may have paid the full price for delivery of specific bars of gold or silver—and hold “warehouse receipts” to prove it—they’ll have to forfeit 28% of the value.
That has investors fuming. “Warehouse receipts, like gold bars, are our property, 100%,” contends John Roe, a partner in BTR Trading, a Chicago futures-trading firm. He personally lost several hundred thousand dollars in investments via MF Global; his clients lost even more. “We are a unique class, and instead, the trustee is doing a radical redistribution of property,” he says.
Roe and others point out that, unlike other MF Global customers, who held paper assets, those with warehouse receipts have claims on assets that still exist and can be readily identified.
Source: Barron’s via Yahoo
The entire paper system – from stocks to bonds – is coming unhinged. There are trillions of dollars in debt across the world, and all of it is nothing but a number on someone’s balance sheet. In essence, the majority of it exists only in the virtual world. While you may think you have claim to a physical asset in exchange for that certificate, receipt or note, what you really have is a promise from an entity that may very well be insolvent and unable to make good.
Financial institutions and brokerage houses like MF Global are just the tip of the iceberg. The accounting practices of our government are far worse, and the consequences of collapse significantly more dangerous. When MF Global collapsed, customers lost access to their precious metals and other investments. When our monetary system, predicated on the same ponzi scheme as insolvent financial companies, crashes, holder of US dollars, much like those MF Global warehouse receipts, will be wiped out in terms of purchasing power, and it will likely be a devaluation much more than just 25%.
But when that happens the holders of those notes won’t be trying to cash them in for precious metals. Rather, they will find that their paper Federal Reserve Notes will buy far less food and gas, if any at all.
We are witnessing a complete and total assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law by corrupt politicians. The system is on the verge of collapse and they are desperate. The political elite and their cronies will do anything — ANYTHING! — to protect themselves and what they deem as their rightful spoils.
Perhaps “mattress investing” is the safest of all.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that will require every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone to prove they are a citizen! –Author unknown
The nonsense of government and the notion that it can manage medical costs is discussed below by ThinkMarkets. Every society, no matter how rich, must deal with scarcity. It has always been so and always will be. If a good is in virtual unlimited supply, it is not an economic good in the sense that it is free. Think of air as an example.
By definition, an economic good is scarce. That is, there are more potential users (demand) than the supply can accommodate. Thus all economic goods must be “rationed” via some means. The issue is not rationing, but who will do the rationing. The free-market price system is our traditional means. Because individuals don’t have the same intensity of demand for goods, they can alter their purchases in such a way as to maximize their individual satisfaction within limited means.
The other alternative is to have some central planning agency make decisions for everyone. In this case, everyone will get the same amount regardless of whether it is wanted or needed. The only way to effect such a system is by force — do this or else!
The following article discusses healthcare from these two perspectives.
Posted: 06 May 2011 08:32 AM PDT
by Mario Rizzo
The Financial Times reports today that the Republicans may be backing away from the (Paul) Ryan proposal eventually to replace traditional Medicare with subsidies for the purchase of private insurance. The Financial Times says, “This would shift exposure to rising health costs away from the government and on to seniors…” Of course, this is literally true if there is never an increase in the dollar amount of the subsidy, an unlikely event in view of the regular increases in Social Security benefits.
Putting aside, for the moment, the details of the Ryan plan, what many voters refuse to understand is the unpleasant choice they inevitably face. Either cost-control by the consumers or cost-control Continue reading »
Arnold Kling, in Morality and Medicare, discusses the issues facing us with Medicare. Our choices are stark as he suggests below:
Mr Ryan’s plan ends the guarantee that all American seniors will have health insurance. The Medicare system we’ve had in place for the past 45 years promises that once you reach 65, you will be covered by a government-financed health-insurance plan.
The key word here is promises. There is essentially zero chance that the government will keep its current promises. The author concludes,
I agree with Mr Ryan that the government needs to limit taxpayers’ exposure to Medicare cost inflation. I think this plan is a fundamentally immoral way to do it.
Baloney sandwich. The term “cost inflation” means a pure increase in prices charged for the same services. Some of that takes place. But most of the rise in health care spending reflects increased use of expensive inputs, in particular fancy equipment and medical specialists.
There are always three ways to deal with the increased usage of premium medicine.
a) have government experts ration medical services
b) give consumers fixed amounts of money based on income and medical condition, and having them make their own decisions
c) tell people that neither (a) nor (b) is necessary
Remember that what everybody wants for themselves is unlimited access to medical services without having to pay for them. So the politics of health care push in the direction of (c). I am always ready to have the debate between (a) and (b). But instead, politicians and pundits attack (b) with (c). That is fundamentally immoral.
———
Reagan on Socialized MedicineFrom Townhall.com comes this piece reminding us of the prescience of Ronald Reagan: While still a Hollywood man, Ronald Reagan took to the radio airwaves to speak out against a [...] |
ObamaCare and Judge Vinson ShowdownIn a post a couple of days ago entitled ObamaCare — The Final Straw That Keeps on Giving I speculated on the possibility of impeachment for violation of the oath [...] |
ObamaCare – The Final Straw That Keeps on GivingDuring the process of passing ObamaCare, a reporter asked then Speaker of The House Nancy Pelosi if the health care legislation was Constitutional. Dumbfounded by the question, she responded with [...] |
|
WSJ on ObamaCareFrom the Wall Street Journal on yesterday’s ObamaCare decision: As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom—we would [...] |
A Sign of Sanity — Judge Rules ObamaCare UnconstitutionalThe full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who’ve seen the decision, he’s ruled the entire Patient Protection and [...] |
Sensible Comments by MDReceived via email. Doctor signed email but I am not sure he wants his name released, so I have withheld it: Dear Mr. President: During my shift in the Emergency [...] |

Medicine Dies in America
Dr. Sowell on Healthcare
Wisdom: Friedman on Socialized Medicine
The First Euthanasia Patient
Sensible Comments by MD
Recent Comments