Reader Question and Response

So for the first time, a reader emailed me with a question. More importantly, the question was from someone I have never met. I was super jacked up to get some feedback and so I wrote a lengthy response.

I made some negative comments about the democratic party, he asked what motivated me to regret that they are "active and strong"(his words not mine). Below is my response. I wasn't planning on posting it, but because I can't decide between Oklahoma, Texas (and now the more I think about the more I like Gundy and his guys) in the Big 12 South I haven't posted anything in a few days, which I am trying to avoid.

Finally, I am on a huge kick right now about reading about the health care plan, so it is the first and longest point. These reasons are not in order and certainly not the only reasons. The central point is that I almost always believe that less gov't is the best gov't and that competition is the key to basically everything.

Here we go.........



I wouldn't go so far to say the democratic party is "active and
strong", any party headed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can't be
classified as such. They have done an excellent job feeding off Bush
fatigue and turning it into big wins in 06 and 08 , as a fan of
politics I tip my hat to them. But much of their success was based on
running centrist democrats in the South and Southwest, who they can't
count on to help pass the left wing agenda that they ran on ("hitting
the reset button on foreign policy", Health Care, Global Warming,
saving/creating middle class jobs, etc..).

You took the time to ask me why I regret that the Dems are in power, I
figure I owe it to you to give you a few reasons.......

1) ObamaCare is an absolute disaster. If you look at the examples in
Canada, UK, the Netherlands, Massachusetts currently and TennCare back
in the 90s you see that this type of universal health care doesn't
work and always ends up costing more while providing less coverage.
Rationing comes into play and in Britain currently, government
officials are making decisions to treat people based on if they think
the treatment will give the patient "quality years." If they decide
that the patient will live longer but those extra
days/weeks/months/years won't be quality they are refusing treatment.
Government run options set prices outside of market forces and provide
consumers with few choices. They drive out competition by passing
along higher prices to private insurers b/c the gov't receives massive
subsidies and those subsides are made up on the backs of the private
insurers.

B/c these policies are developed by politicians, they often have
unbelievably ridiculous mandatory benefits that people don't
need/want. The pols are influenced by the lobbyists of interests
groups causing plans to be hamstrung by members attaching provisions
that drive up the cost without providing the corresponding benefit (in
vitro fertilization,abortion, acupucture, massage,personal trainers,
etc.).

Government options discourage competition and new ideas to improve
health care through price fixing and the previously mentioned
subsidies. Without competition, consumers can not demand higher
quality of care and lower prices. Health care belongs in the hands of
doctors and the patients(consumers), government involvement only
provides a boondoggle for the few insider providers with political
connections.

I can go on for a few more pages, but I think you get the point. But I
am not in the business of throwing stones, without having an idea or
two of my own.

First, We need to allow people to shop for insurance across state
lines. They should be able to pick a plan that may provide less
benefits, but covers their needs for a lower price. They key is
competition and giving the power back to the consumer to shop for the
best deal possible. Why isn't there a online marketplace like Orbitz,
where you could select what you want/need and have providers fight for
your money?

Low priced, high deductible plans is the key to it. It allows the
consumer to shop for their care, forcing hospitals/doctors/drug
companies to constantly innovate while keeping their prices low, while
providing insured care in case of a catastrophic incident or illness.
Feel free to pick me a part and I will try and respond.

2) I don't agree with their policies regarding trade. Bill Clinton is
a lot of things, but at least he was a reliable free trade advocate,
the current democratic leadership is not. They are beholden to their
union base and have killed one promising agreement, Columbia, and are
jepordizing the great strides we have made in our relationship with
India since the the end of the cold war by broaching the subject of
tariffs in the name of global warming. Free trade doesn't cost jobs,
it creates them. It is either dishonesty or plain stupidity, that
allows them to tell these manufacturers that they can save their jobs
and even more ridiculous that they think it is a good thing to impose
tariffs on foreign goods. We should be encouraging the company that
can provide the best product at the lowest price to do so, regardless
of where they are based. Competition is the key.

More importantly, free trade stops war. You would think a party that
values diplomacy and demands that every option is exhausted before
going to war would reserve a gilded pedestal in their party platform
for free trade. But they are unbelievably hostile towards it in the
name of protecting manufacturing jobs and a misguided environmental
policy (more on this later).

3) I completely disagree with their entire education policy. Throwing
more money into a bankrupt public school system is the absolute wrong
way to go. Money should be given to school administrators acting like
CEOs, they would have to create an institution that would be
attractive to parents, who would have the choice of sending their kids
to any school they want in a specified area. Money would be given out
on a per student basis.

4) Their environmental policy is a study in hypocrisy. They go on and
on about global warming but refuse to allow nuclear power to be
discussed as an legitimate option. They are more than willing to flush
money down the toilet in the form of subsidies for inefficient means
of alternative energy, solar and wind, that are way too expensive per
watt produced and AT BEST will provide 20% of the energy we need. And
that is decades away.

Nuclear offers a zero emission electricity that within about ten years
could be substituted for a 40% of our per year fossil fuel usage.

But it is really not about global warming, its about controlling the
way we live.

5) Judges. They believe that the federal courts are their own domain
and pack them with activist judges that legislate from the bench. The
recent Kelo vs. City of New London and Boumediene v. Bush decisions
are textbook examples of liberal judicial buffoonery.

Laws should be made by the people or their elected representatives.
But when these avenues prove fruitless (abortion/busing/gay marriage)
they cry foul and demand that the courts levy unpopular mandates on a
population that has already rejected them.

6) National Security. I trust them less than I trust Republicans. They
don't have backbone to do the difficult things that are sometimes
necessary in the world that we live in. Their objections to the
Patriot Act and other Bush/Cheney initiatives that have kept us safe
for 8 years, bother me.

Also John Kerry campaigned promising to use a "Global Test" for future
military actions. America must never subject itself to the whims of an
international body or another nation. If you haven't read anything
about the UN, I suggest you do. It is the most corrupt, self interest
collection of kleptocrats outside of the Latin American and African
summits back in the 80s. Read the second half of Bolton's Surrender is
Not an Option, and you will never trust American security to the
judgment of other nations.

7) I completely disagree with the bailout (I blame Bush for this as
much as the dems in congress). You can't tax, borrow, and spend your
way out of trouble. But more alarming is the government intervention
into the private sector. Firing the GM CEO, putting emissions mandates
on the new cars, handing over controlling interest to the UAW....I
mean is this Venezuela?? The government is not set up to run a car
company, let alone 2.
Screaming bloody murder about executive pay, vowing to go after oil
company profits, making comments about how its "unfortunate that
Goldman is making a profit." is hostile to business. Dropping the tax
rate from the 35% that is among the highest (i believe 2nd) in the
civilized world, is the right move.

They think that our tax dollars are tools for them to experement with
social engineering and redistribute wealth. You hear about personal
freedom when it comes to things like abortion, but keeping the
property that you have earned or inherited doesn't qualify.

....okay, I have spent way too much time on this and I am now bored,
as you can tell by my reasons getting shorter and more disjointed. I
would love to hear any response you have, I will try to respond
faster. Thanks again for reaching out.

Have a tremendous day,