Healthcare, Indian-Style

This Wall Street Journal article highlights an underreported story about an existing government-run healthcare system in the United States: the one run for Native Americans.

The government spends 65% less per person on medical care for Indians than the U.S. average, so it sure "wins" on keeping costs down. But it does so with dismal performance. Indians suffer from worse health indicators on many levels, including the most fundamental: their life expectancy is four years less than the American average.

Granted, lifestyle is an important determinant of healthcare, and greater Indian rates of obesity and alcoholism are a major health problem.

But Indians deserve a better healthcare system than this. And so do we all.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Missile Defense

As these recent Wall Street Journal articles (see here and here) illustrate, the Obama administration is significantly reducing spending on defensive systems to stop a ballistic missile attack. Obama would rather the United States have no defense against missile attack, so our enemies feel "safer" and be comfortable in not developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

Instead, our enemies such as Iran see such behavior as further encouragement to develop these weapons, since we appear weak in our resolve to stop them.

The Line of Pigs at the Trough Takes at Least Ten Years to Feed

The Obama administration published its estimates for the total government deficit for the next ten years: a staggering $9 trillion, an increase of $2 trillion over previous estimates earlier this year.

Since the "stimulus" bill passed earlier this year added $787 billion to the deficit, over $8 trillion of the deficit has nothing to do with the "stimulus" bill. Moreover, the administration assumes any healthcare legislation won't increase the deficit, which is absurd.

All of this indicates the monumental profligacy of Obama and the Democrats, as they fund their leftist agenda with a spending burden that will be a drag on our future growth and prosperity.

More Healthcare Myths

One popular myth is that the quality of health care in America is worse than in the past.

This is one of those comments that risks becoming a Big Lie, something that gets accepted as true because it is repeated often enough.

Well, the National Cancer Institute indicates that the five year survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer is now 80%, up dramatically from 58% 20 years ago.

That's over a 50% decrease in the chance of kids dying from cancer. Such a transformation doesn't come cheaply, and requires companies to charge high prices and make significant profits to give them the incentive to develop the drugs and treatments which make this life-saving change possible.

So the next time you hear someone bemoaning the profits of drug companies, recognize that without those profits, you, a loved one, or a friend may suffer or die from the drug not developed because of the reduced financial resources available, and weakened incentive, to develop drugs in the future.

Bloated Government

The Wall Street Journal reports on the growing backlog of patents waiting to be examined by the U.S. Patent Office. The cost to the economy of slow patent approvals include greater risks and costs for companies and investors, which slows down the pace of innovation.

If you think underfunding the Patent Office is the cause of this backlog, think again. After adjusting for inflation, the Patent Office has had a staggering 630% increase in funding from 1988 to 2008. The number of patent examiners increased 287%. In the meantime, the number of patent applications grew by only 213%.

So the number of patent applications per patent examiner has decreased 24%.

So there is vast more money and fewer patents per examiner. And the result is a backlog that has grown 180%.

This is the kind of efficiency that we get from government activities. Just think what greater government control of healthcare will mean.

Healthcare Myths

One of the myths used to attack our healthcare system is that we have lower quality healthcare today at a higher cost.

The higher cost is undeniable, driven by many factors including those of government's making. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, two-thirds of the increase in the price of health care relate to using new drugs and devices.

These medical advances provide enormous benefits to the quality of healthcare. As one example, in the 1980's, there was a 60% chance of surviving a heart attack. Now its 90% - in other words, there has been a 75% reduction in chance of dying from a heart attack in the last 20 years.

That's a remarkable achievement. And for the wealthiest country in the world, one well worth paying for.

Atlas Shrugs in England

The Wall Street Journal reports that a number of hedge funds and their employees are moving from England to Switzerland to escape the new, higher taxes the U.K. has imposed.

For those who don't believe people respond to tax regimes by fleeing high tax areas for low tax ones, think again.

And England will be poorer for it.

Republicans Gone Amok

The Republican National Committee has proposed a healthcare bill of rights for senior citizens, which opposes cutting Medicare spending or limits on end-of-life care. While this may provide tactical benefits to the GOP in its efforts to defeat Obama's plans for greater government control of healthcare, it comes at potentially a high price down the road.

We have a profound problem with the current government healthcare plans, Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare has an unfunded liability of over $50 trillion (yes, that's trillion) - necessitating either reductions in benefits or enormous increases in taxes. As such, the Repbulican party needs to promote policies that reduce the financial time bomb of government-provided healthcare benefits.

This is of a piece with George Bush's healthcare policies, where his most notable "accomplishment" was a new, large entitlement - adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. Bush did it thinking he could secure improve Republican's image on healthcare policies. Instead, it has added to the our financial burden and did nothing to help Republicans.

The RNC's current efforts will probably be tactically helpful to Republicans, but at the price of undercutting efforts to reform Medicare to avoid a crushing financial burden.

Life in the Slow Lane

Under the premise that a picture is worth a thousand words, I am inaugurating a new feature, posting clever or amusing political cartoons.

The Obama administration has decided to cut funding for the F-22 fighter, which is the most advanced fighter jet in the world, under the false premise that there aren't too many risks from Russia and China and to save money. Meanwhile, it pushes its healthcare agenda at staggering cost to the government and to our nation.

The Audacity of Power

As discussed in this Wall Street Journal column, Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against the New Black Panther Party for voting rights intimidation during the election last November. The intimidation included a man carrying a nightstick and making racial threats against voters, and has been characterized by the publisher of the left wing Village Voice as the incident "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've seen".

The decision is so offensive that parts of Obama's own administration, in this case the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, oppose it.

It turns out one of the defendants is a member of the Philadelphia Democratic party machine and a credentialed poll watcher.

The Democratic party has long opposed requiring voters to show ID on election day; supports expanding absentee ballots which are easier to allow voting fraud to occur; and supports allowing criminals to vote.

Holder's decision, which no doubt Obama concurred with before its rendering, is consistent with the Democrat's desire to allow fraudulent and criminal behavior to increase their votes in elections. And as an added bonus, the decision helps a member of the Philadelphia Democratic party.

As outrageous as this is, it is all the more galling because Obama thinks he can get away with it. And with a subservient press, he probably can.

Justice, European-Style

Scotland released the Libyan agent who was convicted in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people.

The agent, Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, is terminally ill so his release is for "humane" reasons.

Aside from the obscenity of releasing a mass murder, this serves as a great example of what criminal justice really means in Europe.

It is a relevant consideration for Americans, since opponents of the death penalty often use Europe's ban on the death penalty as a reason we should ban it.

The release of al-Megrahi illustrates the problem with the philosophy underlying the left's view of criminal justice: it is a soft-on-crime approach, with shorter sentences (he was only sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison for his conviction in the killing of 270 people) and more lenient view on releasing prisoners.

Abandoning the death penalty is likely to be the first step in weakening criminal penalties across a range of crimes, that life without parole as the substitute for the death penalty will also come under assault, and all "lesser" crimes will eventually have weakened criminal penalties.

One of the most effective ways to reduce crime is to keep criminals behind bars. And the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes can help raise the penalties for all other crimes, which helps keep violent criminals behind bars and off the streets.

So the next time someone uses Europe as an example for abandoning the death penalty, remember the Lockerbie case.

How About That

The CDC reports that U.S. life expectancy has reached a new all-time high of 78 years.

So despite the claims about our health care system providing lower quality care at higher costs, or the dangers of global warming and other supposed environmental problems, one of the most fundamental measures of humanity's success - life expectancy - continues to improve.

We can thank our (semi) capitalist economy, our industrial and scientific capacity, and the most innovative and advanced health care system in the world. And to the extent environmental factors matter in this regard, it is because they have improved so much.

The Audacity of Power, Checked

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has retreated on its disturbing and offensive plan to track emails that spread "misinformation" about Democrats' healthcare plans.

Three cheers to a spirited opposition by Republicans, and a free press, to check this effort.

Gone Fishin'

I am out on vacation for a week and will resume my column around August 17.

The Audacity of Power

The Obama administration's attempt to gather "disinformation" on Obama's healthcare plans that circulates by email is an outrage, and if it occurred under George Bush's presidency, it would have had the media and the ACLU types rightfully up in arms.

So here's the bottom line: Bush engaged in warrantless wiretapping on communications on suspected terrorist, while Obama gathers information on Americans' difference of opinions with him on important policy matters.

Bush's efforts were a legitimate effort by the commander-in-chief to protect America, for which the Democrats thought was terrible. In the meantime, Obama's efforts are truly disturbing and strike at the heart of a free society where open debate on all issues, yet alone critical matters such as healthcare, is fundamental to our way of life.

What Should Have Been Miguel Esrada's Day

The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as the country's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice is hailed as a victory for minorities, and helps cement Hispanic's affiliation for the Democratic party. The fact that the Republicans who opposed her nomination did so out of legitimate concerns over her judicial temperament will pale by comparison to a simpler fact: the Democrats got an Hispanic on the Supreme Court.

This day, in all likelihood, should have belonged to Miguel Estrada and the Republicans. Estrade is an Honduran immigrant who was nominated in 2001 by George Bush to be an federal appeals court judge - a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.

Estrada was filibustered by Democrats, who feared Busy would eventually nominate him for the Supreme Court - and thus give Republicans political credit for appointing the first Hispanic justice. Estrada was the first court of appeals nominee ever filibustered in the Senate - showing you the lengths to which the Democrats broke from the traditional norms to oppose his candidacy.

His personal story is one of great success from the humblest of beginnings. He arrived in America as a 17 year old, graduated with honors from Columbia before going to Harvard Law School where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. His career after law school comprised various roles as Supreme Court clerk, federal prosecutor, and private practice at a leading national law firm.

And in return for his remarkable success, the Democrats destroyed his judicial career because they couldn't stand the thought of a Hispanic becoming a Supreme Court judge under a Republican president.

That story is all but forgotten today.

So the next time you hear the Democrats claiming great affinity for minorities, think again.

Healthcare Debacle

The Democrat's healthcare plan would very possibly be the worst legislation in American history if passed. It will lead to an explosion of government spending and associated taxes; reduce innovation in drug and medical product development; destroy choice; lead to government rationing like wait lists for necessary procedures like we see in Canada and other countries with government-controlled healthcare systems; and encourage the elderly to avoid medical treatment to save money.

All of its implications are terrible, but perhaps the worst is that price controls and limitations will reduce the development of new drugs and medical devices that have done so much to improve healthcare. You, a loved one, or a friend may suffer or die because of a drug or device not developed due to the government's growing role in healthcare - and you won't even know it since you will never know about the innovations that didn't materialize.

But we do know that price controls lead to lower profits, which lead to reduced incentives to develop new products. That is basic economics.

Nothing illustrates how bad this bill is than that Congress has quietly exempted itself from the law. The Republicans had added a provision that the new health insurance plan would apply to members of Congress, and the Democrats removed it.

The significance of this is not that the Congress should be subject to the bill's provisions (although they should); it is that none of us should be subject to it. If Congress doesn't want it, why should any of us have to suffer under its provisions?

Economic Destruction

Barack Obama is literally pursuing policies that cause economic destruction.

The president touts his clunker-for-cash program, that gives up to $4,500 to consumers who trade in an old, gas guzzling car in return for a more fuel efficient one.

Obama thinks the effort is a great success, because of how quickly the $1 billion program is running low on funds as car buyers race to capture the $4,500 subsidy.

Of course people are using the program - it is a big subsidy to buy a car. This isn't success. Any good or service will experience increased demand if the government subsidizes it, particularly if the subsidy expires soon.

As example, if Obama wants to stimulate the depressed restaurant sector, he could provide vouchers which pay part of a meal. Same for struggling airlines and retailers.

Moreover, another impact is that some car buyers probably deferred their purchase during the time the program was debated in Congress and pending its start - which shifts purchases between months.

It is disturbing that Obama and the Democrats are surprised at the subsidy's impact. It confirms that their knowledge of economics is limited. And it also provides more evidence that they don't know what they're doing, since they shouldn't be surprised at the result.

Moreover, the program literally entails a destruction of wealth. The cars turned in have their engines destroyed, meaning either the car is destroyed or a new engine is installed at significant cost. It may be a shocking conclusion, but the destruction of assets does not help the economy.

Animal Right vs. Human Rights

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, the Swiss drug maker Novartis has seen a number of attacks against its CEO, with evidence suggesting the attacks are the work of animal rights groups who oppose using animals to test new drug's safety.

The CEO's vacation house burned in a fire, and arson is suspected. And the ashes of his deceased mother were dug up and stolen from her gravesite. Incidents against other employees have also occurred.

Being kind and decent to animals is a good thing, as any pet owner ought to know. But it is because of our humanity, of our desire to take care of the animals for whom we care.

That very same humanity also requires that we test medical products for safety on animals before using these products on people. While it is unpleasant to realize that animals may be harmed or killed in medical tests, the alternative is to first test new products on people - or not to develop the products at all. To harm people in such tests, or to deny us the extraordinary benefit that new drugs and medical devices have wrought, is an inversion of the proper role of rights.

It is animal rights vs. human rights. You can be for one, but not the other. There is no alternative.

I vote for the humans.

The Cat's Out of the Bag

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner this weekend, in response to questions about whether the Obama administration would increase taxes on the middle class, said that, "We're going to do what's necessary."

Lawrence Summers, Obama's head economic policy coordinator, made similar comments.

Consider this a trial balloon, and a signal that Obama is planning to violate his campaign vow not to raise taxes on the middle class. Instead, it suggests Obama is planning to seek large tax increases to pay for the Democrats spending spree.

For those who wanted change, you should be pleased: such plans would lead us toward the lower growth, higher unemployment world of Europe.

Global Cooling?

A news report today indicated that this was the first year in 140 years that New York City didn't have a 90 degree day in June or July.

The 140 year time span is an interesting one, given the enormous increase in industrial activity and oil consumption over that period (as example, oil was discovered in Pennsylvania 150 years ago).

If one were into scare tactics, I'd guess you'd say we were in a period of global cooling.

Would They Rather Banks Lose Money?

After Goldman Sachs recently reported strong quarterly earnings and accordingly accrued higher amounts for year end bonuses, many commentators and politicians on the left became apoplectic. While the complaints varied, the basic gist was: it was wrong for Goldman to pay large bonuses after receiving TARP funds last fall.

First, some firms who took TARP funds did so at the insistence of the Treasury Department, which feared that if just weaker firms took the money, their could be greater instability in the financial system as customers and investors avoided doing business with the weaker firms. Note that when firms like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan wanted to repay the TARP money this spring, the government initially hesitated.

Such hesitation flies in the face of those who believe TARP funds were a "giveaway" to the banks - if it was such a good deal, why did the banks want to return the money and the government hesitate to take it back?

Second, many claim they want Wall Street compensation practices to change to "pay for performance". Aside from the fact the Wall Street bonus arrangements have always sought to do just that, if a firm makes a lot of money, is it any surprise that it is going to pay higher bonuses?

Third, if Goldman and other firms don't pay higher bonuses when markets turn for the better, they will lose employees to other firms. Such a loss of talent will cause such firms to be less profitable or unprofitable. And if there is anything that we should have learned this past year, if it wasn't obvious before, we are all much better off if businesses make money than lose money - and the more money, the better. Business profit is the driver of economic growth, since it encourages firms to hire more workers, pay greater compensation, and invest in new activities.

And if the left doesn't get that, and many seem not to, they are no friend of prosperity.