My Beauty Best Teacher

Art insurance is a must if expensive oil paintings are to yield compensation should damage or theft occur. Peace of mind is priceless whilst a valuable painting is in transit, hung in an exhibition or in storage. But what is the best way to get an oil painting insured?

Art Insurance for Artists

Dealing with Oils click to buy from Amazon

Insuring an oil painting could be a wise choice for various reasons, namely:

• Becoming an art collector and/or dealer makes art insurance crucial.
• An oil painting that has been in the family for years may not only have sentimental value, but monetary value. The rule often holds that the older an oil painting, the more valuable it is likely to become, particularly if the artist is of some note.
• An oil painting that has taken hours of painstaking work to achieve from the artist’s point may have personal value.
• An oil painting that has won prizes, received critical acclaim from official sources, and has been widely published, reviewed or recognised.
• An old oil painting may have been acquired from a house clearance, an auction or even (as in my case) from a car boot may have monetary value.

Insuring an Oil Painting

In the case of an old oil painting, a certificate of authenticity from an official antique dealer (a service that may also offered by a fine art insurance company) is vital. Specialised art insurance companies such as Loveart Insurance or Axa Art Insurance Limited might be the best option.

An oil painting that is not listed within Christie’s, Millers’ or Phillips’ books and schedules may only be worth the cost of the art materials to produce (the canvas, oil paint and the varnish). Thirty or forty pounds or so does not reflect the hours of labour to produce the painting. In such cases, a realistic appraisal of the oil painting’s value and itemising the artwork within the house contents schedule might be a better option.

Insuring Valuable Art

For costly art, extra diligence may be required. Photograph the artwork and keep copies within the insurance package. Record vital information about the painting, such as the dimensions, medium, style and the artist etc. Keep receipts, certificate of authenticity and any other paperwork pertaining to dealings with the artwork.

Very valuable oil paintings deserve as much insurance as possible. If the worst happens, and the painting is stolen, as least there is monetary compensation. Some is better than nothing, and the oil painting collector may use the cash to eek a little revenue from publicity, installing a security system or even offering a ransom for the painting’s return.

Cheap Art Insurance

Make Money from Art click to buy from Amazon

Read, read and read the insurance schedule. Ask questions and ensure that everything is covered. For instance, the schedule may insure the painting against theft, accidental damage, fire and flood, but what about the painting’s frame, which may also be valuable? Similarly, does the location of the painting have any bearing on the cover, such as damage in a public place? Omissions of the obvious can easily happen.

Adding valuable oil paintings to house insurance will often work out cheaper, particularly if the house has a good security system. Otherwise, using specialised antique insurance is worth paying out for if the oil painting is priceless, such as an old master.

Useful Links on Paintings

• Books on oil painting
• Oil painting materials
• Oil painting demonstrations
• Advice on using art materials

Yesterday Michigan Governor Democrat Jennifer Granholm gave her State of the State address- let's take a look at what she said.

First, she announced that she is going to continue her policy of attempting to personally direct the economy of Michigan by focusing the state on new industries like 'green energy' and film-making. Granholm has no major experience or success at any level in starting and running new businesses, yet in spite of this, she is going to use the power and force of government to take money from you and me and then invest it in businesses that she thinks will be successful. I have no problem with her doing this with her own money- but using the power of the state to gamble in supporting risky business ventures is not sound public policy, and our state should not be engaged in it.

Next, let's take a closer look at how she is going to lower energy prices in our state, make energy more affordable to citizens, and lower the overall cost of doing business here- she is going to ban the building and running of coal-powered electric plants in Michigan. Not only will that make energy more expensive and raise the cost of business in our state, she is essentially telling companies that want to invest in Michigan and hire workers here "no"- that Michigan is not open to new businesses if they aren't the state favored 'green' businesses. A government that can pick and choose winners in the marketplace and one that can disallow certain businesses to be built just because it doesn't like them is not a free government in charge of a prosperous society- it is a tyranny that makes society more poor, and you can see that in Michigan, as our government becomes more arbitrary, more corrupt, less responsive, and society becomes poorer as a result.

Continuing on, I would like to announce that I will not be paying my utility bills, house payments, or car insurance any more, since it appears that these are voluntary payments, and the state will use its power to keep the energy on and even provide insurance for me, or at least that is what Granholm is proposing. Once the moratorium expires, I might pay then. She is removing personal responsibility from individuals, and society will be less because of this- these programs will increase economic inefficiencies and drive up taxes, making society poorer, and ultimately as society becomes poorer people will be less able to pay their bills, which the government will have to pay, etc, etc. It doesn't make logical sense, although it is nice, and saying nice illogical things gets you elected now days (Exhibit A: Obama). As a side note, since I brought up Obama, I am also considering no longer paying my taxes, since those are optional as well, at least until you are nominated for public office, and then campaign donors pay the bill.

Lastly, I would just like to comment that this is exactly what you get when you elect a Democrat who promises to improve funding for the arts, provide jobs, keep the cost of education low, and protect the environment- a politician who says nice things, but reality is much different, as we can see now that Granholm- elected to do those things- is now cutting the state fair, turning over wetlands protection to the federal government, cutting the Department of Humanities, Arts, and Libraries, and overseeing skyrocketing tuition increases and unemployment rates. If you want low cost education, jobs, a protected environment, and everything else a Democrat promises to do- vote Republican in the future. Results matter, not words, Granholm.

The information from this post was taken from her speech yesterday, covered in this story in the Detroit News.

UPDATE: On the way in to work today on 760AM, there was a debate between Granholm's guy and an insurance guy, and they were debating the Governor's proposal to make car insurance more fair by increasing regulations and oversight of the insurance industry.

As I understood it, the government is upset that when deciding rates insurance companies rate people based on occupation/race/income, that insurance rates have gone up by 69% since 1989, and that our insurance rates are some of the highest in the nation.

The insurance industry's reply is that basing insurance rates on such factors is established as valid under actuary practice, and that such factors are good predictors between good risks/bad risks, that the increase in rates since 1989 works out to be 3% a year, which is the rate of inflation and is pretty good considering the sharper rise in health care costs, and that the reason why our insurance rates are high is that the government demands a no-fault system with unlimited medical compensation.

Honestly, this debate works out to a typical debate between a Republican and a Democrat- the Democrat wants the best coverage in the world, free from cost, and everyone paying in equal, while the Republican wants to give people choices on what kind of coverage they think is best for their needs, that the cost is based on the benefit gained to the consumer, and that the reason why it costs so much is because of government involvement. It's pretty clear that this insurance proposal of Granholm's is like most of the rest of her ideas- bad for Michigan.

Absolute madness. According to the Detroit News, Democrats in the United States House of Representatives are close to passing a health care package. At the cost of $871 billion dollars, it would create a government-run insurance company that would provide taxpayer-subsidized health insurance to millions of Americans (not those already on Medicaid), raise taxes on those families at the top income bracket, impose an array of new regulations on private insurers, and strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws.

No, no, no, no, no, no!

First no- the cost. The federal government is broke and does not have the money for this plan. That means they will borrow money from China, pay China interest on that money every day, never pay off the principle balance, and mortgage more of our children's future.

Second no- government-run companies? Seriously? I thought we learned over and over again that creating government run companies does not work- they are inefficient, corrupt, and provide poor services.

Third no- providing more health insurance coverage for those too rich for Medicaid? Really? Why didn't they just expand Medicaid, or some other government program, to cover more people? Then at least we could have had a sensible debate about the merits of the proposal. Instead we have to now create more new bureaucracies.

Fourth no- raising taxes? Raising taxes on the top income bracket is usually a very politically controversial issue- how are the Democrats hiding this in a healthcare proposal? What isn't in this bill? Raising taxes on those who are successful and prosperous is not going to make our nation a better place. Taking their wealth just because they make more wealth is not moral. There is no justification for it in this proposal, other than 'because we can take it and they have it'- and that line of logic is tyranny.

Fifth no- impose new regulations on companies? That is not going to make health insurance cheaper. I don't understand this at all- health insurance companies are struggling to keep costs down and the federal government is going to come along and kick them in the shins and impose new costly regulations on them? That is going to drive up the costs of health care coverage for you. You personally are now going to have to pay more money for the current service that you are receiving. That is not a way to help out.

Last no- strip the industry of its long-standing exemption from federal antitrust laws? So the thinking of Democrats in Congress, including my Congressman, is that by having people sue insurance companies more often for alleged lack of coverage or service will drive costs of healthcare down? Bizzaro world strikes again! Up is down, right is left, good is bad! Instead of putting in place tort reform and limiting trivial lawsuits, the Democrats doubled-down and said 'more lawsuits'! Wow.

This is pure and utter madness. Oppose with money, votes, phone calls, and visits. Start prepping for the revolution. Madness and tyranny are on the march.

Over and over when debating Obamacare supporters I hear the claim that the number one reason why government needs to take on a massive new expensive role in healthcare is because it has become too expensive. These Obamacare supporters think adding more government to the equation will make healthcare less expensive. They are so wrong.

The reason why healthcare is expensive is because of government. Adding government to healthcare in the past has resulted time and time again with a higher cost for healthcare. Government is the problem, not the solution. And this is not just rhetoric- the evidence and data supports the conclusion that adding more government involvement and interference in the private industry of our nation's healthcare has made it much much more expensive.

Presidential-candidate Harry Browne wrote about this back in 2002. He wrote:

It may be hard to believe, but back in the 1950s health insurance cost just a few dollars a month for most people -- and it was available to virtually everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions. The percentage of people covered grew steadily from the 1940s. And by the early 1970s, almost all Americans were covered by some form of insurance. Then the politicians went to work to load up policies with mandatory coverage of all sorts of conditions that may be of no use to you. More and more people decided that insurance had become too expensive and decided to risk being uninsured. By the 1990s coverage had dropped to under 70% of Americans.

In addition, many employers decided health coverage was too expensive. In 1980 fully 97% of the companies with 100 or more employees provided medical coverage. By 1995, only 77% were doing so. The growing number of uninsured people gives politicians more ammunition for more programs to force more costs onto insurance companies, and to push the price of insurance still higher.

Once again, the politicians are seizing the opportunity to save us from their own handiwork.

Over and over it is demonstrated that when government becomes more involved in an industry, that industry becomes less efficient, less responsive to market forces, and services suffer while prices go up. That is why our founding fathers designed a system where government would not have the authority to even think about doing what it does today- they knew that having government run health insurance companies, auto companies, banks, home loan companies, alternative energy companies, and all the other companies that the government now runs would only result in a poorer society.

Government is the reason why healthcare is expensive- the solution is in every way possible less government. Not a lot more government, not a little big more government, not even the same amount of government- the solution to healthcare costs is less government. LESS GOVERNMENT.

It appears that the liberals and the media have decided to rally around the dignity of the office of the President of the United States, who was deeply offended when some Congressmen couldn't control the shout of 'you lie' when Obama lied during his speech. This is typcial hypocrite liberal stuff- they shouted and booed during Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech. And to be honest, it isn't that big of a deal anyways- Republicans would hiss for Clinton, Democrats would heckle Reagan, and once in our history, that was democracy. Now, dissent has been deemed a game that is played by liars and deceivers, and it Obama says his administration will no longer tolerate any dissent.

Well, I dissent. Obama is a liar- he does not tell truths, and it is time to simplify the situation. When things get complicated, it is time to simplify. The government says that there is a problem with insurance. Insurance is a system where people pay money into the system, and if something bad happens,they can take out of the system. Insurance works because most people will pay more in to the system than they take out, thus providing money for those who draw more heavily on the system due to something bad happening.

The way to make a profit in the insurance business is to properly identify risk- who is going to pay more in, who is going to take more out- but also to attract customers and keep customers. If a policy drops people when they are ill, others will hear about this and drop that policy and that policy will no longer attract customers. So there is an incentive for companies to not be too focused on just risk.

There will be some people though who do not want to pay in to the system, and then when they get sick will want to draw out of the system. That is not fair to everyone else who is playing by the rules. These people are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions, with the condition being that they did not get insurance when they were well. I feel badly for them, but they made their own choices in this world, and society should not reward people for making bad choices.

Some people are too poor to afford insurance. Either their company does not offer it to them because their company can not afford to employ them and offer it, or because they do not have a job. That's tough. The great thing about America though is that we have people who are willing to help out these people out of the goodness of their hearts,through charities and private initiatives. This does not solve the problem, but it is a good start.

So, let's go back now to this complicated situation, focusing mostly on the President's speech last night and the magical bill that he is proposing. Evaluate what he said. Is he taking a simple situation and making it more complicated, rewarding bad decisions, and having an inefficient/corrupt government seize actions that private compassionate individuals could do? Or is he finally once and for all of time going to fix the system, period? I think the answer is quite simple to this complicated question.

One of the most striking features of liberals in the Democratic Party is their stupidity. They are like little children who, lacking any understanding of economics or history, have childish notions for the way the world works. For example, over at Michigan Liberal, there is a post called Representative Gary Peters: Keep standing up for us, not the insurance companies. The entire post is the following video.

This video says that insurance premiums are going up and that is reason for the government to take over the entire insurance industry, give free coverage to illegal immigrants, divert tax money into killing unborn babies, and put in place death panels. Government restrictions, laws, and regulations are the reason for insurance premiums going up, and the solution is not more government, but less.

Liberals suggest that the reason premiums are going up is that evil insurance agents are making obscene profits, but if that is the case, the solution is easy- open up competition so lower cost insurance companies run by decent people can compete with those evil high profit (and high premium) companies. But that can't happen either, because of government regulation and laws, which restrict competition and put in place local politically connected monopolies.

So, again, liberals act like children- they don't understand why costs are going up so they turn to nanny government to bring down costs, without understanding why costs went up or how the government taking over things will bring them down. You watch the video- tell me if I am missing something here.

Fuzzy Logic has attempted something that our own Congressman and Senators are terrified to do- read the actual health care bill and try to understand it. I don't think Fuzzy Logic is a team of lawyers, so perhaps the analysis isn't perfect, but the stunning nature of HR 3200 should be driving everyone to the Healthcare Rally's today (where people rally to save healthcare in America from the Obamanation it may become). I haven't read the bill yet, but I find the Fuzzy's Notes: HR 3200, Pages 1-95 more insightful than the platitudes from President Obama, so here is some of that analysis (read the whole post for all of it):

The only way you can make your own choice about having employer-based, rather than the government-run, health insurance is if you have it when the bill is enacted. This is the "grandfathered health insurance coverage" (pg 16). So in a way, BO actually got that part right. The part he left out is that if you don't have insurance when the bill is enacted, you're screwed (go straight to government-run health care, do not pass go, be sure to pay as you pass go). Also, if you do get "grandfathered" in with your own employer-based insurance, your future dependents cannot be added to that (also page 16), so you'll either have to pay for two policies, deductibles, etc. or switch yourself to the same coverage as your poor, doomed children.

So it looks like our generation will indeed live better than any other generation in the world- all those who follow will be on the government-run healthcare. And all of those young people who voted for Obama in such large numbers will also no longer have the hope of a good health insurance plan- they'll be forced to take the government-run healthcare.

The Commissioner will be very powerful. And it'll be his or her job to ensure "adequate enrollment" in the government option by whatever means are necessary, up to and including changing the regulations, taxes, "incentives" for staying out of the government option, and whatever else the Commissioner "deems appropriate."

Obama has created already a bunch of czars and commissioners, unelected people with extensive power and few checks, to rule us. This administration now wants to create an even more powerful one- the High Commissioner of Health- to control our health. Unelected. Unaccountable. Tyrants.

The president will appoint the Commissioner. Of course. That's not why I mention it. The interesting little detail here is what is not said (as is always the case with politicians in general and with BO in particular). There is no term limit (there is for the Committee--3 years), so I guess it's a lifetime appointment. That's good. Covers all the bases when BO is booted out of office in 2012; he'll still have his man (or woman) running health care. That's encouraging.

Hear that? Lifetime appointments for government czars to run large segments of our economy. That's Democrat-control of our lives, forever. Keep voting Democrat if you like that sort of stuff.

Sec. 1173a gives the government access to your financial records, including your bank and other assets (this section starts on pg. 57). Not surprising as they will need to determine eligibility, but this SHOULD be freaking out people on the Left who were so against Bush's "invasion of privacy." BO won't be in office forever, and once he goes (2012 at this rate), you can almost bet the ranch that a republican will win the Office (and access to all your private information.). Think I'm kidding? Read the bill yourself. It's all right there. And no, as I've explained above, you are not exempt. No one is. That's what the bill is about.

Do you want the government agents having access to your bank accounts? After another couple rules of Obama and Pelsoi running things, it probably won't matter much because your bank account will be empty, but I know of a couple people out there hiding some gold in safety deposit boxes- what do you think the government is going to do when it knows for a fact that you have that in your safety deposit box?

There's a 1-3+ year description (terribly written like the rest of this bill) that qualifies groups (individuals and various size businesses) for the government-run health care plan. They've got it all in here, too. Medicaid, Medicare, Veteran's benefits, and the military and their dependents. So I guess all these plans will be dissolved at some point. Single-payer all the way.

It's a sad world when the government screws over veterans and retirees to move them to a crappy healthcare plan that Congress won't even get on. I'm going to point out right now that I voted straight ticket Republican last election, so none of this is my fault.

The plans unveiled. The basic plan is well, basic. It's the government's idea of "basic" and "necessary" and is subject to change based on recommendations by the aforementioned Committee or because the Commissioner had a bad (or good) day. Hmph! This plan is tier-priced, based on income--the more you make, the more you pay. Lovely. At least socialized medicine in most other countries provides shoddy care to its populace for free, but we get to pay for shoddy care. Yay. Only the premium-plus offers dental and optical, if the Commissioner approves, that is (pg 86).

Oh yes, this plan is bad. My years of experience in designing and recommending public policy lead me to suggest that this is poorly written garbage unworthy of being even considered by respective public officials, must less being advanced by Presidents and Congressman. If the Democrats wanted to help lower costs or expand government provided welfare insurance, they could have done so- but instead they put together this healthcare bill. No one, not a single person in our nation, should support this bill once you actually read it. It is not American- it does not protect life, liberty, and property.

Over and over, I hear from supporters of Obamacare the following argument- right now there is no choice on what kind of health insurance I can get. The supporters of national socialized healthcare believe that there are no choices available. This argument is so incredibly wrong that it is either advanced by idiots or those who are liars. If you open a phone book or look online, there are dozens of healthcare providers in your area who would love your business.

The supporters of Obamacare should be saying that there are no healthcare insurance plans that they can afford. That argument is even more interesting- it would be worthwhile to ask people who make this argument what sort of car they drive, how often they go on vacation, where they eat out to dinner at, and how big their house is. If they are poor, they are already on some form of government-provided healthcare- rather, many of the people who support Obamacare have money, they just choose not to spend it on healthcare.

Let's say though that healthcare insurance was expensive, beyond what is reasonable to expect an average person or business to pay. If that is the case, how does moving healthcare system to an inefficient government with tremendous overhead and fraud lower the cost opposed to thousands of businesses who compete based on cost and who make their living in being as efficient as possible? On what basis or logic or history do people believe that having the government run the healthcare system would provide lower costs and yet still provide the quality of service that they expect?

In reality, the high cost to healthcare is a problem- but the problem lies in government regulation, fees, and limits to competition. There are solutions advanced, such as tort reform, that would lower the cost of healthcare insurance and yet still provide service. And yet there are still people out there that still want to put us on a national socialized healthcare system- a system that likely will raise the cost of healthcare insurance and lower the quality of service.

One has to wonder- are the supporters of this policy stupid, or just liars about their real goals?

This current healthcare debate is not at all difficult to understand- it is a standard debate between freedom and tyranny. In one corner, there are conservatives and Republicans who are advocating a capitalist health care system where market forces are unleashed and people can freely choose what insurance they get and what treatments they want to receive. In other other corner, there are communists and Democrats who are advocating a state-run health care system where the state makes more decisions and puts in place bureaucrats who will make decisions about what sort of insurance or treatments that people get.

The details of this debate are not that important. If this seems as if it is simplifying the situation, then it is- the situation is simple. The only way to cut costs and make health insurance more affordable is to make it more capitalist and more free. If the system is made more communist and less free, than costs will go up and insurance will be less affordable. The current failures in the system stem from the state, and thus the state is the problem, not the solution.

At the center of this health care debate are several deeper ideas. One idea that is debated is the nature of the system. Is it the best in the world, covering almost everyone who wants to be covered, and providing unmatched service and quality? Or is it a broken system, in a crisis, needing a radical change? What is the reality of the situation?

Another idea at the center of this debate is whether people will turn down medical treatments and willingly not seek out more and more expensive cures and drugs in an 'enlightened' attempt to keep costs down for all society. Listening to liberals and Democrats talk about health care, they reject the nature of man and pretend that man can transcend to heaven and will willingly give up freedom, liberty, wants, and desires in order to keep the costs on the system down. Many liberals feel that society's needs come before individual's needs, just like Hitler did (that's a quote from Hitler). But this is not reality- the absolute truth is that man operates on the principle of enlightened self-interest, and will not willingly surrender freedom, property, and choices, and so the power of the state will be used to make him do these things unwillingly.

Think about what the Democrats in Congress want to do with the healthcare system. Do they want to free it, remove barriers to commerce, limit lawsuits from lawyers on businessman, let trade operate freely across borders, and lessen regulations and rules on doctors and insurance companies? Or do they wish to shackle commerce, control it, limit it, and regulate it? James Madison said that commercial shackles are unjust, oppressive, and impolitic, and I agree with him- the Democrats agenda is not the agenda for America, and the details to their bills only reinforce this central fact.

After the Democrats pass Obama's healthcare plan and Pelosi's cap and trade scheme, ask yourself whether you can still freely make your own decisions any more. Do you control your won destiny anymore? Do you command yourself- do you decide what you want to do and what you don't want to do? Or does someone else command you now- does someone else make decisions for you? Democrats, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all the others are working to make you less free- Pythagoras wrote that no man is free who cannot command himself.

This healthcare argument may seem complicated and overwhelming, but don't let it be. Trust yourself. Trust your morals, knowledge, and logic. You know in your heart and mind that Obama is wrong, that the Democrats plan for our country is wrong, and that liberalism doesn't work. Don't get confused by details or sucked into claims of racism, nazism, or personal attacks. Just stick to the truth, and you'll come through this okay.

This post drew for inspiration on a powerpoint presentation put together by the Constructive Curmudgeon called The Moral Basis of Capitalism. Thank you.

Last year, Gary Peters published a set of principles for health care reform on his official House web site, standards by which he promised he would judge health care reform legislation when it was debated on the House floor. Rep. Peters even said that if a health care reform bill met these principles he would vote for it and, if not, he would vote against it. So how did our representative stack up against his own standards, the so-called “Peters’ Principles”?

Peters’ Principle 1: Bring down health care costs for businesses and middle-class families.

In retrospect... Obamacare increases costs for all . . .

Insurance premiums: According to an August 18 Bloomberg Report, about 63% of businesses plan to make employees pay a higher percentage of their premiums starting in 2011, and most of them expect their cost for benefits to rise by 9%.

Administrative costs: Obamacare triples the number of tax forms that every small business owner has to fill out annually by requiring even the smallest firms to prepare and submit IRS 1099 forms to every vendor with whom they do more than $600 in business.

Small business costs: Obamacare does nothing to “bend down the cost curve” that small businesses face relating to health care insurance coverage. The increased costs of health insurance will cause many firms with 50 or fewer employees not to offer coverage, drop coverage if they currently offer it, layoff workers or limit hiring.

Peters’ Principle 2: Strengthen Medicare.

In retrospect: Obamacare weakens Medicare through . . .

Reduced coverage: Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster, recently reported that cutting $575 billion from Medicare to implement Obamacare will result in Medicare recipients replacing Medicaid patients at the bottom of the healthcare ladder as early as 2019—that’s when fees Medicare pays to providers will be slashed to below Medicaid rates, which are already well below market prices.

Obamacare cuts $145 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, which Medicare’s chief actuary believes will cause up to 50 percent of seniors to lose their current health care coverage.

Higher prices: Obamacare includes $107 billion in tax increases on medical device manufacturers, prescription drug companies, and health insurance providers. Medicare’s chief actuary believes all these tax increases will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Seniors will pay the vast majority of these tax increases.

Obamacare includes a $210 billion 3.8 percent tax increase on unearned income for all Americans, which will hit seniors especially hard when they sell their houses to retire to smaller ones or use their homes for rental income.

Less access to medical services: Obamacare will cut $233 billion from Medicare Part A and B payments in order to pay insurance subsidies for 32 million new people, forcing one in seven hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and hospices out of business, according to the Medicare trustees April 2010 report.

Peters’ Principle 3: Be deficit neutral.

In retrospect: Obamacare adds to the deficit . . .

According to several analyses of CBO data, Obamacare does not control costs, and it does not reduce deficits. Instead, it adds an all new entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Smoke and mirrors and financial gimmicks were used to pass the bill, which assumes 10 years of tax increases, about $500 billion, combined with 10 years of Medicare cuts, another $500 billion, to pay for only six years of spending which has been artificially reduced through the exclusion of the so-called Medicare “doctor fix”—the cost of which will eventually be paid anyway.

Recently published estimates place the true 10-year cost of Obamacare in ten years at $2.3 trillion, resulting in a $461 billion 10-year deficit—an amount which only Beltway insiders like Gary Peters would consider “deficit neutral”.

Peters’ Principle 4: Move through a thoughtful, transparent legislative process

In retrospect: Passage was anything but transparent and involved . . .

Just a few examples of how the will of the public was thwarted include: Last minute hyper-partisan deal making behind closed doors—no Republicans, no media allowed; Woefully insufficient time for legislators, media and the public to read, analyze and comment on the bill before its signing; Political gimmickry in which the House Democrats invoked “deem and pass” rules to bypass public debate, and the Senate entertained; using “reconciliation” to achieve passage, a tactic that has never been used for such a sweeping piece of social legislation; and “Vote buying” by Pelosi and Reid who coaxed needed House and Senate votes from Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Carl Levin and others with partisan, pork-barrel tactics and promises.

What more needs to be said? Vote against Gary Peters this election and put someone in office who has principles and follows them.

Democrat President Obama is well-known for his positions on life issues, such as abortion, but be prepared for seeing more of his lack of compassion once he is in charge of running your healthcare. I imagine there will be a lot more of this:

President Obama suggested at a town hall event Wednesday night that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care.
In a nationally televised event at the White House, Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."He added: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."

So, let's imagine that you are about to die, but you had not tried everything yet. A reasonable person, if they had quality insurance that they paid for their whole lives, would expect the doctors to try everything to save their lives, if it was possible. If they paid for the insurance, and the insurance covered it, then it is expected that the doctors try expensive procedures, get additional tests, and try additional drugs. If these things are ultimately unsuccessful and you die, at least you did all you could to to save your life, and so did the doctors who took an oath to save your life.

Even if one person is saved using these expensive procedures (that they paid for their whole lives with insurance), then it is worth it. You can not measure the cost of one life, it is that precious. In our society, you can indeed hope that medical science can save you, and it is possible to change your condition to dead to alive by getting an expensive surgery.

Under Obama's plan, a government bureaucrats full time job would be to say 'no' to saving your life. Obama wants people in our government to take your tax money and then evaluate whether your life is worth saving or not, and if that bureaucrat doesn't think your life is worth saving (based partly on your race, condition, age, sex, political affiliation, etc), the you die.

Obama wants to kill you- although he wants you to die quietly by being drugged up on painkillers first. He said "maybe you are better off not getting the surgery" when he was talking about people on death's door- he is saying he wants you to die rather than cost the healthcare 'system' any more money. To 'shave medical costs' Obama wants you to die, as cheaply as possible, rather than cost the 'system' any more money. He does not value human life, he does not value liberty, and he does not value property.

Perhaps though Obama is right- really, all this healthcare plan needs is more cowbell. I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!

Vin Suprynowic, writing in the Las Vegas Review Journal, writes:

The modern Prussian police state was built by Bismarck and others in the 19th century on a Spartan model, giving the central government vastly greater control over the individual than had ever been considered possible before.

Bismarck's program centered squarely on insurance programs designed to increase support for the ever larger and more powerful government. The program included health insurance, workman's compensation, disability insurance and old-age retirement pensions, all innovations at the time.

Starting with the model of Prussian compulsory schooling, American "educators," starting with John Dewey and Edward Thorndike eagerly imported this Prussian model to America.

Trained to accept such state control (and now the new "green" religion) in the schools for most of the past century, then made dependent on government insurance programs (Social Security, Medicare) as surely as the pimp makes sure his young ladies are dependent on the needle and the fix only he can provide, slavery to the state soon appears inescapable, even ordained by God and nature.

"It is possible that all our politics will come to nothing when I am dead, but state socialism ("Der Staatssozialismus") will push itself through," Bismarck said in 1881.

"State socialism," he called it.

We're told that for some reason we're not allowed to call the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda "socialism," "communism," "Marxism," "state socialism" "fascism," or anything else that might sound unpleasant.

Much as I hate to cite the tyrant Lincoln, if we call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs? Telling us we're not "allowed" to use an accurate label for something doesn't change what it is.

Instead of allowing General Motors and Chrysler to go through normal bankruptcies, through which new and more efficient private operators could have purchased their worthwhile assets while shedding their crippling union contracts, the two giant auto makers have now been effectively nationalized. Meantime, an unelected federal "pay czar" decides on the compensation of executives, even at supposedly private banks that have paid back all their "bailout" loans. Does that sound like the normal function of the American free market, as understood in 1910, 1960 or even 1990?

Thanks to thoroughly unconstitutional "bailouts," the federal government now de facto manages our major banks and/or credit card companies, along with our airlines and airports.

The health care bill was "sweetened" with a federal takeover of college loans. Why? You don't imagine the federal government will ever try to manipulate the behavior of college graduates, offering to "forgive their college loans" if they agree to behave in ways favored by the fedgov, do you?

"Federalizing" all these programs shifts money and employment from the private to the government-bureaucrat sector. Unionized government bureaucrats tend to belong to outfits like the SEIU, which actively back Democrat/socialists, while dispatching purple-shirted thugs to beat up black freedom-fighters handing out "Don't tread on me" Gadsden flags outside rigged Democratic "town hall" meetings.

The so-called "health reform" bill authorizes $10 billion to field 16,500 more IRS agents to collect and enforce mandatory "premiums," which we're assured are not a "tax." Providing you're a "normal" citizen with a job and house, of course. (Illegal aliens Get Out of Jail Free, as usual.)

Last week the Review-Journal mentioned in passing, in an editorial about socialist Congresscritter Dina Titus' move to facilitate the takeover of Nevada Occupational Safety and Health enforcement by the federal government, that the Constitution grants the federals no authority to regulate workplace safety within the states. One letter writer couldn't wait to write in that the newspaper was wrong: turns out the preamble to the federal OSHA law as adopted specifies that it's all constitutional, since the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce, and "workplace health and safety can impact interstate commerce."

So we're right back to "If you call a dog's tail a leg, does it have five legs?" If Washington can do anything it likes because everything somehow "impacts interstate commerce," why do we have a Constitution with that two-page list of specifically delegated powers? Why not just one sentence: "Congress shall have power to do anything it figures might promote the general welfare and/or impact interstate commerce"?

Vin is right- our Constitution was written for the expressed purpose of limiting the power of the national government so that our god-given rights to life, liberty, and property would be better protected. As the federal government expands, so does its threat to your life, your liberty, and your property, and that is what our founding fathers were trying to protect us against. They wanted to unleash the best of human potential, and knew that that is best done when man is allowed to be free from the constraints of the state. Our economy is more prosperous when we are free and property is protected, and our society is more civil when people provide funds for charities rather than having the government take money from people and redistribute it to favored charities.

In Michigan, I have observed what happens when Democrats run government, and I predicted accurately what would happen if Obama and the Democrats won the elections of 2008. Democrats turned Michigan into Detroit, and Democrats are now turning the United States into Michigan. You need to make sure that everyone you know votes Republican next election, or else your kids will grow up in a nation that is less civil, less prosperous, and less free than then one they are growing up in now. We need to stop these Prussians who are running out government today before they turn us into Germany in 1900... 1920... or 1940.

Jeffery Sachs contends that:

Proper risk management is critical to the farmers' well-being and their financial viability since it increases their creditworthiness and thus allows them to make investments in high-yield activities such as higher value-added farming (using fertilizer to plant their crops). Engaging in these activities greatly diminishes the likelihood that a farmer will fall into poverty.
Citing the success of other financial schemes like micro-finance in boosting the lives of destitute farmers, Sachs raises the concept of micro-insurance as an instrument to further the progress already made. Micro-insurance as he envisions it, unlike traditional crop insurance, would have the effect of improving the fortunes of both the farmers and the companies involved and carry little risk.

via TreeHugger

A study(PDF) of Mutual Health Organizations (MHO's) in Nigeria made a number of conclusions, they include interesting features such as the fact "...that they are organised through existing community organisations of all kinds – from local trade unions, to traders and professional associations, church groups including spiritual or charismatic church groups, Muslim groups and traditional birth attendants. Membership..." in some cases is "... gained not directly as an individual but through the local association which offers advantages in terms of social control and prevention of abuse or fraud as well as the chasing up of defaulters. It also means that control is exercised at the lowest possible level...Another feature that is worth noting is the savings nature of the schemes, rather than an insurance mechanism as such. The idea of saving for health is apparently better understood (as an extension of traditional saving concepts such as esusu or ojo), whereas insurance is less well understood, and moreover, requires different and rather scarce skills to manage properly. This particular adaptation not only saves on administrative costs , but also helps avoid fraud, an ever-present danger with insurance schemes everywhere and a big problem in Nigeria.

The Detroit News today put together a nice article which lays out the key provisions of Obamacare. I'm going to liberally quote from it with my comments added in and review just what Obamacare is about.

• Cost: $940 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This estimate includes 10 years of taxing and fees and only includes 7 years of benefits. This estimate also assumes that the program will cost what the government says it will- more often than not, government programs end up costing 2-3 times what they say it will cost. Whatever the cost of Obamacare, there is no money to pay for it anyways, so it is all debt, regardless of the Enron accounting schemes that the Democrats used.
• It would expand coverage to 32 million uninsured, which means that at its heart, it is the largest welfare expansion in a generation. This comes after decades of successful welfare reform that has cut the number of people on government welfare by considerable numbers- this indeed is a change.
• Almost everyone would be required by law to be insured by 2014 or else pay a fine. The government does not have this power or authority, and its that simple. If you doubt me, imagine if the government said everyone needs to buy a Hummer or else pay a fine- do you think the government has that authority and power to? What if the government said everyone needed to buy a plastic bag and put their head in it or else pay a fine- do you think the government has that power to? The insurance mandate is unconstitutional, and anyone who supports it supports shredding the Constitution.
• Major consumer safeguards take effect in 2014. These are 'important safeguards'- but not important enough to put in place now? All of these will make insurance more expensive. All of them will drive up the costs of healthcare.
• Massive new expansion of Medicaid, with massive new costs picked up by the federal government.
• Taxes are raised on investment income by 3.8 percent.
• Businesses are required to provide insurance to employees, or else the government will shut down your company, terrorize your business, or break your kneecaps.

Not included in the bill- anything that reduces the cost of healthcare, anything that reduces the cost of providing healthcare by businesses, anything that improves the economy, anything that provides any sort of jobs, anything that increases liberty and freedom, anything that protects life, and anything that protects property.

Call your Congressman and Senator today and let him/her know where you stand on this bill. It won't matter- thugs are determined to put in place tyranny and destroy our nation- but at least you can say you made the attempt.

The healthcare debate frustrates me and confuses me because I simply don't understand why certain groups are supporting the drive for nationalized healthcare. The AARP is urging its dwindling members to back a proposal that will cut from Medicare, provide funds for assisted suicide and death panels, and encourage the system to start rationing healthcare. Why would the AARP support this agenda? Why are you still a member of the AARP?

Why does the UAW support the healthcare plan by the Democrats? If I'm GM or Chrysler or Ford and I have two options of paying for healthcare for my employees or shoving them on the government plan and saving all that money, I'm shoving them on the government plan. The UAW is supporting a plan that would trade the quality coverage it has already bargained for with the government plan.

Although perhaps UAW understands that the fix is in- the government plan will a better plan than whatever the UAW has, because it will be funded on the backs of taxpayers to the cost of trillions of dollars over ten years, and trillions more over the next 10 years, if the United States lasts that long as a nation with that kind of spending and debt.

I don't understand the debate at all- there is no money for this program, it will raise costs, it will cause millions to be dropped from current plans, it will destroy the private insurance industry and lead to a loss in all of those tax dollars that industry provides, and it has many controversial and polarizing provisions in it like money for abortions (cut out of House version but in Senate version), money for assisted suicide, money for death panels, and many other controversial provisions.

The way this bill is being sold is by having people each share their sob story- that's anecdotal evidence that is nice, but should not be determining whether the bill is passed or not. Senator Debbie Stabenow is running a special interest lobbying group on her official Senate webpage (is that legal?) called Health Care People's Lobby (people's lobby... paging Soviet Russia...) where she encourages people to email her their sob stories about dealing with the insurance industry. Almost 10,000 people have emailed her various stories of how they where not able to take more advantage of an insurance system and how they were not able to get someone else to pay for their health-related procedures. This is the kind of 'evidence' that is being pushed as a reason to nationalize healthcare? I just don't understand why people are falling for this garbage argument.

My wife just got back from the latest Oakland County (Michigan) Board of Commissioners meeting and told me all about it. If there is anything our President has taught us, it is that the people at county and township meetings could be Senator or President soon enough, so understanding how they think and act is important.

The first issue that occupied a lot of discussion and political maneuvering at the meeting was a resolution that was introduced by the Democrats in the County Commission would have Oakland County (the most influential county in Michigan) publicly declare its support for two bills in the Michigan House of Representatives (HR 4785 and HR 4786) and direct the Oakland County lobbyist to work to get these bills passed.

As I understand it, these bills are sponsored by Democrats in the House (who are in the majority), and would expand unemployment benefits to cover those individuals who work part-time, and once those benefits are exhausted, would further pay for job retraining.

In the past, salaried full-time employees were comforted to know that there employer was being forced to put money aside for them in case they ever lost their job. Employers account for this cost, and adjust their business plans accordingly- some firms hire less employees knowing that they have to pay for this unemployment insurance and other firms try to seek out the best competitive advantage by going to states or countries that demand less unemployment insurance.

Michigan has decided to ignore this fact of life and instead use the power of the state to force employers to save money to pay for part-time employees once they are let go from their jobs due to the employer not having enough money to run his company.

Oakland County has anywhere from 800 to over a thousand part-time employees, and if these bills were to be passed, they would now have to pay for unemployment insurance for these employees. Knowing this, they would hire considerably less employees- not only because they would have to pay a fee to do so, but also because the county would have to protect itself if it had to lay off people. No estimates were given as to how many jobs Oakland County government would destroy if the State of Michigan passed this bill, but it is a given that many jobs will be lost.

The Democrats support this resolution because, according to them, the benefit expansion is "free." My taxpayer money and yours was given to the states in the form of a bribe to encourage them to expand unemployment benefits and welfare programs in the form of a 'stimulus bill,' and now Democrats want to leverage that money. This reasoning is poor though- the stimulus money is only given once, and the expansion of unemployment will be forever.

Democrats talked about how this expansion of welfare benefits would save houses and keep people spending money and keeping the economy going. This is another case of poor reasoning- the amount of money one is going to earn from unemployment benefits from a part-time job is not going to be enough to save a house, and taking taxpayer money and redirecting it through government agencies to another person to spend is not going to improve the economy.

One Democratic commissioner went so far as to say that employers should be happy to pay the extra money like he was, as he owned a business and gladly would foot the bill for increased welfare payments. I'm going to contact this guy and see if he will send me the check directly so I can pass it on to a good charity, but I suspect that like most Democrats, he is only generous with your money and not his own.

For all of the politics, posturing, anecdotes, and quibbling about details that went on for hours, I never heard the following phrases- "personal responsibility," "founding fathers," "constitution," "core principles," or "limited government." Democrats firmly believe that the purpose of government is to redistribute wealth from those who earned it to those who have not, and Republicans get sucked into this mindset and also start to discuss resolutions such as these on unfavorable ground.

The reason why Republicans voted not to support this resolution and why you should also oppose it is that it is not the role of government to force employers to save money for your possible job loss. That is your own business, and should be your own responsibility. By making you give up that liberty and freedom, by using the power of the state to take responsibility away from you, our society is less free and less responsible, and ultimately suffers. The reason why this resolution should have been defeated is because our Founding Fathers would not have supported resolutions such as this one, would not have believed that a crisis should be used to radically remake America this way, but would have thought long and hard about the core principles that make America great.

This resolution does not in any way improve the protections of my liberty and property, and actually works against these, and thus should have been rejected. In this case, it wasn't (the resolution passed because a couple Republicans surrendered the moral and logical ground and didn't want to pay 'a political price'), but in the future, remember what you read here and do the right thing- think to yourself "what would Jefferson do" and then vote. Our nation will be better because of it.

For further questions or comments about this issue, contact anyone on the Board of Commissioners who you would like to.

From the Associated Press:

The price of preventing preterm labor is about to go through the roof. A drug for high-risk pregnant women has cost about $10 to $20 per injection. Next week, the price shoots up to $1,500 a dose, meaning the total cost during a pregnancy could be as much as $30,000.

That's because the drug, a form of progesterone given as a weekly shot, has been made cheaply for years, mixed in special pharmacies that custom-compound treatments that are not federally approved. But recently, KV Pharmaceutical of suburban St.Louis won government approval to exclusively sell the drug, known as Makena (Mah-KEE'-Nah)....

...Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a huge financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs that have been paying for it....

....Ther-Rx and its parent company became involved about three years ago and acquired rights to the drug from a Massachusetts company named Hologic Inc., said Divis, who is also Ther-Rx's president.

To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years....

...Some doctors said they were happy getting the cheaper version from compounding pharmacies, and Aetna's Armstrong said she was unaware of any quality concerns. Still, doctors will use the Ther-Rx brand, in part because of legal worries. Not that they have a choice: Last month, KV sent cease-and-desist letters to compounding pharmacies, telling them they could face FDA enforcement actions if they kept making the drug....

Summary- There was a drug out there that helped prevent babies from being born prematurely and having all of the associated health problems with this. The drug was cheap and was frequently freely chosen by patients and doctors. Several years ago a clever company realized that it could use the power of the government power to make money, so bought up the rights to this drug and then lobbied the FDA hard to give them exclusive rights to selling the drug. The FDA did so, the company jacked up the price, and threatened government thugs on anyone that didn't buy from their government regulated monopoly. Children, parents, insurance companies, doctors, and society all suffered ONCE THE GOVERNMENT GOT INVOLVED. And now Obama and the Democrats in Congress want the government to be involved in every single decision regarding you and your health.

UPDATE: I love http://www.opensecrets.org/. A quick search on donor lookup of employer 'KV Pharmaceutical' shows that FRANKLIN, JOSHUA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/DIRECTOR OF MARKETING) donated $300 Clinton, Hillary (D) and HATTEN, SANDRA (KV PHARMACEUTICAL/VICE PRESIDENT OF ??? donated $300 Obama, Barack (D). All other entries are from 2000 or previous and not as relevant. Again, this does not demonstrate that those donate to Democrats always get an executive agency a contract to market something exclusively that was on the market for many years they just recently acquired, but it does make you wonder why those who are getting special benefits in our government are almost always donating money to Democrats and rarely to Republicans.

On an episode of the NBC show The Office, the intern Ryan betrays the boss Micheal, and in his defense, he says "It was just business, it wasn't personal." Micheal replies back "Business is personal."

Business is personal. In the United States, it means that I can make a personal decision to buy a good, and a seller can make a personal decision to sell a good. We both mutually and freely arrive at this point. We both gain something they want, and what each side wants is a personal decision that they are making. No one forces anyone to make this exchange, it is done purely based on personal reasons. It doesn't matter if you are selling paper or buying a hamburger, the exchange is a personal one. Under a capitalistic system, business thrives, and business is personal, thus personal relationship thrive.

Ryan didn't understand that, and that's why he never made any sales. He thought business was some sort of system, full of buzzwords and gimmicks, and that business could be managed and planned into success. He is antisocial and does not like people and does not like to be personal with people, and that's why he doesn't understand business and does not make any sales.

Today on the radio I heard that Stefanie Spielman, wife of NFL and Ohio State star Chris Spielman, has died after a lengthy battle with breast cancer. She was only 42.

The government wants to encourage women to delay getting breast exams until the age of 50. The reason for this is that it costs money to run these exams, and the government wants to save some money on the 'system'. To the government, business is not personal, and the government does not care if women like Stefanie Spielman live or die. She was first diagnosed with cancer at the age of 30- that is 20 years before the government 'recommends' screening. After beating cancer the first time, she had several more kids and did great things for another dozen years before finally losing the long battle.

But if the government had its way, it would not have paid for all of those costly operations, paid for all of those costs tests, not have paid for all of those costs drugs, and given up on her after her third or fourth recurrence of breast cancer. She was a 'cost on the system', and not a person. She was just a number or a statistic, like the Jews were to Hitler, and not really a person.

Business, including health insurance and medical coverage, is personal. It is a personal decision between two consenting adults who decide on a mutually agreeable price point at which to buy insurance and at which to sell insurance. Once the government gets involved, it is no longer a personal decision, but rather an impersonal decision, and will lead to personal tragedies. We must fight to keep our decisions about goods and services we buy in our hands, and not in the hands of impersonal big government.

All business is, and always should remain, personal.

Yesterday I sat in on an Oakland County Board of Commissioners Meeting. They decided to start having these at night, which is good, since now citizens who have jobs can come in and watch government in action. The main topic of this meeting was to discuss the County Executive's recommended budget for the next couple years.

The first portion of the meeting was public comment, and it was at this time that I felt like I time-traveled back to the middle ages. I was in a great hall, with the king in front of us, and one by one petitioners went forward and asked the king in his infinite wisdom to give charity and gifts to the serfs who came before him. With a wave of his hand, he would indicate whether he personally liked the cause or issue or not, and so dispense with the money in his treasury, money taken from citizens through force and war.

This is modern government in America. One by one, unions and citizens came forward and demanded more money from the county government for various issues. It was good enough that they wanted the money, and it wasn't good enough to these people that that money was not there, and even if it was there, it wasn't even their money- it was my money and yours.

Most of the focus of public comment was on Oakland County Health Plan. Apparently our county government offers health care that covers the bottom 35% of our county, but that wasn't good enough to many people. Several people came forward who made too much money to be covered by the plan, or ran businesses that paid their employees too much so that they weren't covered. The arguments were made that the health care plan should cover the bottom 60% of our county, and if more money was needed to pay for it, than taxes or fees should be levied on the top 40%.

Our nation was founded on liberty and choices. What struck me about this discussion on the Oakland County Health Plan was the fact that when faced with a choice, people made one decision and than wanted the government to give them the other option. One guy, suffering from cancer and scared for his life, does not have health insurance- because, as he said, it was important to him to have a house and a car. He made a decision to not have health insurance, and instead have those other things. That's his call- but it isn't his call to now say that others have to pay for his health insurance.

The rich guy came forward and said that everyone should commit to giving 5% of their income to this program, if they are in the top income earners, is becoming more normal in our society. If he wants to donate his money, that's his business- but it is not the business of our government to take my money and give it to causes that it likes- that isn't a free country, that is a tyranny. In his appeal he talked about empathy and giving, but I saw him come in- his car is better than mine, his suit is better than mine, and if he wants to care and give to others, that's his call, but I need my money to care and give to my children and family and the charities that I care about. Increasingly saying that you care and have empathy means you are superior to others, and that isn't true- no one is ever better than you.

The main argument about expanding the health care plan centered on the fact that it would probably not cost the County government that much. The idea is that the state will cover the cost, and that the federal government will reimburse the state. So, since the federal government pays for it, that means it is free. Democrats and liberals now believe that money does not exist- the county passes the buck to the state which passes it to the federal government, who spends money that they don't have, without a care in the world. But money does exist- the federal government debt will lead to credit crunches, inflation, and eventually collapse of the world's economic system.

After public comment, Commissioner Shelly Taub brought up something that I will come back to later. Then the budget was submitted. Here is a story about that.