Minor Thoughts from me to you

Are you tired of politics?

God knows, I am. As big a politics junkie as I used to be - in my time as a flag-wavin', God-fearin' Republican there wasn't a Townhall.com update I didn't read, nor an issue of _The Economist _I didn't completely consume for more general news before moving on to a host of blogs - these days I can barely finish a simple newspaper article without feeling that despicable strain that comes from forcing my poor brain to endure the consumption of totally repetitive and irrelevant information (for those of you who aren't Bible geeks like me, think of how you feel when reading the Book of Leviticus). Unless that newspaper article details the sexual exploits of one of our holders of higher office, anyway, because at least the secret life of Mark Sanford appeals to the voyeur in me.

But what the heck am I supposed to find interesting about Washington today - or indeed the world? No thoughtful debate of current issues exists within the federal and state levels of U.S. authority. Bills are written at absurd length and then submitted to the floor for approval on days when reading them, much less discussing them is impossible - and often include "blank checks", entire sections which are simply to be "filled in later" without returning for reconsideration. Which might be averted had our so-called representatives the huevos to simply vote down bills they've only just learned about, but Congress is utterly beholden to the unions, corporations, foreign governments, and associations which purchase its members' elections - the work of passing a bill doesn't really have anything to do with what's in it, so much as who is for it and who is against it. Indeed, at least in many sessions the leader of a party has simply informed his party's other members how they are to vote using hand signals - one for "yes", another for "no", an occasional third for "vote your conscience".

Oh, I suppose there is a little bit of discussion about the choices before us, now and then. Remember the most recent presidential debates? When an Ordinary Citizen would ask a pointed question and both Obama and McCain would simply ignore it, just make a vague statement about the economy or the Earth or Change instead? Just like their campaign managers demanded, I'm sure, because being boring and non-specific is how Poli-Sci wizards have determined one wins elections. There's a reason no president of our country has delivered a speech worthy of the Gettysburg Address in a very, very long time.

What is the American government that I am supposed to want to engage in it? Let's momentarily push past the oft-quoted reminder that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch" (Benjamin Franklin is often incorrectly cited as the author, but in fact nobody can find evidence of the observation been written prior to '92). Let's note instead the unchallengeable fact that even the laws established both by the Unites States Constitution and our government are ignored whenever they get in the state's way. The government has a "compelling interest" in ignoring our property rights. It prosecutes people and expressly denies them the right to raise funds for their own defense. It goes to war without declaring war. It spies on us. It imprisons people indefinitely after they are found innocent of the crimes with which they were charged. It takes my money and gives it to the people who voted for and contributed to whoever is in office.

So I should work to change all that, right? I should start a movement. I should convince others of my position. That's what Democracy is all about.

Sure. That's the ticket. I'll just convince a bunch of first-class thieves to pass a bill which forbids them from stealing. Perhaps something along the lines of what Dan Carlin repeatedly suggests: a bill that requires a politician to excuse himself or herself from voting on any bill that affects an industry from which he or she has taken donations. If I campaign tirelessly for its passage, I'm sure it will only be a matter of time. Say, the rest of my life.

And really, that's a point I think needs to be brought up more often: the unknown amount of time I have on this planet and how much I can do with it. I have so many dreams. How much of this surely limited lifespan I have am I supposed to use up defending myself against these politicians and their supporters? These people hell-bent on owning me because they've bought into a utopian religion.

No, I really want nothing to do with any of it. I don't want to read another lie on the front page - and there is always a lie on the front page. I don't want to waste an hour or more of my day voting so that the next thief-in-chief to come along can say he has a mandate from me (or alternatively that he does not, but too bad).

But what options does rejecting this political arena, this total lie, leave me? Two, really: one is to resign myself to being at the mercy of whatever greedy power possesses the military might to hurt me and try to live my life as best I can anyway. The second is to succumb to what some commentators are snidely calling "the Bubba Effect" because they envision white rednecks from the South when they think of it (and incidentally, um, they're spot-on, 'cuz I am one). According to Glenn Beck's definition of the term (there seems to be disagreement), communities of like-minded individuals tend to form when citizens become disillusioned with the idea they are going to be able to live decent lives under their out-of-control government. Militias, for example. Or Christian Exoduses. Or Free State Projects.

I ask myself on a fairly regular basis these days if I have the courage to choose the latter and live a life of civil disobedience, as well as at what point the former would become unbearable (after Hate Speech Legislation? After socialized medicine? When my taxes reach a certain level?). Fortunately for me it's an academic question for now. I've the next several years of my life planned out and they mainly involve overseas work, living as a guest in other countries. My decision will remain deferred 'til my return.

And then, what?

"It is is depressing that it even needed to be discussed," begins The Economist latest Europe.view column. From that opening sentence it proceeds to inform us of the Russian reaction to a resolution by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) equating Stalin with Hitler.

'...the OSCE resolution prompted outrage from Russia. Indeed, under the new law criminalising the “falsification of history”, anyone who voted for it, discussed it or publicised it in Russia would risk a jail sentence of up to five years.'

It's a response I think anyone with their head on straight must find indefensible, but a comment on the article from another reader did adequately explain for me the psychology behind it.

'For better or for worse, human beings look to a few major events in national history for one of the most central components of identity building (the other typically being religion). As such, these are the places that hurt the most. All great events and all great leaders have their dark sides. We are all human. And yet, in some cases those dark sides are acknowledged but not played up. Jefferson's slave ownership (and, indeed, his diddling of some of those slaves) is not played up. July 4th does not focus on genocide of Native Americans. FDR is not the man with dictatorial aspirations who packed the SCOTUS. Truman is not celebrated for nuking hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. The names on the Vietnam War Memorial do not have bracketed numbers to indicate the number of innocent people those individuals might have brutalised.

'It is well known that for Russians, their victory (and the fact that it was a victory, rather than a defeat is hugely important) in WWII, which came at great cost (in no small part by virtue of Iosif Vessarionovich's incompetence) is the defining moment of their modern history. Stalin is only tolerated, for all his warts, because he personifies this victory. And now you want to tell them that they were no better than those they fought against and that it was all down to luck anyway?'

The poster, an Aiden Clarke, disdains "foreigners gloatingly belittling the cornerstones of [Russia's] national identity." I see his point and think his logic is pretty clear, but I've still not enough interest in preserving Russian pride to excuse any defense of the evil man - and what Aiden belittles with his comments is the full weight of Stalin's crimes. Furthermore, Aiden might be right in saying that the resolution is merely an exercise in "poking a wounded animal" by politicians, but the Russian reaction shows that it's nevertheless an exercise worth doing, for if the fact that the world would be better off if Stalin were never born is not common wisdom in every room of the Kremlin itself, then that fact bears more repeating.

Russians need to spend less energy protecting the nonexistent honor of its homegrown monster, more coming to accept and grieve the destruction he wrought.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com

...the incandescent bulb is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

... The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting's Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

But they are also 30 percent more efficient than older bulbs. Philips says that a 70-watt Halogena Energy Saver gives off the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt bulb and lasts about three times as long, eventually paying for itself.

It's a case study in the way that mandates can spur innovation, but I'm not sure the news is as good as the New York Times seems to think it is. A government mandate has so far managed to make incandescent bulbs 30% more efficient and 1900% more expensive. This is progress?

Our government (Joe and I are both Americans, if it wasn't completely obvious) is the world's oldest. Economically, we account for a quarter of the world's entire gross domestic product - which is a fact that tends not to be mentioned when activists bemoan the fact that we consume a quarter of the world's usable oil ("To each according to his need," we might reply to them). Relatively-speaking, citizens have more economic and social freedoms in the United States than any of their ancestors could imagine, and they have responded by being one of history's most generous people both in charity and in warfare.

There's a lot to celebrate. And maybe that's why the Unites States' citizens don't seem to understand what a pickle they're really in. Drunk with the glory produced by their ancestors, our fellow Americans fail to realize just how much danger they're really in.

Because they are in a bad state (no pun intended). They are broke. Worse, they are heavily, heavily in debt, and their government representatives are unwilling to even arrest their descent into financial ruin, much less lead them out of it, because Americans have been successfully fooled into accepting a paradigm of government known as the "two-party system". So long as Republican officials keep their voters scared of Democrats and Democrat officials keep their own scared of Republicans, both sides are aware they will never be held accountable for their actions. Bizarrely, they can take money from anyone - even the Iranian government - and then do favors for those financiers just as blatantly once they enter office, just so long as they tell the IRS about it.

Keeping their electorate scared of foreign agents has completed their stranglehold on the minds of their subjects ("constituents" is too polite a word at this stage). Somehow, they have successfully convinced over half of the U.S.A. that their personal security demands the continual presence of at least one million soldiers stationed inside their national borders, as well as many more on 820 different bases in over 39 different countries - this despite America's own constitution fairly clearly (though admittedly not completely unambiguously) rejecting the notion of a standing army entirely. The total cost for it all constitutes 21% of annual discretionary spending by their Congress.

They have also convinced many of their fellow citizens that their freedoms are subject to their own "compelling interest" - that is, the level of trouble the government would have in respecting rights to free speech, property, and privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that governments may indeed abridge political speech (McCain-Feingold Act), take your property (Kelo), or wiretap you (President Obama is now legalizing what his predecessor illegally performed) without judge approval - which as it turns out is a rubber stamp anyway, as citizens are learning across the nation at the most local levels when they challenge police harassment. Inform a policeman that you don't consent to a search or that you are not interested in answering his/her questions and you can be arrested on any number of absurd new catch-all charges.

Indeed, so fragilely do your personal freedoms rest on the government's whims that it has been clearly established by federal judges - and I swear I am not making this up - that you do not actually have a legal right to your own urine or blood and that you cannot put in your body what you want (but then, all you "drug war"-lovers do know about that one, don't you?).

Strip away the paeans to public health and morality and you are left with the central message at the heart of it all: other people own you.

I would say these are the problems with the services our government is providing today - except that they aren't really "services" at all, are they? A favor must by nature be refusable, but should you refuse services the government is not adequately providing - and most certainly if you stop paying for them - you will be met by its mercenaries, men in blue uniforms inexplicably thought as heroes, who will use their guns and clubs to make you pay or else throw you in a cage.

Don't want to fight the Iraqis? You must still at least pay for the guns or you will go to prison.

Don't want government health care? You must buy health care - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to pay for other people's care/education/unemployment/retirement? You must - or you will go to prison.

Don't like how we're literally stealing your money? Pay anyway - or you will go to prison.

Don't want to do something as simple as wear you seat belt? You must, or you will get a ticket - and if you don't pay even that, yes, you will eventually go to prison.

And again, most Americans are OK with it.

In the main, that is because Republican and Democrat officials have successfully fooled the electorate into forgetting why the United States was a great idea in the first place - something that has nothing to do with Democracy or a Republic. Democracies and republics are not especially fantastic forms of government. The former are rule-by-mob and the latter are rule-by-mob with a couple levels of safeguards.

What was absolutely crazy about the U.S.A. was the notion (far from fully-developed though it was) that a person had a respected right to largely live life as he or she chose, _irrespective _of what his or her fellow citizens thought. That was the Big Idea, the Lightning Bolt, the historically uique factor, what made it a hundred times cooler than Greece thousands of years past and France just across the way. Yes, the Founding Fathers failed to initially apply that idea to all people - but that was because some failed to regard women and ethnic minorities as people, not because they didn't understand that people in general should make their own choices. That's a shame, but it's still a fabulous seed of an idea, largely alien to human history.

In fact it's great - and if the United States of America wishes to remain so or even reach still mightier heights, its citizens must recall the seed from which they sprung and rather than allow their leaders to whittle away at the tree of liberty grown from it, force them to allow its expansion.

Otherwise, the Declaration of Independence itself tells us what our next duty is:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

(PS: Boy, the Fourth of July really brings out the windbag in all of us writers, doesn't it? Well, the clock strikes midnight - back to sanity and hopefully some lower level of pretension!)

Happy Birthday America. Let's remember how it all began.

And here's the best dramatic reading I've seen, of the entire Declaration of Independence.

Michael J. Totten: The Future in Iraq, Part 1.

On the Jaysh al Mahdi, Moqtada al Sadr's radical Mahdi Army militia:

Hajji Jasim, General Nasser's guest from the office of the Mahdi Army's "political wing," sat next to Major Kareem on the couch. "Understand something," he said to Captain Heil. "In the media, JAM only pretends to oppose the Status of Forces Agreement. Privately, we like it. It helps Sadr more than anything else. Those committing violence are going against Sadr's orders. You wanted the occupation to last 20 more years. Now, under SOFA, it's down to three years. That's great for us."

When I met Tom Ricks a few weeks ago, he relayed to me an interesting anecdote from his new book about the surge called The Gamble. "Sadr's people entered into secret negotiations with the United States in, I think, 2007, about whether or not to have negotiations," he said. "They said before we begin any talks, we have to have a date certain when you will withdraw from Iraq. The American policy said we can't do that. So the Sadrists said well, then we can't have talks. Then the Americans said, well, just out of curiosity, what was the [withdrawal] date you had in mind? The Sadrists said 2013. Which put them on the right-wing of the U.S. Congress."

On the use of force in Iraq:

Iraq has never been successfully governed by anyone but a strongman. You might even say Iraq has never been successfully governed at all. Who today sincerely believes the use of force by Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime was an effective "remedy" for the Iraqi people, as General Nasser put it? Still, despite my unease with what he was saying, I don't think he necessarily meant a totalitarian system is the solution to what ails Iraq.

"Twelve JAM members were brought to court recently," he said. "They asked to be put under American justice because you are softer and jail people under better conditions. Iraqis are not like Americans. You are educated, we aren't. Without force, Iraqis cannot be civilized. Americans don't use real force. You talk to people nicely and worry about human rights."

On peace in the Middle East:

"If the U.S. solves three problems," the general said, "American-Arab relations will be very good. First, resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Second, promote democracy in the Arab world. Third, destroy the Wahhabis. If you solve these problems, all will be well."

On pro-American Iraqis:

Sometimes it's hard to tell if Iraqis who talk the pro-American talk are sincere or if they're just blowing smoke. General Nasser, I think, was sincere. His body language and tone of voice said so, as did the naked calculation of his own interests.

"I had Iraqis here at my house recently," he said. "I told them Americans are better than you because they keep their word and they are disciplined. American people are not profiteers. Their wisdom led them to this. I want Iraqis to learn about American honor."

On the feelings toward American soldiers:

Iraqi public opinion is hard to read. Most Arabs are exceptionally polite and hospitable people, and they'll almost always conceal any hostility as a matter of course. That's true everywhere in the Arab world as long as the people aren't violently hostile.

Much of Iraq used to be violently hostile. Even kids in Sadr City used to throw rocks at American soldiers. Some Baghdad neighborhoods were so dangerous that Americans who left the relative security of their base had a 100 percent chance of being attacked. Overt hostility is rare now, and violent attacks are even rarer. Something important has changed. Reconciliation between Americans and Iraqis is real.

On the rule of law:

"The insurgency now is more criminal than anything else," Colonel Hort said. "The Al Qaeda threat isn't down to that point yet, but Shia insurgents are becoming more and more criminal than anything else. We're working closely now with Iraqi judges, as well as Iraqi Security Forces, to ensure that when we identify a guy we're getting a warrant and arresting the guy that way. It's a significant change for us that we now need a warrant to make an arrest like we do in the States."

Some American officers I met are worried that more terrorists and insurgents will remain at large now that warrants are needed for their arrest, but others are convinced this is wonderful news. It is, at least for the time being, just barely possible to wage a counterinsurgency using law enforcement methods instead of war-fighting methods. There is such a thing as an acceptable level of violence, and Iraq is nearer to that point than it has been in years. Baghdad is no longer the war zone it was.

Some also say a transition to warrant-based arrests now instead of later gives American officers time to train their local counterparts how the rule of law works instead of letting the Iraqis sink or swim on their own later.

Read the full article, please.

Here's a bit of news I know I know I'm very late to the party on, but I think it's still worth mentioning for those who remain unaware ('cause it's great): After doing a little soul-searching and winding up an ardent supporter of marijuana legalization, a former narcotics officer named Barry Cooper now produces videos informing drug users how to avoid arrest, and has actually partnered with investors to conduct sting operations against police forces breaking the law in their investigations.

You don't have to buy his videos to become informed about your rights and the proper manner in which to handle law officers. Nor do you have to be a pot-smoker to benefit from that information. Publicly available films like "Busted: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters" are short and well worth watching, giving you a step-by-step guide to the common traffic stop and other unfortunate occasions.

The Safeway grocery store chain created its own health plan for its employees. That's not unique -- many employers do that. Over the past four years, the average U.S. company has seen per-capita health care costs rise by 38%. Over the past four years, Safeway's per-capita health care costs have remained flat. That's a tremendous accomplishment and a great competitive advantage.

They did it by giving their employees responsibility over their own health and their own healthcare costs.

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

... As with most employers, Safeway's employees pay a portion of their own health care through premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The big difference between Safeway and most employers is that we have pronounced differences in premiums that reflect each covered member's behaviors. Our plan utilizes a provision in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that permits employers to differentiate premiums based on behaviors. Currently we are focused on tobacco usage, healthy weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Safeway's Healthy Measures program is completely voluntary and currently covers 74% of the insured nonunion work force. Employees are tested for the four measures cited above and receive premium discounts off a "base level" premium for each test they pass. Data is collected by outside parties and not shared with company management. If they pass all four tests, annual premiums are reduced $780 for individuals and $1,560 for families. Should they fail any or all tests, they can be tested again in 12 months. If they pass or have made appropriate progress on something like obesity, the company provides a refund equal to the premium differences established at the beginning of the plan year.

Not only have these incentives saved employees a lot of money, they've also dramatically improved employee health.

Our obesity and smoking rates are roughly 70% of the national average and our health-care costs for four years have been held constant. When surveyed, 78% of our employees rated our plan good, very good or excellent.

Safeway would like to make their program even better. But the Federal government won't let them.

Today, we are constrained by current laws from increasing these incentives. We reward plan members $312 per year for not using tobacco, yet the annual cost of insuring a tobacco user is $1,400. Reform legislation needs to raise the federal legal limits so that incentives can better match the true incremental benefit of not engaging in these unhealthy behaviors. If these limits are appropriately increased, I am confident Safeway's per capita health-care costs will decline for at least another five years as our work force becomes healthier.

That's reform that won't cost taxpayers anything. That's reform that will actually "bend the cost curve" and reduce the cost of insurance. That's reform that will improve health not just finances.

Why isn't Washington working on that kind of reform? Why does Washington prevent insurance companies and employers from offering more of those incentives?

Shawn Tully, at Fortune, details 4 reasons why the current healthcare "reform" bill will do more to raise costs than lower them.

First, they will impose rich, standard packages of benefits, with low deductibles, for all Americans. Those policies, typically containing everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits, are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money.

Second, the plans would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today's 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.

Third, Obama would ban consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today's fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.

Fourth, both plans propose what's known as a "public option," or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous three proposals would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business.

This plan will only lower the price of health care if by "price" you mean premiums and payments made directly to insurers or health care organizations. But if you include the necessary taxes and subsidies in your definition of "price", well, the price is going to go straight through the roof.

Adam, I'm ecstatic to hear about Sam Dodson's recent success. It's about time we libertarians see something positive happen.

And yet, I'm not sure that I feel free to emulate his example. After all, I have a wife and children to support. They depend on my job to keep our house, keep our healthcare, and keep us in groceries that don't come from a dumpster. That's a big responsibility and one I feel daily.

I'd love to follow in his footsteps. I'd love to challenge the State -- and win. I'd love to pledge "my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor" to the service of Lady Liberty. She's a fine Lady. But doing so feels like a self-indulgent hobby when I have more than myself to worry about.

Perhaps some forms of resistance are best left to those who are relatively unattached -- or who feel the jack boot of oppression more strongly. For now, I'm more inclined to support a series of libertarian tracts than I am to risk serious jail time. I don't think that our fellow citizens are beyond persuasion yet.

Perhaps a two pronged approach may yet be successful.

Earlier today, the American Academy of Physician Assistants issued an urgent Action Alert:

In a speech before the American Medical Association today, President Obama once again restated his commitment to building America's primary care workforce of "physicians and nurse practitioners" - omitting PAs from the discussion.

Please contact President Obama today. Let him know that PAs are listening- and that we are gravely concerned that we're not hearing a similar commitment to physician assistants.

PAs are the future of health care, and must make their voices heard. Contact the President today with a special message: PAs are a Critical Part of Health Care Reform.

I knew about it because a friend -- who's studying to become a PA -- emailed me and asked me to contact President Obama. She asked me to emphasize how important it was that PA's be part of the solution. Here was my response.

I can't do that. I disagree with the entire premise of healthcare "reform". The AAPA and Congress are both operating on a flawed assumption: the idea that it's even possible to create a plan that works for all Americans. It's not.

No one person, or group of people -- no matter how smart -- has the ability to create a health plan that meets the needs of 300 million unique individuals. No one group has enough information to make good decisions for everyone. Every patient has different needs, different backgrounds, different abilities, different family structure, different reactions, and different prejudices. I know you've seen this in your experiences in healthcare.

Through family, through friends, through my wife and through my job, I've heard a lot of stories about healthcare. One thing I've learned is that doctors (and PA's) have trouble coming up with a treatment plan that works for one patient. Often, the patient and the doctor have to work together over a period of time to figure out what works best for the specific condition and patient. How much harder -- how much more impossible -- is it to define a plan that works for everyone?

The necessary knowledge doesn't exist in one database, one field, one speciality. It's dispersed through many different people, each holding incomplete and sometimes seemingly contradictory information. I'm not just talking about medical information either. Each patient has a different willingness to undergo treatments, a different tolerance for discomfort, and a different preference for how long to continue treatment. How can one committee, how can one plan, possibly work for all people?

The answer is not to centralize decision making in Washington, D.C. or even in Madison, WI and Albany, NY. The answer is to give each patient, each doctor, each PA, the full freedom they need to reach the decisions that work best in the individual circumstances.

In the end, it's the patient that must be free to make all of the required decisions. Doctors, nurses, PAs, and healthcare organizations ultimately listen to whoever is paying the bills. Right now, that's Medicare, Medicaid, and the insurance companies. As a result, healthcare professionals are far more responsive to the desires of big government and big insurance -- not to patients. The solution is to return control to the patients -- not to take it further away from them.

Here's an interesting statistic (page 417): in 1960, 55 cents of every dollar of health care was out-of-pocket. In 2003, it was down to 16 cents. Today, the rest is paid through taxes and insurance premiums. And all of that insurance hasn't saved anybody any money. Healthcare costs today are 80% higher than they were in 1960. Put a different way, patients are only paying 16% of the costs out of pocket but the total costs have skyrocketed. That hasn't exactly turned out to be a great deal.

I feel very strongly that we'd be much better off if we started paying for healthcare the same way we did in the 1960s. If patients pay more out of pocket at the place of service, they'll ultimately get higher quality care. Overall costs will drop (through increased price transparency and competition) and patients will save money in the end.

And, yes, there will always be people who's injuries and illnesses exceed their financial resources. But they would be better served through block grants than through government plans, payments, and rationing. If they need financial assistance, give them extra finances. But allow them to control how, when, and where they're treated.

That's healthcare reform that will truly change things. Trying to create a nationwide plan by getting all of the special interests involved will just result in more of the same failed healthcare policies that we've seen over the last 20 years.

Sam Dodson

On June 9th, a remarkable event occurred at Cheshire County Jail in New Hampshire: one of its inmates - a Mr. Sam Dodson, arrested two months past and held on charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, possession of property without a serial number, common law contempt of court, and refusing to be processed - was not so much released from his cell as ejected from it, and so fast that the officers who escorted him out the building doors did not bother to repossess the orange prison uniform Dodson was then wearing.

What makes this abrupt end to Dodson's extended stay at the facility a watershed moment in modern libertarian (small "l", so as not to be confused with the Libertarian Party organization - and even then, Sam Dodson and his Free State Project friends might bristle at the term) activism is that it marks the end of a battle of wills between Dodson and Keene District Court's Judge Burke with an unambiguous victory for a principled, noncompliant activist against government rule of law.

From his arrest through the entirety of his 60-day incarceration, Dodson refused to recognize the Keene District Court's legitimacy; he denied their "duty" to lock him up for the "crime" of video-recording in the courthouse lobby, forced his arresting officers to carry him to the institution, refused on arrival to give so much as his legal name for their documentation (which Judge Burke answered by illegally refusing him a trial), forswore all solid foods for a month-long hunger strike, and worked with fellow activists to both promote his case in the public eye and pelt the court with stinging motions that Judge Burke ignored at his peril.

Judge Burke

In short, Sam Dodson put into practice exactly the strategy so long now argued for by Free Staters and other anarchists/libertarians/voluntaryists in resisting government encroachment on our personal freedoms: he just did not consent to his own victimization. All demands on the part of his kidnappers - for that is what they were, he says - to comply with their rules were met with long, careful replies that ultimately amounted to a simple: "No."

The apparent success of this approach seemingly taken straight out of an Ayn Rand novel is giving food for thought to the many self-described minarchists, voluntaryists, and anarchists who empathize with Dodson's politics but have remained unconvinced tactical disobedience can make a real difference. As LewRockwell.com's blog has noted, the "common critique of activism and civil disobedience is that those participating in it accomplish nothing other than being jailed or fined, putting their property and lives at stake... [That the most it really does is help in] spreading the word about the beast that is the state." The events of June 9th may shift some of those fence-sitters' views.

As for those libertarians already in league with him and to Dodson himself, the release is as intoxicating as blood in the water to a pack of predators; they'll be following up the win with further pressure on both judge and court. Quite likely they'll be including among their next moves a set of their own civil and criminal complaints. After all, even anarchists and statists can agree it should be illegal to kidnap and hold a man for two months against his will without trial.

LINKS:

"Free Minds TV", a primary YouTube channel of the Keene activisit network, has an interview with Sam here.

The Free State Project-associated FreeKeene.com website has been reporting on Dodson's story from the beginning. The latest is always here, as well as two months' worth of articles that give a fuller picture of the ordeal's twists and turns.

Sam Dodson's own personal project in the service of our liberty - his Obscured Truth Network - will likely soon be updating again as a result of his return.

The height of Sam Dodson's fame (or infamy) during his protest was this article in the Boston Globe and this featured interview on FOX News' Freedom Watch.

Health Reform's Savings Myth, by Arnold Kling:

Anyway, what I was looking for on the web was a link to this article, which says that modern doctors are too beholden to insurance companies, rather than to patients. Nowhere does the the author mention that in 1960 fifty percent of personal health care expenditures were paid for by patients themselves, whereas now it is only ten percent. Instead, he writes as if modern doctors are greedier than they used to be.

Doctors have bills to pay into. But most patients expect their doctor to ignore the person paying the bill and listen to the person demanding that they (the doctor) do something that might reduce the payment. And then the patient gets angry when the doctor does no such thing.

That's why my health insurance reform plan would involve shifting healthcare spending from large premiums and all-inclusive health "insurance" plans to small premiums and plans that only offer catastrophic insurance coverage. Patients would have more money left in their pocket, to allow them to pay more money out of pocket.

Do that and you'll discover that doctors are suddenly more responsive to patient needs and desires.

This is simply unacceptable. The American President DOES NOT bow down to a king. Ever.

But that's exactly what President Obama did at the G20. President Obama bowed to the Saudi King.

Video (it's around the 53 second mark).

Red State updates an old MoveOn.org ad, questioning who will pay for the President's massive amount of deficit spending. Remember when the Democrats were against deficit spending? Boy do I miss those days.

Now, Social Security is projected to go into deficit as early as fiscal 2010. And the President's budget has increased the national debt by $6.5 trillion. That's pretty impressive for only four months of work. What will the debt look like by 2012?

I haven't even read this article yet. But, from the description, the immediate commentary that comes to mind is "eating the seed corn".

Corporate-Cash Umbrellas: Too Big?

Many big companies are being too cautious with their cash. Meanwhile, shareholders could use some of it to make it through the recession.

Scott Rassmussen wrote about Obama's polling numbers in today's Wall Street Journal.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.

People are realizing that the Obama they voted for may not have been the real Obama. The Presidential candidate who promised to fight earmarks and out of control spending just as hard as Senator McCain isn't the same person as the President who's proposing massive increases in spending.

But Republicans shouldn't be too encouraged by this news. They're still the most hated political party in America.

Finally, what probably accounts for a good measure of the confidence and support the Obama administration has enjoyed is the fact that they are not Republicans. Virtually all Americans, more than eight in 10, blame Republicans for the current economic woes, and the only two leaders with lower approval ratings than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner.

Ken Bavier recently wrote about Michigan's new plan to retrain unemployed workers as nurses. He's not thrilled with the idea.

I wrote a response to his thoughts.

I'll respond as someone who works in health care IT, but not in the actual delivery of health care. I'd consider myself an educated observer of health care but not really a participant in the health care field. (And my HIT experience is on the billing side, not the clinical side.)

I'll post my economic thoughts since I don't really have any clinical thoughts. I think a lack of true financial incentives are strangling the field. I don't see any viable alternative explanation. You mention several causative factors: underpaid teachers (leading to a lack of teachers), lack of money to expand nursing training, nurses who don't have the influence to change their work environment, and a lack of nurse / physician collaboration. Those are all economic factors that show up when incentives aren't aligned properly.

In her recent State of the State speech, Governor Granholm talked about a waiting list of people who want to become nurses and a shortfall of actual nurses. That's really an amazing statement. Organizations are desperate for nurses. People are eager to become nurses. But nothing's happening. Where's the dam in the river? Why isn't the water flowing downhill here? Why are teachers underpaid even when there's a desperate need for training? Why is there a lack of money to expand training for the very workers that are desperately needed?

The only rational explanation I can see is that health care organizations either don't believe they'll profit from increasing nursing staff or don't believe their allowed to take the actions necessary to properly increase their nursing staff.

Most of the businesses that we're familiar with hire friendly, competent, well trained staff for a very good reason: a customer that feels insulted is likely to leave for a business that makes them feel welcome. Good employees are an asset to these businesses. They serve both to increase customer trafic and to retain customer traffic. This increases profitability. Good employees are good for the bottom line. Bad employees drive customers away and keep customers away. This decreases profitability. Bad employees are bad for the bottom line.

But I don't think this is true in health care. In the U.S., people have a choice of 1-3 health plans offered by their employer. These health plans provide a very limited number of options for outpatient and inpatient clinical care. (Warning: this part is from the patient perspective. It may or may not match reality as seen from the provider's perspective. And, that's kinda the point.) Do you feel insulted by your doctor? You can request another one -- if he has openings. But he's employed by the same organization that hired th first jerk. Do you feel that your nurse is slacking off? Good luck getting another one. Want to move to a different clinic or hospital? Well, you can, if you want to pay for it entirely out of your own pocket.

Patients have very limited choices. This leads to limited (non-existent?) competition and limited incentives for improvements. Sure, health plans compete for members. But they're mostly interested in getting access to premium paying healthy people. Nobody's really competing for patients to walk into their waiting rooms. Few organizations are truly competing to have the best physicians and nurses. Few organizations truly believe that the quality, friendliness, and diligence of their providers drives their bottom line profits.

So much for my view of the profit side of the problem. What about the regulatory side? Here I'll just have to throw out questions. What qualifications are necessary to open a nursing school? What qualifications are necessary to teach nursing? What prerequisites are necessary to enter nursing school? What would prohibit (or discourage) a health care organization from providing training? What would prohibit (or discourage) other organizations from providing training? What existing regulations make it difficult for graduates to find jobs? What existing regulations make it difficult for graduates to learn on the job in a controlled, manageable way? What types of jobs do nurses do that could be done by someone less credentialed and less well trained? How many of those lower skill positions are limited to nurses even when a nurse's qualifications aren't necessary to do the job well?

I don't know nursing well enough to answer those questions myself. But I've read enough about the health care field to believe that those questions have answers and that those answers would reveal a lot about the current nursing shortage. I think the only way that the shortage will truly be alleviated is if organizations clearly profit from better nursing and are free to act in a way that will maximize their profits.

There, Ken. I think I've written something that may anger people just as much as your original post.

Originally posted as a comment by jmartindf on Nod If You Can Hear Me using Disqus.

There Ain't No Such Thing as Market-Based Universal Coverage (Cato @ Liberty)

Over at The Corner, Harvard Business School professor and Manhattan Institute scholar Regina Herzlinger urges conservatives to support universal coverage -- but in a market-oriented way. That is an absurdity. Once the government adopts a policy of universal health insurance coverage, a free market is impossible and the casualties begin to mount.

I've been thinking more about the recent diplomatic debacle with Great Britain. I can only see two alternatives: malice or incompetence.

Malice looks like a possibility because the Obama administration requested the DVD box set a month before PM Brown's visit. That shows that the gift was planned ahead of time. It's also far enough out that the administration could have picked a better gift -- if they'd wanted to. A DVD box set is a pretty tacky gift after all. It takes very little thought to grab a collection of Hollywood's top movies and wrap them up. It's a cheap gift. I'm sure the President could have paid for the set with pocket cash. I'd hesitate to give that kind of a gift to a family member, let alone a head of government.

So it looks like a calculated insult to one of America's best allies. Why? What possible cause could there be for insulting our allies? Is it our new strategy for making friends with our enemies? First give your ally the back of your hand and then your enemies will be willing to trust you?

Or is it incompetence? After all, Mrs. Obama gave Mr. Brown's children a couple of plastic helicopters from the White House gift shop. That doesn't sound like a planned gift at all. It sounds like somebody asked her where the children's gifts were, the morning of the visit. It sounds like she didn't have a pre-planned gift and sent a staff member on a desparate hunt for something -- anything -- that might be suitable for two young boys. It sounds like Mrs. Obama had no idea what was traditionally expected when hosting foreign dignitaries.

Incompetence is a plausible explanation. After all, Mr. Obama was previously the junior Senator from Illinois. I doubt he attended many -- if any -- of the White House's official events. If he didn't pay close attention to the news, he may not have been aware of the protocol for official visits. (Although, that still doesn't explain why someone on his staff didn't know the proper protocol.)

So, malice or incompetence. I think I'd almost prefer malice. It may be an insult to our allies, but at least it would indicate that the President had a plan. The thought of an incompetent President directing foreign affairs is enough to chill my blood.

I will say this. After this kind of gift giving, I'm ashamed to claim President Obama as my President.