A Really Slow Learner

You would think that our President might have learned something from the outrage that came out when Obama bowed before the Saudi King. The official White House line was that he didn't really bow, but just had to lean over because he was taller than the Saudi King. Those that believed the White House spin were cleanly divided between those that watched the video and those that didn't.

The lesson is simple. Presidents do not bow to foreign powers. Period. Ever. It really isn't that hard a concept to grasp. But now, here is Obama in Japan:


It will be interesting to see how the spin develops over the coming days on this one. Right now they are saying he is just following protocol. Really? Since when? I challenge the entire planet to find a photo of the US President bowing before any foreign leader at any other time.

It gets worse: his bow is also wrong. In Japan, you do not combine a bow with any sort of touching, including a handshake. This is very basic Japanese etiquette. You would think if he was following protocol, he might have been briefed on this. Instead, he made himself look like a total fool.

Company Move to Las Vegas

The company I work for is moving its headquarters to Las Vegas. Many people will be staying here, working for a subsidiary company, but the trading and financial companies are moving to and will operate out of Las Vegas. This doesn't affect me much: I will remain at the Southern California office.

Why are the moving? Taxes and regulation. We will save over $200,000 in company taxes with the move, and all the employees who relocate to Nevada will not have to pay California income tax. In short, it is cheaper to operate out of a second office in Nevada than to have everyone here in California. And that is taxes alone. Our business has a fair amount of regulations, which are much easier to work with in Nevada than California. So, California not only misses out on income tax from the company, but also on income tax from several employees, all because of onerous taxes and regulations.

This should also be seen as a lesson to those who want to tax those greedy rich bastards. It is relatively cheap and easy to move money and create companies in other countries, free from US taxation. If you try and tax the rich too much, it simply encourages them to move their assets and revenues off shore.

I am planning on launching a new company early next year. Odds are good I am going to incorporate it as a foreign company and avoid as much of the coming tax increases as I can.

Another Milestone

I achieved another milestone yesterday, turning 30 in programmer years.

Grasping at Straws

The liberal media have been portraying the Democratic victory in New York's 23rd district as a sign of the implosion of the Republican party and a huge upset victory for the Democrat. My local paper said they took a seat held by Republicans for the last 100 years.

OK, just a little reality check. First, in the last 100 years, that seat was held for 68 of those years by a Democrat, and 32 of those years by a Republican. Republican's held it for the last 16 years.

The ballots didn't really show a Republican running. Scozzafava was the Republican (well, sort of). When she dropped out, she left Hoffman, running as the Conservative party, as the opposition to the Democrat. Let's get real: if a similar situation happened in reverse, leaving a choice between a Republican and a candidate of the Green Party, would there be any surprise if the Republican won? While she dropped out, Scozzafava still got 5.5% of the vote: enough that if it went to Hoffman, as it no doubt would have, it would have been a Republican victory.

The playbook is the Scozzafava was a moderate being run out by the right wing fringe. The reality is that she was no moderate: she was a liberal, the very definition of a RINO. I could not find a single policy position where she supports the Republican principles. Contrast this to the Democrats ousting Lieberman over Iraq. Iraq was the only thing where Lieberman didn't toe the Democratic party line.

I don't know if liberals are spinning this, or actually believe what they are saying. I hope it is the latter. Let them delude themselves for another year. It's really hillarious: Democrats are claiming the GOP is falling apart, when in fact it is actually becoming revitalized and energized. If this trend continues, 2010 is going to be fun.

America's Image Abroad

A newly released Gallup poll shows that, of people who want to leave their country, the US is the #1 choice. The poll was conducted from 2007-2009 and showed about 700 million people want to leave their country.

America was the top choice, followed by a 3 way tie between Canada, France, and the UK. The US was the preferred destination over all three of those countries combined.

So all you people that have been whining about America losing its standing in the world: who are you listening too? Sure, people in France will sit around the coffee shop and complain about ugly Americans, but when it comes down to it, the world prefers the US to France or anywhere else by huge margins.

Strong or Weak Dollar?

Our government and the Fed have been purposely devaluing the dollar. They have made no secret about it. Nowadays, I have seen nothing but commentary on how the weak dollar will help us by increasing exports, presumably leading to more jobs. I call this the silver lining in the cloud.

Think about it: if a weak dollar is so good, why not weaken it further. Just think how many jobs will be created when people can get paid $200k salaries for being customer service for foreign companies.

The answer, of course, is that a strong dollar is far preferable to a weak dollar. A strong dollar encourages foreign investment in the US, which creates jobs. It also means we can buy foreign products much more cheaply, increasing revenues to those US companies who sell them, and increasing the productivity of the US worker through the use of better tools and technology, further increasing the living standards of the workers, increasing their wealth, and increasing the wealth of the country as a whole.

Health Insurance Profits

It is amazing to me how people demonize health insurance companies: their profits, and their lavish executive pay. Anybody every check the facts? Profits at these companies run about 5% of revenue or less. There are precious few companies that could run on such a slim profit margin. Executive pay? If the CEO took absolutely no payment, the company profits would surge from 5% to 5.001%.

I know: those insurance companies are evil for denying claims. Except it turns out the government Medicare program denies a far greater percentage of claims than any private insurance companies.

Unfortunately, to those inclined to demonize these companies, mere facts won't be very convincing.

A Visit

I was driving home from fixing a computer malfunction at like 1 am this morning, and listening to one of my favorite radio programs, America Coast to Coast. Actually, I very rarely ever listen to is as it is on from like 11 pm to 4 am or some such. But for the unfamiliar, they have a wide ranging array of guests on the show ranging from total wack jobs discussing the aliens living amongst us to real scientists discussing scientific explanations for the paranormal. For instance, last night while driving into the office just after midnight, they had some guy explaining very matter of factly how we are all really aliens descended from the Atlantians and the bombing of the moon that NASA is going to do is really an attempt to open a portal so we can escape the Earth-moon system that we are imprisoned in.

On the way home, they had some paranormal researchers who go places and look for evidence of ghosts and other paranormal activity. They guys are the real deal: mostly they find normal, physical causes. But occaisionally, something unexplained happens. They were playing some audio clips where they believe they have captured ghostly voices. As I pulled into my driveway, they played one where a whispery, ghostly voice says "Leave me alone". It was pretty creepy sounding.

So, I get out of my car and wander into my house. It is dark, and I am feeling slightly creeped out, but really no big deal. I by the living room, where I could hear but not see the dog on the couch. My Dad had picked up some plastic glasses with flashing red LEDs on the bottom for the kids, and one of those was sitting on the fireplace. It suddenly turned on. I was 20 feet away from it, and the dog was like 10 feet away. I picked it up and could not turn it off, the switch apparently broken.

These sorts of electrically malfunctions seem to happen spontaneously on rare occaision. But right then, just after I walked in the door and was all alone done there?

My wife has told me a few times over the last months that she thinks my Mom is still around. Jeeze Mom: if you want to visit, knock on the door or call first.

Vertigo

My wife has been suffering with dizzy spells for the last few days. She says she notices it the most when she lays down or gets up. Kind of weird: some dizziness when you get up is not uncommon for a variety of reasons, but dizziness when you lay down is kind of weird.

A co-working had a similar problem a few months ago, but much more severe. So, I gave her a call. She told me to google "benign positional vertigo". So I did.

I was expecting a doctor visit, a trip to a specialist, and some sort of drug to take for 10 days. Instead, I found everything we needed. Turns out some calcium crystals form in the ears and they jostle around when your head moves. A quick way to diagnose this is using the Dix-Hallpike test, which I was able to perform from just readying the description. The fun part is the cure: for that we did the Semont Maneuver. I had to perform it 3 times, and then a couple more this morning, but she seems to be totally fine now.

This has to be about the weirdest medical treatment I have ever seen.

Big Winner!

I picked up the phone last night and was informed by the nice gentleman from The Gas Company's Energy Savings Program that my house was selected to win a free in home demonstration of energy efficient windows!

I laughed for probably a good 10 seconds, and then asked "So, I won the privledge of have a sales guy show up and try and sell me new windows?"

"Uh....if you haven't already replaced them..." was the reply.

I think the long laugh really flustered him.

You've Got to Be Kidding

In the areas of literature, economics, and science, the Nobel Prize committees award the prizes for work done many years earlier, after it has stood the test of time and been of proven significance. It is long past time the committee that awards the peace prize did the same.

The Nobel Peace prize became a joke ever since Yasser Arafat won it. In order to further prove the irrelevancy of this prize, today they gave it to our President. I would think that most countries would be proud to have their President win the Nobel Peace prize. I just wish I could feel it was any way deserved. 9 months into his term, Obama has absolutely no accomplishments to show for his foreign policy initiatives. In fact, all evidence points to increasing tensions and a higher likelyhood of a major war breaking out before his term is over.

If, at the end of his first term, we could point to a more peaceful world and say it was the result of his foreign policy, I would proudly applaud him. But shouldn't we wait to see if his initiatives actual produce tangible results before we award the prize? Ideally, I would like to see that prize awarded many years after the fact, when we can have a truly historical perspective to view the true significance of an individual.

Brief Comments on Health Care Reform

Obama says he will save $500 billion by removing waste and fraud from Medicare. OK, so what is he waiting for? Let's pass a bill and get that done now. If those savings actually materialize, then he will gain some needed credibility on the financial aspects of the health care initiative.

The health care plan, which Obama has told us is critical for the well-being of our economy and must be passed immediately, doesn't take effect until 2013. Why would that be? Sure the 2012 election would have nothing to do with that.

Here is a simple litmus test for any health care plan: will Congress have the same plan as the rest of us? I will not support any plan the doesn't also cover our political leaders.

You Lie!

So I got up this morning, went into the bathroom, and stood on the scale. Before I knew it, I was shouting "You Lie!".

The Cost of Getting Old

The US is often criticized for the high cost of our health care. Here is a fun statistic: 80% of all health care costs come in the last 20% of a person's life. At least in the US. How does this compare to other countries? I don't really know. It is a pretty sure bet it is much lower.

No question that there is a law of diminishing returns on health care dollars. Spending $20,000 might get you 5 more years of life, but the next $20,000 might get you only 1 more year. Once major reason our costs are higher than other nations is we simply spend more to go higher up that diminishing returns curve.

You want to reduce costs? There are some major ethical considerations. What if spending $50,000 will give someone another year of life. I would spend that now in a heartbeat. When I am 90, I am not so sure. But someone will have to make that decision. Right now, each person decides for themselves. The insurance company has no say: they only get to say if they will pay for it or not. When the government is in charge, your wishes are secondary. It's all cost benefit. Some panel of bureaucrats gets to determine if the cost of sustaining your life is worth it to the government. Don't know what they will call those panels, but you can be sure they won't be called "Death Panels". At least not officially.

WHO Cares?

The World Health Organization did a study in 2000 ranking health care systems around the world, and the US came in 37th. This is widely cited by those support health care overhaul as definitive proof that health care in the US sucks.

First, I found this wonderful little Power Point that looks at their overall statistical methods. It's not critical of it really, it just explains how they do it in the context of a statistics class: Sicko and the US 37th Ranking in Health Care. I'll give you the quick summary. First, they did not rank by quality of health care. They came up with a composite index ranking health care quality and health care "equity". As this analysis points out, you can rank first in quality and still rank low on the composite ranking. The US ranked 15th on the composite ranking, which wasn't low enough for the authors. So they further came up with a measure of "efficiency", attempting to compare the current system with how "efficient" it could possibly be. It is that where the US ranks 37th, whatever that means.

Here is a nice critique of the study: Trouble in the Ranks. I especially like how it points out that, a couuntry where everyone waits 2 months to see a doctor would rank higher than a country where most wait 1 day, but some wait 1 month. Once again, the study's methodology values "equity" over most everything else.

Here is John Stossel's take: Why US Ranks Low on WHO.

Here is another critique: Healthcare Ranking Doesn't Tell the Whole Story. This one again points out the study's weighting of "equity". A country where everyone gets universally bad health care ranks higher than one where some get outstanding, but some get only fair health care.

There are more, lots more. If you want to get at the truth, do some more research. Find out why our life expectency is somewhat low (I already blogged about this a couple weeks ago) and where it really is. Find out why our infant mortality rate is artificially high. This WHO study is nothing more than a socialist propoganda piece. If you are diligent and intellectually honest you can come to only one conclusion: health care in the US is superior to anywhere in the world.

Yes, there are problems with the overall system and how health care is paid for. If you want to fix it and make it better, I stand with you. If you want to destroy it and replace it with something inferior, count me opposed.

Best Football Team in 2009-2010

I spend a lot of time and effort seriously analysing the football teams this year. After a lot of research, I determined a number of criteria to determine the absolute best football team. These include the following:

- Total salaries paid to all payers and coaches. The cheaper the better: we are looking for the best "bang for the buck"!
- Ratio between the top salaries and lowest salaries of the players. Salary disparity can make a team less unified!
- Age of the players. The younger, the better.
- Weight of the players. The heavier the better.
- Ticket prices for their home stadium. The cheaper, the better, so the poor can see games too.
- Opposing team field goals: great teams stop their opponents from getting touchdowns, and force them to kick field goals instead.
- Last season's record.

And the winner is...Detroit Lions! Yes, last year's record was poor, but they made up for it by placing first or near first in most of the other categories. Last year's Super Bowl winners, the NY Giants? Sorry, they placed 19th.

There are probably people out there dumb enough or ignorant enough of football to believe any of the above makes sense. Remember this when you see the US health care system is ranked poorly. These "rankings" are totally bogus: they rate heavily on weird factors the people designing them feel are relevent. Things like actual health outcomes of treatment are almost no where to be found.

The most famous of these studies is the WHO in 2000 that ranked the US 37th amongst nations. Why 2000? WHO no longer ranks nations health care systems "due to the complexity of the task". In reality, they no longer do it because their methods were so trashed by review that they cannot in good faith do it any more. Nevertheless, those in favor of government health care continue to site this badly flawed study as gospel. Tomorrow I will provide some details and fun links to support this trashing.

Did Not Listen

Hey, Obama gave a speech on health care. Some guy called him a liar. Though his comment was accurate, it did show low class. But that is exactly why I did not listen. Why bother? I know Obama is going to lie, spin, and distort to try and get his way. What he says really matters very little. It is what he actually does in the end that matters.

I don't know what it is with people that they put so much credence in someone's words, especially when they rarely agree with his actions. During the election, an Obama supported quoted his campaign statement on abortion, which was very moderate, and at complete odds with his extreme record on the issue.

If Obama was being honest with us, why wait until after the next Presidential election for his health care proposals to take effect. Wouldn't he want us to see how wonderful it is before the election? Unless, of course, he already knows it will be worse and wildly unpopular.

"As I grow older, I pay less attention to what people say. I just watch what they do."
-- Andrew Carnegie

An Old Kind of Freedom

I have heard from many of those in support of a single payer system say how this would give us freedom from having to worry about health care. "Freedom" is an interesting choice of a word. In a single payer system, you are not free from paying, you pay for it with your taxes. You have no choice. You have no choice in care either, you get whatever the government deems you are worthy of.

Just think how much more free we would be if the government provided housing, so we wouldn't have to worry about that. Food and clothing too, I hate having to worry about that. And let's not forget jobs: the government could provide those too! We wouldn't have to worry about anything! We would be the most free people on Earth!

There is a word that describes that kind of freedom: slavery. You ever notice how when a liberal uses a word like "freedom", it often means the exact opposite?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." -- Voltaire

A Milestone, of Sorts

I went to a wedding this weekend. Actually, we just went to the reception, which is very typicaly for a Vietnamese wedding. This wedding was for the son of one of my wife's friends. I remember when I got married, we had to invite a lot of friends of both my parents and my wife's parents, often people we never met before or maybe met once or twice. So now I am on the other side of that equation. I believe I met the groom once when he was like 14 or something.

This was the first wedding I have been to for a child of a friend. I guess I will probably be attending many more of those. So I guess that was somewhat of an age milestone.

Health Care Outcomes: Life Expectancy and Cancer Survival Rates

The US ranks roughly 40th in the world (depending on which statistics are used) in life expectancy. This is frequently mentioned as evidence of our failing health care system and how much better it is in other countries. Those in favor of a massive takeover of our health care system stop there and say QED. Unfortunately for them, life expectancy is a poor measure of healthcare systems.

There are a great number of ways people die, and not all of them are health related. To take a couple of examples: accidents and homocides. Unfortunately, the US has a lot of those. In fact, when you factor out accidents and homocides, and then rank the countries, where does the US rank then in life expectancy? #1.

I hunted down this fact from Professor Mark Perry's Blog.

His blog also shows some more fun facts about cancer survival rates. I like cancer survival rates, because it is a good measure of how health care treatments and outcomes actually vary from country to country. Out of the 6 forms of cancer listed, the US ranked #1 against all the major European countries in all cases. I would love to see more data of other major diseases and actual outcomes. I bet the US ranks at the top or near the top across the board.

Another very interesting tidbit is that if you are not black in the US, your health care outcomes are much better. Your overall life expectancy is better. In fact, if you look at the chart of countries with a higher average life expectancy than the US, every single on of them has a much smaller black population than the US. Genetic or cultural, I don't really know.

Incidentally, most of the information on that blog ultimately comes from this book: The Business of Health.

Obama's Kenya Birth Certificate Revealed!

It's true! A lawyer from right here in Orange County has produced Obama's original birth certificate from Kenya! Yet again, the mainstream media totally ignores this bombshell, hoping it will go away. At least the Orange County Register had the guts to print the story: Lawyer Claims to Have Copy of Obama's Kenya Birth Certificate

Some have argued that this is a forgery, though the evidence is not conclusive yet. If we had an official birth certificate from that time in Kenya, we could be fairly sure.

The birther movement is another of those wonderfuly conspiratorial oddities. The Left is having a hayday laughing at those on the right who follow it. Of course, the left is no stranger to conspiracies. They readily believe "Bush lied us into the war", "Bush stole the election in 2000", and "Ohio was stolen in 2004". And that's the majority on the left. A substantial minority believes 9-11 was an inside job. I always wonder: if Republicans are so adept at stealing elections, how did we lose in 2008? Why do we ever let Democrats win? How come no one is ever caught?

Recession is Ending!

The latest unemployment numbers are a confirmation of the many reports showing the recession is easing. While many conservatives have been saying Obama's economic policies are a disaster and the economy will never recover, the truth is far more complex than that.

Democrat partisans will be quick to should how Obama's policies and the stimulus in particular have resulted in this turnaround. Yet, the stimulus has barely yet taken effect. Less than 10% of the stimulus money has been spent. Claiming Obama is responsible is like claiming your horse won the race because you blew at it to help it along. Since the economy is now improving, can we cancel the other 90% of those stimulus funds?

The reality is what I have said all along. Left alone, the economy will improve all by itself. The government didn't meddle in the economy significantly until the 1930s. During the first 150 years of our Republic, we had economic downturns that lasted from 1 to 7 years. The economy always recovered, totally without government intervention.

Gorvernment cannot help the economy. This is because they take money from other people. If I take $100 from Paul and spend it, I am not generating new economic activity. I am merely replacing whatever Paul was going to do with that money with mine. The government does nothing to generate wealth.

This is not to say we don't need government. We do. Government has a few well defined functions that are very important: providing for our common defense, maintaining law and order, and acting as an impartial referee of business. In order to improve the economy, the best thing the government can do is stay out of the way.

Obama's policies are a disaster. His takeovers of various portions of the economy has scared away investment. Nobody wants to invest in a new business until they know that Obama isn't going to take it over, or dramatically change the rules to make it unprofitable. This applies more so to where we need it most, like energy. Would you invest your money in a new energy company when this government seems quite willing to either outlaw it or take it over? And of course there is the huge government spending. This will lead to major inflation in the US. Already, our foreign investors are spooked and looking for something other than US dollars to use and buy.

My bet is that we will see an economic recovery, of sorts. GDP will resume growth, and unemployment will decline. But, we will not achieve the prosperity we enjoyed prior to this recession, and inflation will once again rear its ugly head. It will take a couple more years for this to play out, but unless we dramatically change course from what the President has set, this is our future.

Why I Hate Bush and Love Obama

The difference between me and real Bush haters is that I actually think W did some good things, but there is little doubt his Presidency will forever receive mixed reviews. I hate Bush for one reason: his many betrayals of conservative principles. Bush clearly belonged to the moderate wing of the Republican Party. While any President with an R next to their name will inspire hatred from the Left, Bush did nothing to advance the conservative agenda, instead increasing the size of government dramatically. He has severely damaged the Republican brand, so much so, that I left the party, at least until they can show they can actually stand firm on principles. In short, I hate Bush because he gave the nation the wrong idea about what the Republican party is all about.

Obama, on the other hand, I just love. He is exactly the Presiden the Left has been yearning for. He is openly advancing their agenda as hard and as fast as he can. Finally, exposed to all the nation, is really what the Democratic Party stands for. Moderate sounding words cannot hide this agenda. America is waking up to what the Democrats really stand for, and this will do more to damage the Democratic party than any Republican attacks can possibly do.

Citizens That Love Their Health Care Systems

Liberals are enthralled with government run health care systems. You hear them tout how people "love" their health care systems, so the US should do health care the same way.

Before I dump some actual survey results (as opposed to anecdotal evidence), let me say that these sorts of surveys have limited value and meaning. Tell me which would be a better gauge of temperature: a poll of 1000 people asking if it was hot or cold, or thermometer reading. These polls tell us very little about the actual quality of the care: only people's perceptions of it. People's perceptions are very mallable. For instance, science has shown that people with few choices are generally happier with their choice than people with many. When health care is nationalized, national pride can kick in. For instance, polls of the French will show they French think they are better than everyone else at almost everything. Most other nations are more selective at what they think they are best at, but most countries tend to succumb to this sort of national pride.

So, first bad news for liberals: people in Canada, UK, and Germany don't like their health care systems. In Canada, the percentage of people that think "fundamental changes are needed" or "needs to be completely rebuilt": 72%. In the UK, that percentage is 71%. Germany: 78%. So don't tell us they love their systems: they generally think they suck. Of course, that means 25% of the people like them: so, if you go by friends and families, that means there are millions of people you can find that like the system. Those facts are from the Healthcare Economist. Oh, and the corresponding percentage in the US: 82%. No doubt about: Americans think our health care needs to be fixed.

Now this poll flies in the face of other polls I have seen (and regrettably could not find today) that showed satisfaction for their health care in all those countries to be in the mid 60% range, including the US. How can you reconcile this?

At last, I believe This Post provides some answers and sanity. When people are asked how they feel about their own health care experience, a high percentage say they are satisfied. When asked about the health care system of the country as a whole, they give it low marks. In other words, the media has been telling them it is bad for so long, they just think they have it better than everyone else.

A final and very important note: only about 5% of the population uses about 50% of the health care dollars. This means 95% of us are receiving routine health care, at which probably all developed countries do fairly well.

Solving California's Problems

Welcome to the Left coast, where we get brilliant commentary like this:



While she is just addressing the city council at Santa Cruz, just imagine applying her ideas to the entire state, even the nation.

New Healthcare Plan and Abortion

A lot of social conservatives have been fretting about how Obama's health plan will mean taxpayer funded abortions, possibly government mandated abortions, etc. They have it all wrong. Those that are on the pro-life side of the abortion issue should be in favor of the healthcare plan because the wait for an abortion will probably be about 11 months.

Healthcare is a Right!

Below is the text of a letter I wrote and was published in the Orange County Register July 22, 2009:

Of course, health care is a right. Lots of things that are not explicitly in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights are rights: among them are food, water, clothing and a roof over your head. Anyone who argues otherwise is clearly a nutcase.

But just because something is a right, does not mean government should provide it. We have the right to keep and bear arms: does that mean the government will give us free guns? Does the government give us our own printing press so we can exercise freedom of speech? Does the government give us food, clothing, water? What makes health care so special that it must be an entitlement for everyone?

46 Million Uninsured

The claim is that there are 46 million uninsured. First point: that represents less than 15% of our population. Let's not upend our entire health care system to help less that 15%: let's just help those 15%.

But let's look at the claim of 46 million uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 21-31 million are uninsured for the whole year: the rest are uninsured for part of the year. I was in that category this year. My wife lost her job, from which we got health insurance. When that ran out, we were "uninsured" for 2 months before I bought a new policy. "Uninsured" is in quotes, because we can sign up for Cobra in that 60 day window, which means, if we really need medical care, we sign up and have insurance retroactively. Effectively, we had free insurance for 2 months.

About 15% of the 20-30 million are eligible for government programs, but have failed to sign up. In effect, they really are insured.

As many as 75% of the uninsured can afford insurance but choose not to spend the money, according to this study from Standford: Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?. According to the CBO study cited above: 60% are below age 35 and 86% are in excellent health. They would spend their money to go out, vacation, have a nicer car, or whatnot. Health insurance is just not a high priority for them. So what do you do with these people? Force them to buy health insurance? Force them into a government program? Something about being the land of liberty keeps nagging me about those options. Once again, I was in this category for a couple years in my early 20s when I declined the health insurance offered me at work because they paid me cash for benefits I didn't take.

And lastly, we have those illegally here in the country. While we know that there are between 12-20 million here, how may of those are counted in the uninsured pool quoted above is unclear, but likely to be at least a few million.

In summary, the 46 million number you hear is a gross distortion. The actual number of people lacking health insurance that really need it is probably only a handful of millions.

Foreign Policy Success

Many have claimed the Obama's agreement with Russia to a nuclear arms reduction as a great foreign policy acheivement. What he agreed to was to reduce our weapons systems in exchange for Russia eliminating weapons systems they can't afford to keep anyway. That's Obama's definition of a win-win: both the Russian military and the Russian economy win!

Russians Outmaneuver Obama on Weapons Cuts

Seems like foreign leaders are not so easily swayed by Obama's smooth style and rhetoric as American voters.

More Healthcare Costs

I knew I couldn't possibly cover them all off the top of my head. Here are a few more doozies.

Government mandates: the government makes many mandates of private insurance, which can differ from state to state. For instance, my state, California, has recently mandated that all health insurance must include mental health coverage (on top of all the previous mandates). So, whether you want it or not, if you live in California, you must have mental health coverage. And pay for it. In some other states, roughly the same policy I pay $322 per month for in California costs only around $200 per month.

Government healthcare: medicare/medicaid accounts for a huge amount of health care spending in the United States, roughly 40%. This causes huge distortions in the market. In many cases, the prices medicare/medicaid will pay are below the providers costs. What does the provider do? Jack up the prices that must be paid by everyone else to make up the difference.