Tag Archives: 1

Net Neutrality

So, have you noticed that the news brought to us by the News and Observer is really just little more than Associated Press clippings or “posts” from the NY Times?  Gross.  And they wonder why people aren’t paying to have this crap delivered to our doors.  Heck, I don’t even like it when they deliver the free stuff anymore.

Anyway.

So, the News and Observer had an article the other day talking about “Net Neutrality”.  In the opening statement, the author describes what the Chairman of the FCC wants to do:

prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks

Who wouldn’t?  I mean, can you imagine an internet where things were not flowing freely or certain applications were prevented from, umm, being free?  Not me, and certainly not anyone if you believe this article.  But here’s the rub.

There are a lot of things that the ISPs do that we would kinda want and expect them to do.  For example, I live on a residential street that is fairly mature.  We have very very few high school kids, many older folks and some young parents with young children.  I kinda expect the internet in our neck of the woods to be used to browse.  During the day, probably to work from home kinda stuff.  But I doubt that we have serious kids “gaming” on their computers.  And so I think that I am getting what I pay for from my internet provider.  Namely, reliable consistent access to the internet.  But now let’s say that Petey and Mikey and Johnny move in down the street and start playin’ games, downloadin’ songs and movies and whoo knows what else, all of a sudden, that connection I had to the internet is not so available.  It’s full.  You see, internet connectivity is a lot like plumbing…there’s only so much water you can fit in the pipes.

Additionally, not only are the pipes constrained by “internet traffic”, those pipes can be built with filters that allow some traffic to move faster than other traffic.  And this is as we want it.  You see, data that is sent over the internet is like, well, lets see…., it’s like a letter that is broken into multiple postcards.  So, when you are sending grandma that 3 page letter, the internet is taking it apart and creating many many smaller postcards.  And THOSE postcards are being sent through the internet.  Now, if what you are sending grandma is really just a letter [email] and not a phone call then you are fine.  Cause the internet can handle the fact that post cards may not arrive in the same order in which they are sent.  And because of that, an email may take an extra 2-3 seconds to hit your inbox.  Big deal right?  Right.  But when you are streaming live video chat to grandma, those two extra seconds DO matter.  It becomes critical that those postcards arrive in order and quickly.

How do the carriers handle this?  They have built in technology that allows for specific applications to have their traffic delivered first–and fast.  Slower applications, like email or web browsing, can have their data sent later, a bit slower.  The result?  Internet chat works and no one notices that emails takes an extra second to get to you.

And finally, we get to the last part.  Providers are beginning to see the amount of data being sent across their networks rise, and rise fast.  In fact, it is to the point that they are having to build out additional infrastructure to handle the traffic.  And that’s not cheap; they wanna be able to recoup their money.  And how are they going to do that?  Well, by charging more of course.  But, you say, is that fair?  Should grandma have to pay more to send her email once and week while the boys up the street are gaming to the tune of gigs of data a night?  No.  Soo the providers would set up tiers in pricing.  Just like in cable.  You use this, you pay that.  You use that, you pay this.

But no, the “Net Neutrality” folks come along and claim foul.  You can’t do that!  The net should be free and open and all data should be equal!  Damn it!

And if they win..well, then grandma doesn’t get to send her emails, video quits working and we simply have to live with crappy old technology that doesn’t work.

Robber Barons!

Those drug companies that we love to hate!  How dare they, how DARE they make money on our misfortunes!?!  Seems they ain’t so bad after all.

The Bridges to Access program will provide free drugs to single people with household income of less than $27,075; $36,425 for couples; and $55,125 for a family of four.

Last year, GSK gave away drugs worth about $438 million to nearly 415,000 patients through various assistance programs.

Just goes to show, when left to it’s own devices, the market works.

Why Would We Tax Chinese Tires?

When American’s are really struggling right now to make ends meet, why would the United States impose a tax on tires being shipped to the country?  I mean, if we are really trying to give our consumers the opportunity to save and spend money, why, why would we tax something that they need?

“China strongly condemns this grave act of trade protectionism by the U.S.,” the spokesman for China’s Ministry of Commerce, Yao Jian, said in a statement issued on the Ministry website (www.mofcom.gov.cn) Saturday.

“This step not only violates the rules of the World Trade Organization, it is also contrary to the relevant commitments that the United States government made at the G20 financial summit.”

I am having a hard time understanding why we would impose trade restrictions that would endanger our relationship with China; one of our largest trading partners.

I should re-read this thing–be right back.

Oh, I see now:

The United Steelworkers union, which represents workers at many U.S. tire production plants, filed a petition earlier this year asking for the protection.

It said a tripling of tire imports from China to about 46 million in 2008 from about 15 million in 2004 had cost more than 5,000 U.S. tire worker jobs.

Forget I asked.  These are not the droids you are looking for.

The Health Care Lottery

Much debate has been made about the uninsured in America.  I have tried and tried and tried to make the point in my personal conversations that you can not claim you can’t afford thing “A” when you voluntarily spend the money that could purchase thing “A” and instead buy thing “B”.  That is to say, if I have enough money to book, but instead purchase a DVD, I can not claim to be unable to buy the book.  I simply decided to prioritize the DVD higher than the book.

The same is true of health insurance.  If I have money to purchase health insurance but instead choose to buy thing “B”, I can not claim to be unable to afford health insurance.  I just decided not to buy it.  Now, I understand that there are things in life that seem to qualify as “must have”.  Shelter, food and clothing to name a few.  People even claim that an internet connection and phone service can qualify as required services.  So I tried to find an item that in no way could be classified as “required”.  I came up with lottery tickets.

Now, looking at uninsured data found at Carpe Diem, there seem to be three rough categories of people:

uninsured by income

  1. Those that make less than $25,000 a year
  2. Those that make from $25,000 to $50,000 a year
  3. Those that make more than $50,000 a year

Those three breakdowns seem to describe the uninsured equally.  About 30% of the uninsured population are in each category.   Let’s see if my theory holds true for the lower income population.

Using data reported by 4 Professors at Duke University, we are able to see lottery participation rates as well as annual per capita amounts.

Lottery Play by Demographic

What it shows is remarkable.  Combining the players making less than $25,000 per year we see that just about HALF of the population plays the lottery.  Further, those people who play are spending near $600 a year!  This means that these players have near $600 of annual disposable income that they are choosing to spend on the lottery.  By going here, I can find a policy that covers a single 25-year-old man for $52 a month.  Or, $612 a year – almost exactly what is being played on the lottery.

Given that a group of people have disposable income of near $600 and that an insurance policy costs nearly $600, can you realistically say that those folks are unable to afford health insurance?

Me either.

Because I Say It – It's True

I don’t understand why government feels the need to interject itself in the normal workings of a contract.  When I agree to have someone work on my yard, we enter into an agreement that they will provide the service and that I will pay the bill.  Similar, when I purchase goods over the internet, I enter into the same type of agreement.  basically, two parties are promising to trade and to pay according to that trade.  We both understand the implicit penalties associated with either of us defaulting.  either I won’t pay or they will take me to court.  Based on these promises and follow through by both parties, business is allowed to be conducted.

All of this can be done without involvement by the government.  Oh sure, we know it’s there.  We know that if we can’t resolve any conflict, one of us could be arrested and forced to appear in court.  And to that end, the government could send on officer of the law to our house or business to enforce that summons or judgment.  But in general, we expect the government to stay out of the normal execution of the contract.

So why, now, would the government insert itself into the normal functioning of a contract between parties?

The Consumer Economic Protection Act allows a clerk of court to continue a foreclosure hearing for up to 60 days. The delay would give a homeowner more time to work out a payment plan with the mortgage holder or service so the debtor can remain in the home.

For the life of me, I couldn’t understand why anyone would think that this was a good idea.  I tried looking at this from every angle I could think of and I didn’t see that this was solving any problem what so ever.  And then I read a little further:

“When a home is foreclosed, it’s bad for our families, it’s bad for our communities, it’s bad for our businesses, and it’s bad for North Carolina,” Perdue said. “This bill makes it easier for homeowners to work out a deal with their lenders and avoid foreclosure.”

And so there is was.  The Governor is not really trying to make the flow of business easier, she is trying to make re-election easier.   See, if we can give advantage to some group of people by punishing another group of people and that first group is larger or harder to otherwise control, the politician will always choose to provide that advantage.

That is not, however, to ignore the fact that this is BAD for the very people she is mentioning.  The stress of an impending foreclosure can take a huge toll on a family.  And really, what can happen in 60 days that will prevent the inevitable.?  Really, the family would be better served to go through the very well understood process of foreclosure and begin rebuilding as soon as possible.  And don’t forget, for every family that is foreclosed on, there is another family that will move into a new home.  And business?  How can the delay be good for business?  Lenders base their decision to lend on the fact that, in the event of non-payment, they can reclaim their risk.  This is preventing that process and will result in more expensive lending practices up front.

No, be very clear, this is not about helping businesses, this is about helping politics.

Finally, Change I Can Believe In

Usually when the government gets in involved in programs to make a certain thing better, more often than not, what is happening is that one group of people benefits while another group takes the hit.  For example, when Unions benefit by allowing the minimum wage the rise, the losers are the people priced out of the employment market.  Another example is when farmers are assisted by pushing ethanol programs the food market suffers as prices for corn, soy and wheat based goods suffer.  Very rare is the program initiated by the government that actually serves everyone well.

Recently the Obama administration rolled out just such a program.  In it, the President speaks to the idea of individuals saving for their own retirement “nest eggs”.    Anything that can be done to make this easier, all the while keeping the responsibility on the individual worker, is a fantastic idea.  In most cases government adds complexity to what could otherwise be simple and straight forward processes.  In the ideas that Obama is speaking about, he is making it easier to save.  He isn’t creating programs, isn’t creating unnatural incentives, he is simply making it easier.  And THAT is good.

However, he does speak to changing existing law or regulations.  He would like to change the way in which auto enrollment is handled.  Rather than having to opt in to a savings plan, he wants to be able to have the language stat that an employee needs to opt out.  When done in this manner, he could increase tha rate of those who save from 70% to about 90%.  A fantastic number.

In short, emphasis on savings and hard work coming from Washington that speaks to individual responsibility is a great thing.

Aha….Why Cost of Insurance is so High in Maine

Alright, so we have been discussing health care, health insurance and everything wrong with all of that.  As always, the Democrats cry out “We need this.  We just NEED this damn it!  And then they walk away to their voting place and vote for someone who wants to be in power, which is different than someone wanting to be a Senator, and presto, we have a voice in Washington that is going to legislate this health care for everyone thing.  On the other side, you have republicans, seriously going about the days business when they hear this nonsense and look up from their work and say “No”.  In much the same way a father says “no” to the 7th request for another cookie before bed.

And so, republicans are labeled as the party of “No”.  But this time around, the republicans have offered some solutions to bring the price of health care down.  Down for everyone.  Down to the point that every single person in the country can have insurance.  And one of the methods in doing that is to free insurance companies to sell policies to people outside of the state the reside in.  That is, as a citizen of North Carolina, I could purchase health insurance from a company in Washington state.  Or Arizona.  Or anywhere for that matter.  What THIS would do is free the consumer to choose and not be subject to the regulations placed upon the insurance providers in that state.  But even this causes Liberals to scream.

For example, a recent study found that Maine ranks 6th in the nation when it comes to expensive individual policies.  Sixth.  And folks around the lefty campfire are saying that the reason for the high prices is due to the monopoly that exists in Maine.  They claim that because Wellpoint has a 90%+ customer saturation base, they are able to charge whatever they want.  The problem is, those liberals are reporting only on the results, not the cause of the problem.

See, it turns out that in 1993 Maine passed laws requiring coverage to every citizen.

Blink.  Blink.

But that’s not bad enough.  Not only are they required to sell insurance to everyone that applies, they are also unable to distinguish based on gender, health status, claims experience or time with coverage.

Now, after that law passed, what do you supposed happened to the price?  Yeah, right through the roof.  And it drove out all but a few providers that specialized in mandatory care and THEY, in turn, bought up the remaining companies.  Net/net:  Noe one wants to do business in Maine and THAT’S why there is only one provider.

Damn.

Next thing these liberals are going to mandate is that all kids make the varsity.

What Happens When Government Restricts Competition

Do you know what happens when the government restricts competition?  Yeah, um, you get less competition.  Weird that works out that way.  But some people actually think that when the government restricts competition and you get less competition, that the only answer is to have government compete.  Huh?  Confused?  Me too.

But this is real life and this is what we get:

“There is a serious problem with the lack of competition among insurers,” said Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the highest-cost states. “The impact on the consumer is significant.”

Wellpoint Inc. accounted for 71 percent of the Maine market, while runner-up Aetna had a 12 percent share, according to a 2008 report by the American Medical Association.

So, lemme get this straight.  Wellpoint has the market i Maine to the point that it can charge almost anything it wants and the REST of the insurance world stays out of Maine because?  Because…..?  They don’t wanna make money?  I have to believe there is another reason Wellpoint is the only player in Maine.

I’ll betcha a candy bar.

The Chairman’s Weekly Radio Address: August 16, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
Saturday, August 15th, 2009

This week, I’ve been traveling across our country to discuss health insurance reform and to hear directly from folks like you – your questions, your concerns, and your stories.

Nah, nah ya haven’t.  You’ve been making fun of guys like me.  Calling me a teabagger and a right wing nut case.  What you ARE doing is travelling across the country talking to folks like you!

Now, I know there’s been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially those where tempers have flared. You know how TV loves a ruckus.

Ahhwww, you folksy guy you!  But really, ’cause organizing is your bag I’m just ‘spossed to not have my say?

But what you haven’t seen – because it’s not as exciting – are the many constructive meetings going on all over the country where Americans are airing their hopes and concerns about this very important issue.

I’ve been holding some of my own, and the stories I’ve heard have really underscored why I believe so strongly that health insurance reform is a challenge we can’t ignore.

They’re stories like Lori Hitchcock’s, who I met in New Hampshire this week. Lori’s got a pre-existing condition, so no insurance company will cover her. She’s self-employed, and in this economy, she can’t find a job that offers health care, so she’s been uninsured for two years.

See, now that’s strange.  And while I’m not callin’ ya a liar, I AM sayin’ I don’t believe you.  See, I went on line, just now- right this very minute- and found a quote for health insurance that covers me after a 5k deductible for about $130 a month.  Now, I don’t have a pr-existing condition, the plan WOULD cover me 12 months after I had been paying premiums.  So, ya see, you CAN get coverage.  If you are willing to, you know, work.

Or they’re stories like Katie Gibson’s, who I met in Montana. When Katie tried to change insurance companies, she was sure to list her pre-existing conditions on the application and even called her new company to confirm she’d be covered. Two months later, she was dropped – after she’d already gone off her other insurance.

These are the stories that aren’t being told – stories of a health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people. And that’s why we’re going to pass health insurance reform that finally holds the insurance companies accountable.

Do you know what that means?  To hold an insurance company accountable?  Cause I don’t.  See, I have insurance and I see doctors and my kids see doctors and the insurance company pays the bills.  I don’t fight with ’em or have to call ’em or anything.  So, what are they doin’ that you don’t like?

But now’s the hard part. Because the history is clear – every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests with a stake in the status quo use their influence and political allies to scare and mislead the American people.

Strange of you to speak so poorly about your Union brothers.

As an example, let’s look at one of the scarier-sounding and more ridiculous rumors out there – that so-called “death panels” would decide whether senior citizens get to live or die.

Before you get on with what I am sure is a well thought out response to this concept—-it’s TRUE.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

That rumor began with the distortion of one idea in a Congressional bill that would allow Medicare to cover voluntary visits with your doctor to discuss your end-of-life care – if and only if you decide to have those visits. It had nothing to do with putting government in control of your decisions; in fact, it would give you all the information you need – if you want it – to put you in control of your decisions. When a conservative Republican Senator who has long-fought for even more far-reaching proposals found out how folks were twisting the idea, he called their misrepresentation, and I quote, “nuts.”

So when folks with a stake in the status quo keep inventing these boogeymen in an effort to scare people, it’s disappointing, but it’s not surprising. We’ve seen it before. When President Roosevelt was working to create Social Security, opponents warned it would open the door to “federal snooping” and force Americans to wear dog tags. When President Kennedy and President Johnson were working to create Medicare, opponents warned of “socialized medicine.” Sound familiar? Not only were those fears never realized, but more importantly, those programs have saved the lives of tens of millions of seniors, the disabled, and the disadvantaged.

Those who would stand in the way of reform will say almost anything to scare you about the cost of action. But they won’t say much about the cost of inaction.

You’ve been down this road before; remember the Stimulus package?  Yeah, how’d THAT work for ya Sparky?

If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now.

We’re not worried about it; we get it.  It’s a concept that we are all familiar with.  It’s a concept that serves us well.  For example, when we ration on price we get healthy competition resulting in lower costs and higher quality.  Not that you would know about it however, so, just keep on pretending like you’ve ever had a job.

In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most. Americans whose jobs and health care are secure today just don’t know if they’ll be next to join the 14,000 who lose their health insurance every single day. And if we don’t act, average family premiums will keep rising to more than $22,000 within a decade.

On the other hand, here’s what reform will mean for you.

First, no matter what you’ve heard, if you like your doctor or health care plan, you can keep it.

Right…..until ya need to change.  Then, then ya can’t keep it.  But just go right ahead and skip that part.

If you don’t have insurance, you’ll finally be able to afford insurance. And everyone will have the security and stability that’s missing today.

Who can’t afford insurance today?  Really?  Who?  And why not?  I swear to you…when you buy ANYTHING before you buy insurance, it means that you can buy insurance you simply choose not too.

Insurance companies will be prohibited from denying you coverage because of your medical history, dropping your coverage if you get sick, or watering down your coverage when it counts – because there’s no point in having health insurance if it’s not there when you need it.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or lifetime, and we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses – because no one in America should go broke just because they get sick.

Finally, we’ll require insurance companies to cover routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies – because there’s no reason we shouldn’t be saving lives and dollars by catching diseases like breast cancer and prostate cancer on the front end.

Pssst, over here.  You mentioned above that the normal tactics were being used to fight this, cough cough, reform bill of yours?  Well, far be it from you to go down that road.  Cause, ya know, insurance companies cover that today already.  But shhhh, better for you if no one calls ya on that!

That’s what reform means. For all the chatter and the noise out there, what every American needs to know is this: If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need. And we will deliver this in a fiscally responsible way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What kinda mooch do ya think I am?  No government bureaucrat, fiscally responsible.  Rich!

I know there’s plenty of real concern and skepticism out there.

Ya think?  Even you Democrats are eating your young on this one.

I know that in a time of economic upheaval, the idea of change can be unsettling, and I know that there are folks who believe that government should have no role at all in solving our problems. These are legitimate differences worthy of the real discussion that America deserves – one where we lower our voices, listen to one another, and talk about differences that really exist. Because while there may be disagreements over how to go about it, there is widespread agreement on the urgent need to reform a broken system and finally hold insurance companies accountable.

Nearly fifty years ago, in the midst of the noisy early battles to create what would become Medicare, President Kennedy said, “I refuse to see us live on the accomplishments of another generation. I refuse to see this country, and all of us, shrink from these struggles which are our responsibility in our time.” Now it falls to us to meet the challenges of our time. And if we can come together, and listen to one another; I believe, as I always have, that we will rise to this moment, we will build something better for our children, and we will secure America’s future in this new century.

Jeez!

The Price of a Stamp

So, in my last post I spoke some about the minimum wage and the buying power associated with it.  I used a concept shown to my by Mark Perry.  That is, comparing the cost of goods from 50 years ago to that price today.  I added a little twist and included the price of that good had it too kept up with inflation.

I thought it would be interesting to do the same thing with the cost of government controlled goods.  Like a postage stamp.

Here goes.

Cost of a stamp in 1958:  $0.04

Inflation Price:  $0.30

Real Price Today:  $0.44

So, while the price of products today is going down relative to it’s 1958 inflation price, the cost of postage is going up.  By almost 50%.