For the fourth time in six cases, the Supreme Court of the United States has reversed a decision for which Judge Sonia Sotomayor voted on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. If this nominee were a white male, would this not raise questions about whether he should be elevated to a court that has found his previous decisions wrong two-thirds of the times when those decisions have been reviewed?
Thomas Sowell
Most political and media discussions of medical care have an air of unreality reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland. There is an abundance of catch-phrases but remarkably few coherent arguments.
Let's start at square one. Why is there alarm about American medical care? The most usual reason given is because its cost is high and rising.
That is certainly true. We were not spending nearly as much on high-tech medical procedures in the past because there were not nearly as many of them, and we were not spending anything at all on some of the new pharmaceutical drugs because they didn't exist.
This general pattern is not peculiar to medical care. Cars didn't cost nearly as much in the past, when they didn't have air-conditioning, power steering and high-tech safety features. Homes were cheaper when they were smaller, had fewer bathrooms and lacked such conveniences as built-in microwave ovens.
We would like to have all these things without the rising costs that come with them. But only with medical care is such wishful thinking taken seriously, with government regarded as a sort of fairy godmother who will give us the benefits without the costs.
A cynic is said to be someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. If so, then it is political cynicism to point to other countries that spend less on medical care, including some countries where there is "universal health care" provided "free" by their governments.
Just as medical care, houses and cars were all cheaper when they lacked things that they have today, so medical care in other countries is cheaper when they lack many things that are more readily available in the United States.
There are more than four times as many Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRIs) per capita in the United States as in Britain or Canada, where there are government-run medical systems. There are more than twice as many CT scanners per capita in the United States as in Canada and more than four times as many per capita as in Britain.
Is it surprising that such things cost money?
The cost of developing a new pharmaceutical drug is now about a billion dollars. Neither political rhetoric nor government bureaucracies will make those costs go away.
We can, of course, refuse to pay these and other medical costs, just as we can refuse to buy air-conditioned homes with built-in microwave ovens. But that just means we pay attention only to prices and not to the value of what we get for those prices.
We can even refuse to pay for so many doctors. But that just means that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor-- as people do in countries with government-run medical systems.
In Canada, 27 percent of the people who have surgery wait four months or more. In Britain, 38 percent wait that long. But only 5 percent of Americans wait that long for surgery.
Surgery may well cost less in countries with government-run medical systems-- if you count only the money cost, and not the time the patients have to endure the ailments that require surgery, or the fact that some conditions become worse, or even fatal, while waiting.
A recent report from the Fraser Institute in Canada shows that patients there wait an average of ten weeks to get an MRI, just to find out what is wrong with them. A lot of bad things can happen in 10 weeks, ranging from suffering to death.
Politicians may talk about "bringing down the cost of medical care," but they seldom even attempt to bring down the costs. What they bring down is the price-- which is to say, they refuse to pay the costs.
Anybody can refuse to pay any cost. But don't be surprised if you get less when you pay less. None of this is rocket science. But it does require us to stop and think before jumping on a bandwagon.
The great haste with which the latest government expansion into medical care is being rushed through Congress suggests that the politicians don't want us to stop and think. That makes sense, from their point of view, but not from ours.
Thomas Sowell has published a large volume of writing. His dozen books, as well as numerous articles and essays, cover a wide range of topics, from classic economic theory to judicial activism, from civil rights to choosing the right college.
Please contact your local newspaper editor if you want to read the THOMAS SOWELL column in your hometown paper.
As the protests in Iran begin to dwindle, and the usual accusations of "American interference" are launched by Tehran, I can't help but wonder what today's news would have been had America responded differently to the situation. I can't help but wonder what a different message from President Obama would have led to.
The following is a fictitious speech. It is the speech that only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens – a foreign policy of self-interest – could make.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past few days, we have borne witness to the murdering, beating, silencing and intimidation of the Iranian people by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.
It is time for us to be unequivocal. It is time for America to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Its current Supreme theocratic leader and his sub commanders are not a legitimate regime. The fact is that Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power, outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.
Yet the Iranian regime deserves our immediate, uncompromising attention. This theocracy has repeatedly, for decades, declared itself an enemy of America and has openly acted in violence against our citizens. It is a standard-bearer of Islamic totalitarianism, the movement that Osama bin Laden and others, avow to kill us, and themselves, for. We've known it of Iran since they took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. The regime in Tehran is the spiritual inspiration for the ideology behind the horrific attacks on our soil on September 11th. Americans have not forgotten those attacks and who is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime except to say that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for. And we will never again forget what we stand for.
But we do have much to say to the brave men and women in Iran who have taken to the streets to voice their opposition to the self-appointed Supreme leader. We have much to say, and offer, to the people of Iran, who are now declaring to anyone who will listen that this regime does not represent them.
To those among you who have stood up in the face of threats and intimidation; to those among you who have said "We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it"; to those among you who are saying that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say you have our support. You have our encouragement, and our sanction. We will help you – and we will offer you our moral and financial support. And yes, if it comes to it, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability. You see, we share your goal of ending the theocracy in Iran and of eliminating the threat it poses to freedom-cherishing nations, including our own. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have the right, you have the moral fortitude to finally end it. We will help you do what we were unwilling to do ourselves, for both of our sakes.
To those in Iran who genuinely, and desperately, seek liberty: you have the opportunity to fight for the creation of a freer nation, a nation founded on principles that protect the rights of each individual. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights and the time is now to fight for the creation of a nation that upholds these principles.
It will not be easy and our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. We know it will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say that you have taken an important first step. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken; stand firm, and we will stand with you."
(Reuters) - Two U.S. Democratic lawmakers want Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to relax recently tightened standards for mortgages on new condominiums, saying they could threaten the viability of some developments and slow the housing-market recovery, the Wall Street Journal said.
In March, Fannie Mae (FNM.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(FNM.P: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) said it would no longer guarantee mortgages on condos in buildings where fewer than 70 percent of the units have been sold, up from 51 percent, the paper said. Freddie Mac (FRE.P: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(FRE.N: Quote, Profile,Research, Stock Buzz) is due to implement similar policies next month, the paper said.
In a letter to the CEO's of both companies, Representatives Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, and Anthony Weiner warned that a 70 percent sales threshold "may be too onerous" and could lead condo buyers to shun new developments, according to the paper.
The legislators asked the companies to "make appropriate adjustments" to their underwriting standards for condos, the paper added.
A businessman's success depends on his intelligence, his knowledge, his productive ability, his economic judgment—and on the voluntary agreement of all those he deals with: his customers, his suppliers, his employees, his creditors or investors. A bureaucrat's success depends on his political pull. A businessman cannot force you to buy his product; if he makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences; if he fails, he takes the loss. A bureaucrat forces you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not—and the more advanced the stage of a country's statism, the wider and more discretionary the powers wielded by a bureaucrat. If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; if he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes.
"Moral Inflation," The Ayn Rand Letter, III, 12, 1:
"Inflation" is defined in the dictionary as "undue expansion or increase of the currency of a country, esp. by the issuing of paper money not redeemable in specie" (Random House Dictionary). It is interesting to note that the word "inflated" is defined as "distended with air or gas; swollen."
This last is not a coincidence: in regard to social issues, "inflation" does not mean growth, enlargement or expansion, it means an "undue"—or improper or fraudulent—expansion. The expansion of a country's currency (which, incidentally, cannot be perpetrated by private citizens, only by the government) consists in palming off, as values, a stream of paper backed by nothing but promises (or hot air) and getting actual values, the citizens' goods or services, in return—until the country's wealth is drained. A similar activity, in private performance, is the passing of checks on a non-existent bank account. But, in private performance, this is regarded as a crime—and most people understand why such an activity cannot last for long.
Today, people are beginning to understand that the government's account is overdrawn, that a piece of paper is not the equivalent of a gold coin, or an automobile, or a loaf of bread—and that if you attempt to falsify monetary values, you do not achieve abundance, you merely debase the currency and go bankrupt.
Alan Greenspan, "Gold and Economic Freedom," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 101:
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.
—Ayn Rand, 1975
By John Parry
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Technical analyst Robert Prechter on Monday said he sees the United States losing its top AAA credit rating by the end of 2010, as he stuck by a deeply bearish outlook on the U.S. economy and stock market.
Prechter, known for predicting the 1987 stock market crash, joins a growing coterie of market heavyweights in forecasting the United States will lose its top credit rating as the government issues trillions of dollars in debt to fund efforts to bail out the economy.
Fears about the long-term vulnerability of the prized U.S. credit rating came to the fore after Standard & Poor's in May lowered its outlook on Britain, threatening the UK's top AAA rating. That move raised fears that the United States could face a similar risk, with the hefty amounts of government debt issued in both countries to pay for financial rescues causing budget deficits to swell.
Prechter, speaking at the Reuters Investment Outlook Summit in New York, said he sees investors' confidence in an economic rebound fading, a trend that will drag the S&P 500 stock index .SPX well below the March 6 intraday low of 666.79 by the end of this year or early next.
"There will be a leg down in stock prices, and it will affect all other areas," including corporate bonds and commodities, said Prechter, who is executive officer at research company Elliott Wave International, based in Gainesville, Georgia.
Prechter, who is known for his bearish views, has repeatedly forecast a steep decline in stocks this year, even as the stock market has rebounded from 12-year lows set in March as optimism about an economic recovery has risen.
Despite the government and Federal Reserve's massive rescues for financial companies and securities markets, Prechter expects credit markets to clam up again as they did in the first phase of the global financial crisis and for the U.S. economy to sink into a depression.
Although U.S. banks' recently passed government "stress tests" that assessed the adequacy of their capital levels to absorb losses and have been able to raise some capital in debt and equity markets, "the banking sector is in severe trouble," as more loans turn bad, he said.
The economy "is obviously heading toward a depression," despite the government's efforts to dodge one, said Prechter.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has not averted a re-run of the 1930s Great Depression, even though investors are becoming firmly convinced that the Fed has avoided disaster and that the economy has hit bottom.
"It's the next leg down (in stocks) that will make it clear that these things are not true," Prechter said.
(Editing by Leslie Adler)
News
The Environment
Mideast
Organizations
Medicine
Peers
The Drudge Report
Townhall Columnists
The Wall Street Journal
The Jewish World Review
World Net Daily
Oregon Petition - Kyoto
Junk Science
Earth For Man
Benjamin Netanyahu
Moral Defense of Israel
Stand With Us
History in a Nutshell
Capitalist Chicks
Hollywood Half Wits
The Cato Institute
Inst. For Humane Studies
Politopia
Citizens Against Gov't Waste
Objective Medicine
AFCM
Objectivist Blogs
Wit & Wisdom
d-Anconia Online
The 50th Star
Charlotte Capitalist
Rule of Reason
IALM
