March 18, 2010

Pre-Existing Conditions Important For Insurance

What is the definition of insurance?  Insurance is the transfer of risk from one party to another.  Usually, one party is willing to accept the risk of the other party by virtue of a premium.  For example, if the insured is wanting to insure his boat from natural disaster, the insurer will offer such protection (from property/monetary loss) at a rate deemed comfortable by the insurer.  A boat in the middle of New York is being insured and a boat on the Florida coast is being insured.  Which boat insurance policy is more expensive in our example?  Well, the boat that brings the most risk to the insurer will be the boat that maintains the most expensive policy.  So, the insurer is willing to accept both risks - but, if he is charging $300/annually (for a 50k damage policy) for the boat in New York and $300/annually (same 50k policy) for the boat in Florida, where is the insurer most likely to have to pay a claim?--Obviously in Florida.  Now, if insurer charged the same $300/annually for both New York and Florida, the insurer will take a very large hit once the next hurricane blows through Florida.  To which the Left would shout with joy that the insurance company is taking a hit - remember wise-guy, if they take a hit, all of the other policies they insure will take a hit as well. 

Anyway, so, for our example, the insurer must charge more for the same 50k policy in Florida than he would in New York.  Why?  Because the risk being transferred is greater in Florida than in New York.  Now, let's turn our attention to health.

(Let's assume health care operates as a lump sum benefit based on diagnoses.)  The policy sought after is the same 50k policy, but it is for health and not for boats.  Person A has Type II Diabetes.  Person B has Type I Diabetes, had a stroke 3 years ago and is about to go on dialysis.  Which person brings more known risk to the table?--Person B, obviously.  So, again, the insurer will charge more for higher risk.  Is this wrong?  No, absolutely not!  The only way an insurance company is able to pay its claims is by taking the premiums and investing them to make money.  So, if an insurance company is going to consider a high risk individual (a person they will more likely pay a claim on sooner) they need to be able to cover that loss.

Now, are there people with so great a risk that insurance companies are not comfortable with covering them?  Sure.  Is that wrong?  No!  It is a private company and it can set its own standards of risk tolerance.  So, what does Obama's plan do to this scenario?

Obama wants to eliminate pre-existing conditions.  By doing this, the risk transfer is 100% on the insurance provider.  Therefore, it is no more insurance, but simply reimbursement coverage.  Now, if an insurance company is required to pay claims for any and every thing, what do you think will happen to premiums?  Again, the company is trying to protect against loss.  Well, we would have our Florida example to the 10th power.  Insurance companies would raise premiums; possibly hundreds or even thousands of percents higher.  By the way, who pays these premiums?  We buy the policies, so we do!  If your premium jumps 1000%, what would you do?  Well, you'd still keep your cable, but you'd get rid of the insurance.  Taste it - because you know its true.  So, insurance policies are being dropped at a rapid pace.  With no client's paying premiums, the insurance companies do not make money.  Businesses that don't make money, fail.  Obama's plan is to destroy the insurance industry thereby leaving no other alternative but to rely on the sugar mama of Government.  However, the Government cannot pay for this without help from your taxes.  So, instead of paying premiums to an insurance company, you will pay higher taxes to cover this massive intrustion into capitalism.

Call your Congressman and demand a "no" vote on healthcare!

Dial: 877-762-8762 or 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121

March 16, 2010

More Government Waste

There were a bunch of stories on the front page of this morning so I felt I would take a minute and give a quick comment about a couple.

The FCC is planning to get 9 out of every 10 Americans on a broadband connection.  The FCC says that 2/3 of the American people do not have high-speed internet in their homes.  They base this one a sample population of 5,005 people.  There are 300,000,000 people in the United States (as of 2000 Census).  Assuming the family of 4 is the norm, that would leave 75,000,000 households in the US.  (I know, these are crude numbers.)  So, how can 5,005 represent 50 million people (2/3 of 75k)?  Furthermore, is it the government's job to spend our tax dollars to give someone else faster internet?  This is internet welfare!  However, there is an underlying reason for this.  The faster the connection, the quicker the Government can get to your personal information.  Remember the Cash for Clunkers deal?!  The website stated that by proceeding through it, your computer became property of the Federal Government.

Story 2:  Toyota Disputing Runaway Car

I've felt this since the beginning.  This Toyota accusation of hybrid malfunctions doesn't seem to add up.  Remember when SUVs were the evil killers on the earth?  Remember news stories that portrayed SUVs as actually thinking beings, capable of search and destroy?! (Note this story Now, the wonderful hybrid car, the one that the Government needs to have towards a "cleaner earth" is now the subject of much scrutiny, much like the SUV.  However, cars do not accelerate on their own.  It requires input from the driver - either directly on the gas pedal or by pressing the increase speed button on the cruise control.  This whole circus is just another way that irresponsible people are trying to get something for nothing.  However, since it costs half of your estate to buy one of these things, perhaps the tree huggers have programmed these cars to fight back against the evil rich people.  Just goes to prove that Capitalism and Environmentalism do not mix.  The only logical conclusion?  Give Environmentalism a lethal injection and get it out of our way for good!

March 15, 2010

Reform, A Brief Thought

Obama is screaming for health care reform and reform of the health care industry.  Chris Dodd, one who paved the way for our financial crisis, is now demanding that we reform Wall Street.  Allow me to translate this for you.  Being tri-lingual (English, German, and Liberal) I'm able to translate these campaign slogans into every day English.  "Health care reform" = Government runs health care.  "Wall Street reform" = Government runs Wall Street.  So, these evil, big capitalistic companies that give evil large bonuses to their CEOs will now be ran by benevolent big Government; who votes on their own pay raises and spends your money, not because you bought a good or service from them, but because they stole it through your taxes.  Yes, reform is what we need!  (maniacally giggling like Gargamel).  

Here's a thought.  In this era of reform, how about we reform the real gluttonous beast called Government?  Government wouldn't be so confusing nor expensive if we just let the Constitution determine what it does.  Amendment 10 to the US Constitution says that powers not granted within the Constitution to the Federal Government are reserved to the States.  Period.  I'm sure I'll miss a few (since there are so many), but let's list some of this Federal "cellulitis".

1.  Department of Education  (63.7 Billion (
2.  Department of Agriculture (133 pages of PMS bloating
3.  Department of Transportation (73.25 Billion
4.  Department of Homeland Security (55.1 Billion

You can read the full list of Federal Departments and Agencies here:

I'm not saying that everything on this list needs to go (obviously Military and Defense items, etc. need to stay).

Where is the outrage over the Government's out-of-control lifestyle?  Where is the demand for reform?  Well, I believe come November, we will see some immediate reform in the seats of Congress.  But, just because they have an R by their name doesn't mean anything (thank you Newt Gingrich).  We must hold them to Conservative principles of limited government and maximizing of personal freedoms and liberties.  Obama wants the Iron Curtain to rule over this country.  Let's be sure to stop that come November!

March 9, 2010

Health Care At Any Cost

This is unbelievable.  Read the article for a quick temper boost.

Obama was upset because private health insurers have recently raised their rates.  Guess what, Obama - it's none of your concern; they are PRIVATE health insurers.  If people don't want to pay their rates, then they go down the street to the next guy.  But, perhaps this is just a strategic move by the health insurers knowing that once pre-existing conditions are gone, they will have to insure any and all, and thereby, requiring to raise rates to be able to pay for all of it.  Therefore, to recoup this cost, they must raise rates...which is what I've been saying all along (,  Obama thinks his policies will have no ramifications on private business.  But, we clearly see it is beginning to happen.

So, Obama opens his speech with another sob-story.  I doubt the validity of this and question how much she was paid to lie to the crowd.  But, this woman is purportedly a diabetic and was just informed by the evil health insurance company she has that her rates would "more than double."  First of all, the trade off of what she is paying verses what the insurance is paying is still working in her favor.  Secondly, what are the details of such a rate increase?  Are there specifications in her policy that would allow for rate increases if certain criteria are met?  Is this another case of someone not reading their policy before agreeing to it?!  Lastly, Obama is using typical Liberal tactics by avoiding objective, analytical facts and going straight for the "emotional jugular."

Obama goes on to say (quoted from the article) "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government," Obama said. "The insurance companies continue to ration health care. ... That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable"

What?!  The price of health care is a punishing cost to the government?  And he wants the government to run it?!  Who funds the government anyway?  WE DO with our taxes!  So, if health care is a punishing cost to the government, then Obama will have to RAISE TAXES to ease the pain of this so-called punishment.  Don't be fooled.  Obama is "concerned" about the rising cost of health care, but he isn't concerned about the rising taxes since he took office; he isn't concerned about the rising deficit.  What makes you think he is all concerned about the costs of health care?

Furthermore, "The insurance companies continue to ration health care."  Two things about this: is it possible for a company to "ration" its services because they only have a certain amount of money?  But, Obama here is committing fraud to the American people.  He is giving the idea that companies are turning away people left and right and that's not what America is about.  Obama - you run Medicare.  You run Medicaid.  You run Social Security.  How many are turned down for Medicare and Medicaid benefits?!  How many that file for Social Security disability are turned down - and they actually have a viable disability?!  Notice how Obama never tries to explain how government-run health care will be different than these three behemoths of waste.

I'll end with this: Obama responds to GOP criticisms that this plan (nearly $1 trillion) doesn't have any breaks on spending.  Obama's response: "You had 10 years.  What were you doing?"  Ok, 57-states, 1994 to 2006 isn't 10 years, it's 12.  What were they doing?!  They were passing tax-cuts for Americans - that's right, giving us our money back.  They were fighting off the destruction of the Clinton Administration.  They had 9/11 to deal with.  They passed Welfare Reform that limits the amount of time a citizen can be on the program.  So, Obama, like the little brat in the store who doesn't get candy, stands up and says, "Fine.  Since you didn't take any initiative to do this, I will.  Screw you, America!  I'm going to cost your children and grandchildren trillions of dollars because the GOP did nothing for health care.  Yeah, how do you like me now?  What choice do you think I had?" 

In an unrelated story, Scoliosis claims have risen in the US due to added weight and pressure of Hope and Change.

March 6, 2010

So-Called Science Is At It Again

This is a very interesting article about laying to rest any debate over the reason for the extinction of dinosaurs.  A group of scientists have closed the case and the verdict is in: dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor that hit the earth millions of years ago.

Combining all available data from different science disciplines led us to conclude that a large asteroid impact 65 million years ago in modern day Mexico was the major cause of the mass extinctions.

Are we happy?  Well, I'm not.  First, notice the language of the above quote from the article.  "Combining all available data"...  In other words, there is still data that is not available.  The data that is available is a known known.  The data that is unavailable is an unknown unknown.  Therefore, to draw an emphatic conclusion is a blatant disregard to any existing data that may have not been uncovered yet.

Not only this, as I addressed in my blog post , what observations/testing was done millions of years ago to give us documented evidence that we can compare to?  To take a bone and tell me it is 65 million years old, based on faulty radiometric dating methods, isn't very scientific.

So, what about these dating methods?  Here's a little bit that "science" doesn't want you to know.  There are 3 major assumptions that are being made in order for these dating methods to seem valid.  Every rock has elements within the rock.  Based on the elements present determines which dating method is used.  (Potassium-Argon, Uranium Lead, etc.).  The dating method basically makes a mathematical calculation based on the amount of each element in the rock.  Now, before we go on, it would behoove us to not assume any level of intelligence and explain a few things.  This will get a little technical, but hopefully it is understandable.  Thank you college Chemistry for the following explanations.

Elements contain Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.  For example, if you look at Carbon on the Periodic Table, it is Atomic Number 6.  Atomic Numbers designate how many Protons are in the nucleus of the atom.  It would be easy if Carbon was just Carbon, but there are actually varying occurrences of Carbon.  For lack of a better term, under "normal" circumstances, an element's number of Protons is equal to the number of its Neutrons.  The number of Protons never changes otherwise the element would change.  However, if an element gains Neutrons, it's Atomic Mass can change.  The Atomic Mass number or nucleon number is the total number of Protons and Neutrons.  So, the Atomic Number never changes (# of Protons) but the Atomic Mass (# of Protons + Neutrons) can.  When an element gains Neutrons, the element is no longer known by its title, but rather it's Isotope title and number.  An Isotope is a base element that has gained more neutrons.  For example, Carbon may be Carbon-12 (C-12), Carbon-13 (C-13), or Carbon-14 (C-14).  (Simply subtract the Atomic Number from the Isotope number to find the number of Neutrons). 

Now, there are Isotopes that are stable (C-12, C-13); and there are Isotopes that are unstable (radioactive) (C-14).  When an Isotope is radioactive, it desperately wants to become stable (non-radioactive).  However, it just can't shed Neutrons by jumping on the treadmill.  Isotopes must undergo a process known as Radioactive Decay.  Through this decay, the element works its way down to stable element.  However, sometimes, the Radioactive Decay not only sheds Neutrons, but also sheds Protons (see for further insight into Radioactive Decay, including types of radiation that occurs).  Uranium-238 (U-238), through this decay process, transforming into many other elements and eventually ends up as Lead-206 (Pb-206), which is finally a stable element.  Lead's Atomic Number is 82, so PB-206 contains 82 Protons and 124 Neutrons.  Uranimum, in this case, is known as the Parent Element and all those it decays into are known as Daughter Elements.  The time it takes for half identical Parent radioisotopes to decay into their Daughter Elements is known as a Half-Life. 

Many of these Half-Lives are said to be hundreds of millions of years--which brings us to our first major assumption.  Since no one has every lived for hundreds of millions of years to test and observe such decay, it is impossible to say, with any level of certainty, that the actual Half Life is xxx million years.  So, assumption #1 is that they know the time of these Half Lives.

Assumption #2 is that they know the original ratio of Parent to Daughter elements.  For radiometric dating to work, you have to know where you started from to where you are now and then measure that span by factoring in "known" Half Lives and thereby deriving an age.  If you don't know where you started from, then you must assume.  Therefore, the radiometric dating methods do not being with viable, provable observation.

Assumption #3 is that they know, for certain, that radio active decay rates have remained constant.  Again, without being around to observe such decay rates, we can only assume they have remained constant. 

Unless these assumptions are made, radiometric dating is nothing more than faulty at best.  If we make these assumptions, then we are leaving the world of the testable and the observable and therefore, we leave the world of science.

With this, I can't accept the notion that the death of the dinosaurs was caused by something we can't prove.

March 4, 2010

Reagan on the 50?

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.  I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.)  Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea.  ( Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us.  As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?!  Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's.  Oh really?!  Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge.  Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won.  So, the Civil War ends and what are the results?  We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th).  The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military.  See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half.  We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists.  The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves.  And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration.  We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute.  The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money.  In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!