Recently in LIBERTY Category

*(Be sure to give us your opinion at the end of this post!)

Problems with defining what is uninsured

During the Clinton administration, proponents of universal health care created a compelling sense of urgency by citing a government statistic that said 40 million Americans lack health insurance for at least one year. Proponents called them "persistently uninsured." The National Coalition on Health Care reports that the 2007 figure is up to almost 47 million American.

But -- in 2004, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the correct figure (as of 2004) was really 21 to 31 million, a correction of almost 110% downward:

In recent years, it has been frequently stated that about 40 million Americans lack health insurance coverage. That estimate, by itself, presents an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the uninsured population. The uninsured population is constantly changing as people gain coverage and lose coverage. Furthermore, people vary greatly in the length of time that they remain uninsured. Some people are uninsured for long periods of time, but more are uninsured for shorter periods. (CBO Testimony before the Subcommittee on Health Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives, March 9, 2004).

Shifting the focus to the UNDER-insured

Because of problems with defining what it means to be uninsured, experts have shifted the focus to looking at the UNDER-insured.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey (March 18, 1956 – May 1, 2008) hung herself to avoid a lengthy prison sentence (up to 55 years in federal prison) for facilitating the trading of sex for money between free, rational consenting adults.

His energies and talents in his later years went more towards promoting traditional conservative causes, such as the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

I knew it I knew it I knew it I knew it!!!!!!

Liberal Values almost had me fooled -- Obama is absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government.

Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Dish has this to say:

I went to see Obama last night. He had a fundraiser at H20, a yuppie disco/restaurant in Southwest DC. I was curious about how he is in person. I'm still absorbing the many impressions I got. But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime.

The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same? (Andrew Sullivan, The Reagan of the Left?)

After reading this, it looks like there might be a lot of interesting things in those Clinton tax returns. Bill has sure made a lot of money while keeping the details secret.

Since leaving office in 2001, Clinton has wiped out millions of dollars in legal bills and become a multimillionaire through a brisk schedule of speechmaking and book-writing, as well as a pair of consulting and investing agreements that have yielded as-yet-undisclosed sums.

Someone pointed out in a comment that in terms of this being an issue, the emperor may have no clothes:

Personally, I have never understood the whole issue of candidates needing to release tax returns. I am sure the IRS looks very closely at the returns of anyone even semi-famous . . .

At this point, the pro-tax Liberal Values takes an almost statist position:

What is not clear is exactly when the American Conservative movement itself died. However, while the date of this event cannot be known with the same precision as Buckley's death, what is known is that it undoubtedly proceeded William F. Buckley Jr. to the Grave:

Buckley emerged as a public intellectual in 1951, shortly after graduating from Yale University, with his book God and Man at Yale, the first conservative complaint against the dominance of liberals at leading universities. Four years later, he started National Review, the magazine that really launched modern conservatism.

Buckley's home in Sharon, Conan., also served as the birthplace of Young Americans for Freedom, which became the nation's largest conservative youth group. The group's Sharon Statement outlined the principles of modern conservatism: individual liberty, limited government, the U.S. Constitution, federalism, the free-market economy and a strong national defense . . . through the Barry Gold water presidential campaign in 1964, [to] the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and culminating in the 1994 Contract with America [when] conservatives declared that they would deliver the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. (David Boaz, San Francisco Chronicle, 02 . 28 . 2008).

Then in 2000, it all began to fall apart.

In his final State of the Union address, President Bush predictably made the case for an open-ended military presence in Iraq, probably for decades. Bush has previously invoked Korea as a model and his administration hopes to conclude a formal status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that would effectively tie his successor's hands in ever getting us out of Iraq.

Christopher A. Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, puts it this way:

What a dramatic change from one year ago, when the president claimed that the surge would facilitate political reconciliation that would enable U.S. forces to come home. But the reduction in violence has not contributed to national reconciliation, and the president now argues that we cannot withdraw below pre-surge levels lest Iraq fall back into chaos. Approximately 130,000 American troops will remain in Iraq, roughly the same number as when the surge was first announced.

We cannot know how long it will take for Iraqi politicians to take responsibility for their country, or even whether they will do so. Given their many past failures, there is little reason for optimism. In the meantime, while Iraq's politicians dither, and our troops are risking their lives every day, we hope that the lull in violence continues. But this much is certain: President George W. Bush launched a war of choice in March 2003 that has so far cost the lives of nearly 4,000 Americans, and left many thousands more with life-altering injuries. The venture has cost American taxpayers more than $500 billion, and the meter is running at a rate of $10 billion a month. It will be up to the next president to clean up the mess.

Looking back, it's almost farcical how it all started, and how it would have been so easy to prevent: Back in 2003 or 2004, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke talked to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes about the Bush administration's neocon obsession with Iraq:

Pro-tax Liberal Values

It's a rather astonishing and embarrassing mix of sweeping generalizations and red herrings substituting for real analyses from a guy obviously smart and bright enough to know better.

The attack begins with a clear-as-mud critisism of the "Laffer Curve:"

A conservative publication, which I will not name, just spiked a book review because I said that the Laffer Curve didn’t apply at American levels of taxation, even while otherwise expressing my vast displeasure with the (liberal) economic notions of the book I was reviewing. This isn’t me looking for an alternative explanation for the spiking of a bad review: the literary editor accepted it, edited it, and then three hours later told me it couldn’t be published because it violated their editorial line on taxation.
I suppose I ought to have known, but I didn’t. Go ahead liberals, pile on: you told me so.
(Megan McArdle, The Atlantic.com, 10 . 16 . 2007)

Pro-tax Liberal Values frames this quote with this out-of-the-blue and way-the-hell over-generalization:

I’ve often noted that a major problem with the modern conservative movement and the Republican Party is that they put ideology before reality.

. . . ?! . . .

Gratifyingly, readers of this blog have responded with some great comments to the post Are We Smarter & Better than the British on National Health Care . . . ?

Thank you! Keep them coming, and please take the poll located at the end of this post -- thanks again!

If you're like you me, a normal everyday intelligent but non-expert person, you probably find the issues surrounding health care to be wide, large, complicated, confusing, and -- last but not least -- highly, seriously, contentious (and for good and obvious reasons):

First see: Michael Moore attacks Dr. Sanjay Gupta's Criticism of SICKO.
Then see: Dr. Sanjay Gupta's response to Michael Moore.
Finally, check out the debate between these two men on Larry King Live.

You don't have to be an health care expert to see that the current system is rife with problems (problems that are even more grave than "too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country").

While I think the "solution" is harder to see, others think the answer is more or less straightforward, i.e.,  more government involvement and control . . . 

But is that solution really so clear?

Mother reportedly tells police she, stepfather beat 2-year-old to death

I've never really been "for" the death penalty (unless someone confesses to a pre-mediated murder and the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), but in this case,

right now,

right this very MOMENT!!!!! . . .

yeah, I'm WAY for the f***ing death penalty

. . . and if a harsher penalty existed, I'd be for that TOO!