Ahead of the passage of ObamaCare, we heard all kinds of claims about "cost savings" if we federalized healthcare for everyone. Here's the dirty little secret: federal healthcare cost savings depends on technology such as this. Doctors can wirelessly monitor a patient's blood sugar and administer insulin remotely.
This is the kind of thing being evaluated by the new "Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation".
What happens when that technology fails and someone dies? Does the federal government get sued? Of course not -- you can't sue the federal government.
They're also looking at pill tracking technology, to communicate whether you've taken your pills or not. What if you don't take your pills? What then?
All of this promoted by the same people who complain that profiling airline passengers is too intrusive. How about wearing a medical device that's controlled by remote? How intrusive is that?
For folks who don't want government in our bedrooms, or in our reproductive organs, it's really strange to see them wanting government in our medicine cabinets.
It's inevitable that government healthcare will lead to more of this type of thing. We can't have joint responsibility for costs without some loss of individual responsibility and rights. Just can't happen.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Dodd Bill nears passage, grab your wallets
It's called the "Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010". Full 1,410 pages here in PDF.
That name, alone, should scare the hell out of you.
The latest round of ground-breaking reform efforts (snicker) is the Dodd Bill, S.3217, which is designed to once and for all eliminate big bailouts as well as protect consumers from EEEEVIL Wall Street types.
The full text of the bill is here. And Reuters has summarized it here. HuffPo blathers about it here with their full page on "The Financial Fix" -- be sure to scroll down.
In the meantime, Larry Summers stays awake (sorry Dr. Summers, I had to) long enough to point out that lots of small banks can be dangerous, too. It's a PBS interview, with transcript.
Mike Konczal, no stranger to this stuff, has posted a list of things that MUST be in the bill if any REAL reform is going to take place. He's with the Roosevelt Institute, so understand that he has an agenda to start with. Good summary though.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric on this -- nobody in Congress is crusading for economic stability through reform. They are all playing to their money base, same with the President. For example, the new consumer agency will be a way to twist corporate arms to help "community organizers" get funds for their pet projects. How do we know? Look at the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Not only did it give banks an excuse for making bad loans, but it allowed them to mask their political payoffs as regulatory compliance.
Remember, the law of unintended consequences was written by some guy named Murphy. The essential problem here is that the folks writing the changes (Dodd, Franks, etc.) are the same folks who got us to this point.
And by the way, Tim Geithner has never held a real job. Policy jobs aren't real jobs, in other words. Boy that should make all the policy jocks out there feel real good.
The Editors at National Review Online have posted their counterpoint on this. Worth a look. One thing they point out is that corporate finance will be impacted by this, too. The bill requires "proxy access" for shareholders, which has been a rallying cry for institutional investors of late. The editors here figure that it's a way for unions to take over boards. They may be onto something.
More on proxy access at The New York Times, from last October. Looks like it might be a big deal after all.
That name, alone, should scare the hell out of you.
The latest round of ground-breaking reform efforts (snicker) is the Dodd Bill, S.3217, which is designed to once and for all eliminate big bailouts as well as protect consumers from EEEEVIL Wall Street types.
The full text of the bill is here. And Reuters has summarized it here. HuffPo blathers about it here with their full page on "The Financial Fix" -- be sure to scroll down.
In the meantime, Larry Summers stays awake (sorry Dr. Summers, I had to) long enough to point out that lots of small banks can be dangerous, too. It's a PBS interview, with transcript.
Mike Konczal, no stranger to this stuff, has posted a list of things that MUST be in the bill if any REAL reform is going to take place. He's with the Roosevelt Institute, so understand that he has an agenda to start with. Good summary though.
Don't be fooled by some of the rhetoric on this -- nobody in Congress is crusading for economic stability through reform. They are all playing to their money base, same with the President. For example, the new consumer agency will be a way to twist corporate arms to help "community organizers" get funds for their pet projects. How do we know? Look at the evolution of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Not only did it give banks an excuse for making bad loans, but it allowed them to mask their political payoffs as regulatory compliance.
Remember, the law of unintended consequences was written by some guy named Murphy. The essential problem here is that the folks writing the changes (Dodd, Franks, etc.) are the same folks who got us to this point.
And by the way, Tim Geithner has never held a real job. Policy jobs aren't real jobs, in other words. Boy that should make all the policy jocks out there feel real good.
The Editors at National Review Online have posted their counterpoint on this. Worth a look. One thing they point out is that corporate finance will be impacted by this, too. The bill requires "proxy access" for shareholders, which has been a rallying cry for institutional investors of late. The editors here figure that it's a way for unions to take over boards. They may be onto something.
More on proxy access at The New York Times, from last October. Looks like it might be a big deal after all.
Friday, April 23, 2010
GM repays its debt to the government? Uh, no.
Earlier this week, GM made a big announcement and is running ads that it has paid back the government loan. You can find commentary on the matter here . The Youtube of the ad is here .
Chuck Grassley's comments from the Senate are here. TARP money was repaid from other TARP money. Who didn't see THAT coming?
Kinda like a kid asking Dad for a Jackson so they can go to the mall and buy the Father's Day present.
The ad is misleading at best, pedantic lies at worst. They must think that their audience, and the public in general, will believe whatever they say. They must think that we're a buncha morons.
Truth is, they didn't really pay back the government "in full." They didn't even get started good, as my grandmother would say.
THIS iteration of GM, the NEW GM, paid back some of the money it borrowed to keep running. THE FORMER iteration of GM, the one that went belly up, hasn't recouped anything for the taxpayers. Nor will it. The taxpayers took an ownership stake, and the bondholders got screwed out of something like 80 cents on their dollars.
Where is the payback for those guys?
The UAW, however, ended up with a big chunk of ownership too, at the expense of everyone else. Surprise.
Finally, everyone's talking about an eventual GM IPO that will bring in anywhere between $20B and $50B. Question: Who in their right mind would buy GM stock? Or GM bonds for that matter?
More importantly, how can portfolio managers and those with fiduciary responsibility (or reputational capital for that matter) purchase any NEW GM stock given what happened to the OLD GM stock? Wouldn't they be in jeopardy with the "prudent man" requirement?
What investor in her right mind would have anything to do with this going forward?
Chuck Grassley's comments from the Senate are here. TARP money was repaid from other TARP money. Who didn't see THAT coming?
Kinda like a kid asking Dad for a Jackson so they can go to the mall and buy the Father's Day present.
The ad is misleading at best, pedantic lies at worst. They must think that their audience, and the public in general, will believe whatever they say. They must think that we're a buncha morons.
Truth is, they didn't really pay back the government "in full." They didn't even get started good, as my grandmother would say.
THIS iteration of GM, the NEW GM, paid back some of the money it borrowed to keep running. THE FORMER iteration of GM, the one that went belly up, hasn't recouped anything for the taxpayers. Nor will it. The taxpayers took an ownership stake, and the bondholders got screwed out of something like 80 cents on their dollars.
Where is the payback for those guys?
The UAW, however, ended up with a big chunk of ownership too, at the expense of everyone else. Surprise.
Finally, everyone's talking about an eventual GM IPO that will bring in anywhere between $20B and $50B. Question: Who in their right mind would buy GM stock? Or GM bonds for that matter?
More importantly, how can portfolio managers and those with fiduciary responsibility (or reputational capital for that matter) purchase any NEW GM stock given what happened to the OLD GM stock? Wouldn't they be in jeopardy with the "prudent man" requirement?
What investor in her right mind would have anything to do with this going forward?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Email access to blogs!!!! Wow!
I found out yesterday that I can post to this blog by just emailing from my iPod Touch. Wow! That's the coolest thing yet.
More about Financial Reform as I get time to post. And as I remember the email address!
More about Financial Reform as I get time to post. And as I remember the email address!
Monday, April 19, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Shortage of Doctors? No frakkin' way.
We're on our way to being Cuber, folks. The Wall Street Journal comments that med schools are trying hard to keep up.
This is what happens, inevitably, when you over-regulate an industry. What's next?
Mediocrity. Med schools will eventually fill up with a bunch of marginally-qualified applicants just to meet the demand of government-sponsored or subsidized health care, and quality will go down that way, too, as with many of the other changes. It may take 30 years, but we'll see it happen, sure as anything.
What happened in banking was much the same: over-regulation drove talent out of the industry after the 1930s. After all, how hard is it to run a bank when the government micromanages every decision? The savings and loan industry, as it existed in 1980, is a really good example of "mediocracy" at its finest -- borrow at 3, lend at 6, hit the links for a 3 PM tee time.
Welcome to mediocrity. We'll have the best health care this side of Cuba.
This is what happens, inevitably, when you over-regulate an industry. What's next?
Mediocrity. Med schools will eventually fill up with a bunch of marginally-qualified applicants just to meet the demand of government-sponsored or subsidized health care, and quality will go down that way, too, as with many of the other changes. It may take 30 years, but we'll see it happen, sure as anything.
What happened in banking was much the same: over-regulation drove talent out of the industry after the 1930s. After all, how hard is it to run a bank when the government micromanages every decision? The savings and loan industry, as it existed in 1980, is a really good example of "mediocracy" at its finest -- borrow at 3, lend at 6, hit the links for a 3 PM tee time.
Welcome to mediocrity. We'll have the best health care this side of Cuba.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)