STRANGELAND.NET

Going through my RSS feeds, I came across this little gem. For those that don’t care to read, the House of Representatives has passed a bill allowing them to prohibit incentive-based pay packages at large U.S. Financial institutions that encourage “inappropriate risks.”

There’s an old adage about if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Well, this particular duck has “Fascism” written all over it. (For those who are going to jump to the wrong conclusion, I’m referencing the Fascist model of economics where the means of production is still privately owned, but controlled by the Government.)

I know it comes as no surprise that I’m a proponent of free market capitalism. Each time I see something like this happen, it continues to gall me and make me wonder what the hell the House of Representatives is thinking. If this were just a limited item directed only at those institutions that still have outstanding TARP loans, I could stomach it a bit more. This, however, is directed at any financial institution with over $1 Billion in assets.

Do I believe that many of the larger financial institutions made poor decisions in recent years? Absolutely. Ignoring the fact that government pressure and laws attributed to some of it, the simple fact remains these are private institutions with stock holders. They are not extensions of the Federal Government. If these companies feel the need to offer incentive packages to attract top notch talent, that is entirely between them and their stock holders. The Federal Government has zero business sticking its nose into that process.

Obviously, however, the Democrats in the House do not agree with my position. The only saving grace in this situation is the fact it still has to go through the Senate, and it’s unlikely you’re going to see it pass there. My hope is it’ll die a wonderfully ignoble death on the floor of the Senate, and we’ll see nothing more of this. Of course, this wouldn’t be the first time I’d ended up disappointed on this count.

Regardless of what may or may not happen in the Senate, we’re now seeing yet another situation of the Government believing it can meddle and positively impact the economy of the United States. I hold out hope that sooner rather than later they’ll come to the understanding it’s not their job to do so, nor is there much they can do to cause positive impact. However, the masses continue to scream out for the Government to do something, ignoring the past results of meddling from the Federal Bureaucracy.

But hey, it’s bread and circuses that get you re-elected, right? After all, it doesn’t have to actually pass. You just have to be able to go home to your district and roll out the class warfare banner and show how you tried to stick it to those “evil rich folks” and make things better for the “common man.” We’ve all seen to this point how well that particular line plays in the heartland.

Besides, American Idol is starting back up soon, and that’s oh so more interesting than what’s happening in Washington.

stranger Government Outrage, News

Take a moment and go read this.

Done? Good.

The sense of entitlement expressed by Laura Ripley just leaves me flabbergasted. Anyone who knows me knows that I suffer from weight issues. I’ve been overweight (often into the morbidly obese category) my entire life. However, I acknowledge that I’m at fault for it and don’t expect anyone else to take responsibility for my weight or my shedding of it.

This woman, however, believes its the fault of the government that she can’t control her weight. After all, she needs to have her low calorie snacks pre-packaged with the “Weight Weighters” logo so she won’t have to think about it. As someone currently using the Weight Watchers system, it just makes me shake my head that she’s missing the point. So rather than finding cheaper low calorie options, she claiming she has to eat unhealthy things. After all, sometimes she just emotionally doesn’t feel like eating an apple.

Sooner or later, everyone reaches a point where they have to accept they’re the person ultimately responsible for their success or failure, happiness or unhappiness. Obviously this woman hasn’t reached that point yet and wants to put it all on other people. Just because she doesn’t feel like eating an apple, she should be given more money from the government to buy the healthy things she does want to eat?

If that’s all it takes, maybe I should move to the UK and claim disability. Oh, wait, I have more sense of personal responsibility than that. Nevermind.

stranger Personal Thought

To start things off, let me give you a quote from Ronald Reagan’s speech from his first Inauguration:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

While it was not healthcare he was addressing (though I can dig up any number of quotes from the early 60s from Reagan against government healthcare), the quote still very much applies. But how, I can hear you asking, does this apply to the title of this post?

The answer to that is very simple. The “elite group” (Congress in this case) is beholden to another group that is one of the key factors that has driven up healthcare costs in this county. That group? Trial Lawyers.

Growing up with a parent in the healthcare industry (my mother is a CCRN), I’ve heard no end of stories about the cost of medical malpractice insurance. One of the major causes for the expense is due to malpractice lawsuits.

Now, before anyone starts trying to put words into my mouth, let me say this: there are many cases where a lawsuit and large judgment are appropriate. Doctors make mistakes, which impacts someone else’s life in a major way. However, in far more cases, the lawsuits are brought against healthcare professionals purely because the lawyers know many of the insurance companies will settle rather than go to trial.

Unfortunately for the American public, far too many members of Congress are beholden to the American Trial Lawyers’ Association. Due to this, any meaningful Tort reform gets tossed to the wayside. After all, they don’t want to endanger their campaign contributions from wealthy lawyers.

What needs to be done in my opinion? Institute a loser-pays civil lawsuit policy. Make it law that if you sue someone and lose the lawsuit, you have to pay their legal costs. This ensures that someone will think hard about whether or not their case warrants bringing suit before doing so. Instead of someone having to decide if it will cost them more to defend against a lawsuit than to settle in every case, they can look at the merit of the claims instead.

Yes, I fully acknowledge this brings up the issue of corporations being able to hire more competent legal teams than John Q. Public who had a doctor amputate the wrong foot. However, a competent lawyer is far more likely to take the case than the neighborhood ambulance chaser when they know there is a solid case rather than just filing in hope of the company settling.

Of course, I have zero hope that we’ll see any meaningful reform in this area. After all, this might endanger the move toward socialized medicine and shifting yet more power from the People to the Government. And I really wish I could say I’m just a cynic in this case.

stranger Government Outrage, Random Thought