www.editedforbias.com » 1

Atlas Shrugged Part I (A review)

Ed F Bias — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 02:29:48 +0000

In summary, rushed.

It is kind of amazing that after having the rights for twenty years or so for a book that is 1000+ pages the movie really seems rushed.

The overall movie seemed to jump from scene to scene trying to get through the story but not really settling in on the main plot. I liked the shift from the 1950s to a much more modern version of the story. But this was left lacking, simply mentioning the headlines and moving on into the story. Continual reenforcement of the overall theme was sprinkled throughout but it seemed a background and none of it left a lasting impact.

The character development was lacking, almost believing that anyone that saw this movie already knew and therefore who cares. Dagney was stiff early on, seeming caught between just bad acting and trying to ply the stiffer stodgy persona of the early Dagney. Rearden was not as I would have cast him, but was likable. He seemed to be the focus of this film and did get a bit more development through family as well as business associations.

Though the character development was weak a few people stood out. Rearden’s wife Lillian was perfectly cast. And, though not a fit for my minds-eye, Ellis Wyatt was absolutely wonderful.

But the one on one interactions that cement the books themes in your mind were lost. Fransisco’s character was not as intriguing and mysterious as he needed to be. Though not key to this section, he needed to draw the interest of the viewers. And important scene with the professor connecting Fransisco, Ragnar and the yet unnamed was important enough to put in, but lacked the sadness and disappointment to connect it to the audience as valuable.

Readen’s defense in front of the court completely erased which surprised me. Maybe they could not do it justice by cutting it down and figured it was best left unsaid.

Once the movie shifts from the early stages to the building of the John Galt Line, the pace of the subject seems to catch the pace of the film. Though, I think it too could have been slowed. More detail on the impact of the men who vanish, the hoops jumped through and nearly impossible task. Make us want them to win, make it seem that they might fail. The relationship that builds between Rearden, Wyatt and Dagney was finally evident at Wyatt’s house but the story did not take us on that journey and therefore it was not a climactic as it could have been.

The ending at Wyatt’s torch was powerful but it too seemed to jump and cut too quickly. The suspense of what had happened, where he was and the ultimate realization that he had done this himself should have shocked to audience. They seemed more confused and then remembered (those that read the book). The signpost was there but a tighter focus on Dagney’s realization, reading the sign and then a cut to the fire and then fade (or zoom) into the sign standing alone could have really driven it home. Another powerful moment lost.

Overall, I am glad the film was made, it needed to be done, I just wish it was more to my liking. My friend that was with me said that it could have been as powerful as the Godfather, or filmed like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. I had to agree. It had the potential and missed it.

Not one to leave an opinion without a solution, I will endeavor to explain how it might have been improved. Many will say why, too late, leave the review and move on. I say no for two reasons. First this is only part one of three and improvements should be made to draw more crowds to the remaining films and not less. I also believe that there is still time to improve on the first film. It will have a DVD release. This could have scenes added or updated in an enhanced or editors version. This improved and longer version could then be released to theaters to coincide with th release of part two. Hell, if Lucas can change Star Wars, surely this could use a little refining on the edges.

1. Reshaping the overall environment.

One of the elements from the book that seemed to be deeply lacking was the disparity and destruction of the country and the need for men (and women) of great value. It was shown in the city street scenes but never really addressed directly. The government was interceding but those seemed more directed at Rearden then for the more altruistic social good.

a. One direct and powerful scene knits some of this together. The scene when Dagney is talking to the magazine stand owner. He talks about the economy, the busy people in the train station and their movement.

“I don’t like the thing that’s happening to people…I’ve watched them here for twenty years and I’ve seen the change. They used to rush through here, and it was wonderful to watch, it was the hurry of men who knew where they were going and were eager to get there. Now they’re hurrying because they are afraid. It’s not a purpose that drives them, it’s fear. They’re not going anywhere, they’re escaping. And I don’t think they know what it is that they want to escape. They don’t look at one another… I don’t know what it is that happening to the world.”

b. Another important moment is that the magazine stand owner gives her a cigarette. This one, then one with Fransisco (also dropped from the movie…or maybe that scene is later), ties together with the one being smoked by Hugh Akston. That linkage could have been shown to the audience with tight focus on the cigarette (or cigarette butts) letting them connect and be pulled in by something yet unknown.

c. They included the scene when, as the line is being built, the union boss tries to stop it from being run. But they left out her getting all of the volunteers. Could have been altered into a very short scene of her and Eddie walking towards the room talking about the need for volunteers, entering a room full of men ready to help, despite the unions wishes. A few handshakes and reconciliatory nods woudl have sufficed to enhance the need for these people.

d. When the train was pulling out of the station the tracks should have been lined with people. This was vivid int he book. Though the government had said it was not safe, people needed the line to work. They needed success. Bums, families, other workers, everyone along the line waving, holding signs to set the mood, then turning into a blur as the train came up to speed.

2. Concentrate on the one on one conversations.

I mentioned a few scenes above that I felt were lacking. The court scene and deeper understanding of Fransisco were the most glaring. But even the scenes that were present in the film did not pack the power and tension required. A slowed down deeper confrontation would help to draw the viewer into the scene and the characters. In a sense, it seems that the directors tried to change a deeply philosophical drama about political tensions into an action film. Thinking Godfather or Hitchcock for elements on how to do this well and draw you in.

Turning Budget Battle Lemons into Lemonade

Ed F Bias — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 03:28:38 +0000

The budget battle has shown weakness in the GOP leadership. It has shown they cannot negotiate under the barrage from the left and the mainstream media. They won elections stating they would get control of the budget. That they would start by cutting 100 billion from the 2001 budget. Then it turned into a prorated 61 billion, then down to a “negotiated” 38 billion.. or wait..then as AP points out, really about 20 billion. The political right wants to claim this as a victory. That we have changed the debate from increasing spending to cutting spending. That debate was won in the election, it was then lost with this compromise. Every time they defend this compromise they lose more votes.

A few simple questions. If the Democrats and Obama increased budgetary spending by over a Trillion dollars since 2008, why can’t almost all of that unspent money be stopped? Since the GOP controls the house, it techoncally can. But out of the Trillion in brand new spending they could only find 20 billion of real cuts?

All is not lost in the debate. We can turn these financial debate dibacle lemons into lemonade. Leadership needs to come out and turn the argument in a new direction.

Starting, “this was the best deal we could get”, fine. “Now the rest of America can see what they’re up against. The Democrats have no desire to stop spending. Their drive for deficits to give kick backs to funding partners is insatiable. Many did not understand how entrenched they are in their special interests. You see it now. They have increased the deficit to almost two trillion dollars and as we see, have no will to stop.

There is no leadership in the Democratic Senate. Harry Reid refused to even bring it to a vote. They would not put their names on a plan and negotiate in good faith. Basic business management will tell you, leaders do not just bring problems; they also bring solutions. Harry Reid is has shown himself to be no leader.

Democrats do not care to stop the economy from the inevitable train wreck. They want to continue to spend regardless of the outcome. Some are saying that the concern over the deficit is overrated. Others believe inflation will allow us to pay this down with cheaper funds and take advantage of our creditors. They manipulate the inflation rate to avoid Cost Of Living Increases. For those in massive debt that may sound like a good idea but for those of you with investments, savings or are on a fixed income; this IS disaster.

Demagoguing these cuts as causing people to live on the streets, women without health care, dying children and the elderly… oh the humanity and destruction this … 20 billion will cause! We now see there is no seriousness in the Democrat party. If you think this obstructionist rhetoric was bad, the debate has only begun. This was a hard fight to even get them to agree to a minor adjustment.

So we move forward. We avoided a government shut-down and we saw the lack of leadership in the senate. But even that is that is demagogue. The government would have continued to run all essential services and provide the necessary safety net to those most needy. I remind you again because this fight is not over. We will make sure we clarify, in writing, the essential services we believe need to continue during a funding slowdown but the final choice is the President’s.

We fully expect to reach this point again, during the budget debate for 2012 and the increase in the debt limit. These are important issues that require tough choices and leadership. Democrats will say again we’re trying to put people on the streets and take food off their table. They will say we are trying to default on our debt. Once again, their true motive is to continue this new level of spending and continue to grow the federal government’s grip on every aspect of daily life.

We will not default on our debt. We have enough money to pay those bills. But we cannot allow continued spending at this rate. The credit card is maxed out we are paying the interest with another credit card. We will not simply extend the credit limit without major behavioral reforms. It is time we talk seriously about changing this game we play in Washington. If necessary we’ll slow down the functions of government. We will service our debt and continue essential services, but we will also make sure our current path is changed and the future of these programs and our economy is preserved.”

Immigration ought not be about proximity

Ed F Bias — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 02:51:43 +0000

I want to go a different direction. Why has illegal immigration not been fixed?

The answer is two-fold and in both parties: Corporate crony-ism and votes. Corporations want cheap labor and political parties want votes. People would not vote for higher prices and percieved “racism”. Therefore, politicians have no reason to fix the problem… or should I say “had” no reason?

Crime in border cities has grown, kidnappings and killings were profiled, debt became a major issue and unemployment doubled. Now, the voters that were willing to turn a blind eye to “cheap labor for cheaper goods” have seen the impact of their own selfish decisions. They are finally demanding accountability of their politicians and corporations. There are no jobs Americans will not do (watch Dirty Jobs a few times). There are millions of people here legally that need work. Those here from other countries will lose their “work visas” without “work” and students are graduating into a dead market. The costs of cheap labor are now hurting our economy and forcing us to rethink that which we ignored.

I agree with all the costs, the crime, the risks to our security, etc. But all of this was allowed to happen to keep cost of labor down. Let’s be honest about it. If we want cheap goods and cheap labor, create a worker program. But the cost of education, crime and unemployment may not be impacted by this in the least. We simply need to harden the border to illegal traffic, find the new normal and then create a managed worker program to satisfy the “need” within the constructs of our economy. Just like we do with legal immigrants today.

Note: Suggestions for a worker program are not restricted to Mexico. Why are all all the race-bating Democrats so against all other races and nationalities? Why not a worker program from Haiti, South America, Africa, the Western Block, China and or billions of other poor people throughout the world? Why do the people of Mexico, that are willing to ignore or sovereignty, get to benefit simply from their physical location? Let them compete on the world market in a guest worker program and you will be amazed how many millions want to be here, legally and work for a decent wage. In this case; crime, drug use and education will likely be improved.

Health care is a right?

Ed F Bias — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:30:51 +0000

So many Democrats refer to Healthcare as a right and justify the need to cover 100% of the American populous (including illegal residents) and to vilify those that appose their agenda. I oppose this bill in many ways but not the least of which is that healthcare IS NOT a right and in fact is in conflict with the Declaration of Independence.

“A right” is defined by our Declaration as “endowed by their Creator” unalienable due to their life and “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So is Healthcare an element of our right to Happiness or one not listed but still “among” those granted as a birth right?

Health equals Healthcare?

Though itmay seem logical that Health is an extension of Happiness. It does not hold as strongly when you consider that Liberty/Freedom and Happiness themselves are specifically listed. If my freedom and happiness is fulfilled by eating pizza and chocolate for breakfast with a cigar chaser, this would probably diminish my health. If I decide to continue this life-style and enjoy the 50 years of shorten life-span, is that not my right a free person pursuing my own happiness? I am not a fan of this destructive life-style. But I reject with vigor the government control and monitoring of individuals dietary intake.

Before you answer with the health care costs of such a diet, here is a basic truth. Everyone dies and everyone incurs the majority of those expenses in the later years of life. In this example those years will come earlier and more rapidly that the norm. This does not mean that the expenses would be any higher. Some studies indicate that the lifetime health costs are actually lower for the unhealthy versus the extended senior years of the continually healthy. This is likely because the unhealthy tend to die quite quickly of heart attacks and strokes. While the healthy eventually come down with cancer or degrade slowly causing extended long term care and/or hospice care. Again, I am mot promoting that government fatten us all up for heart attacks, but it might actually have a long term savings.

Healthcare is a service

So if health is not a right, is it healthcare that is the right? This would seem to maintain your freedom to do as you like but to be able to access healthcare to maintain your happiness. But in that “access” the problem arises. For you to require access for all Americans, you by extension must require other Americans to provide that service. You must also at some level require what services they must offer and in what locations. This requirement of employment, location, and including price, violates those Americans right to pursue their career chose, their freedoms and their own happiness. Allowing them to maintain their freedoms will create shortages in providers by price, specialty and location. In a free society, price is the agreed exchange of money for service at a rate that is deemed acceptable by both parties. No individual has the right to demand service from another American at a price of his own choosing. Therefore, no government established by the people and for the people should demand price and career controls over other Americans on their behalf.

Healthcare is not a right

Trying to make is so does not change this simple reality. So what we must do is endeavor to create a market in which access to services and unfettered competition create an environment in which the patient and the doctor can come to an equitable transaction at lower costs.

Changes are needed and control by insurance companies is no different than government control. I am a fan of HSAs and patient managed plans (see other posts) and believe it is headed in the right direction. It is not yet a complete solution but the contrary violation of the Constitution and the rights of one group of Americans for the benefit of another should be unacceptable to us all.

Do the two parties really differ on health insurance/coverage?

Ed F Bias — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 04:29:23 +0000

The short answer as with many large policy issues is “Absolutely and to the core of their policy direction.”

I am not talking about GOP arguments against Obamacare, their promises to repeal it or any new plans. I am talking about passed (past) legislation that can be reviewed in practice. I am talking about a comparison between the GOP HSA Healthcare plans and Obamacare. I talked about this before when I was investigating HSAs. I have since joined my HSA compatible plan and linked up my Health Savings Account.

Simply reading through the documentation, I was struck at how different this is from the discussions and legislative language of Obamacare. I think a side by side comparison of the basic philosophies in these two models is worth noting.

Health Insurance; what’s that?

At the core, an HSA is Health Insurance not a Health Plan or Health Coverage. In an HSA the premiums are low (mine less than $200 a month) and the deductibles are high ($3000). It covers only yearly exams until you reach that $3000 maximum and then it covers you 100%. Some plans have a 80/20 split window to another maximum out-of-pocket. I elected for the 0/100 to 100/0 option.

Obamacare and the health exchanges are Health Coverage with higher monthly premiums and co-pays. You pay each month into a pool to cover the majority of expenses. That pool is then used above and beyond your co-pay , 80/20, 70/30 or 50/50 split to pay the medical practitioner up to your out-of-pocket maximum. In most cases the total out-of-pocket maximum exceeds the $3000 I selected.

Tax Deferral

The HSA term itself really refers to the bank account (Health Saving Account) that you link to a high deductible (HSA compatible) health plan. The money that you put into that account can be used to pay medical expenses, buy prescription drugs, other medical services and over the counter medications. You can put whatever money you need into the account but the first $3000 is tax deductible (or pre-tax in the case of a payroll deduction). Note that the deductible and the maximum contribution are the same… this is not a coincidence. The short strokes: You use tax free money to pay your medical bills.

In traditional health care plans your monthly premiums and Flexible spending account contributions where also paid tax free.

Obamacare did not leave this untouched. The total cost of your health care plan is now part of your paycheck and you will be taxed (as income) on the coverage that exceeds the government regulation. Though this may not directly tax you on the payments you are making, it can have a tax impact if you have elected high valued coverage options.

Who is swimming in my Risk Pool?

In my case the HSA is individual insurance. If I have a huge outlay of expenses, I draw against my savings until the $3000 and then insurance covers the rest. If that expense has ongoing repercussions, my premiums could be raised or I could be dropped. This is simply a fact that my potential to repeatably cost the insurance company money in excess of my $2400 premiums has now been increased. Same as car insurance and those with frequent accidents.

Side note: I approve of the Obamacare goal to limit insurance companies from dropping people outright due to increased usage. I believe that some cap on year over year increases (due to usage [not inflation]) should be put in place. When I entered into this agreement with the insurance company, they agreed to take on some risk. They should not reserve to right to cancel at any time when that risk does not pay out. However, I also understand that they are a business and cannot be required to lose money year over year simply to benefit me. I think a simple 25% usage-based premium increase cap and a 3-5 year contract period should be in place. If after that time I am still a losing proposition they can set me free.

I also believe that some sort of shared risk pool should be created among insurance companies to mitigate these outlays (aka insurance for insurance companies). This will protect their business models, they likely do this today in some form.

I know it is possible to have HSA compatible plans in a corporate structure. This is a slightly larger to much larger pool that mitigates risk. This mitigated risk pool is usually a social contract entered into as a benefit* of employment.

*It is a benefit to those in the high risk area and a increased cost to those in the low risk pool.

Obamacare hopes to set up a larger more public risk pool among millions of US citizens. Asking healthy citizens to pay more to give coverage to the poor and provide coverage at a huge discount to the unhealthy and the currently uninsurable.

Basic Truth

In the final analysis the basics are this: Freedom and Individual choice (with individual risk) versus Government control and shared risk (with shared expense).

Listen again to Rush 2112 (inspired by Ayn Rand)

Ed F Bias — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:43:35 +0000

From the Rush album 2112. Listening again…to the political message in this album.

“Something For Nothing”

Waiting for the winds of change
To sweep the clouds away
Waiting for the rainbow’s end
To cast its gold your way
Countless ways
You pass the days

Waiting for someone to call
And turn your world around
Looking for an answer
To the question you have found
Looking for
An open door

You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free
You won’t get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

What you own is your own kingdom
What you do is your own glory
What you love is your own power
What you live is your own story
In your head is the answer
Let it guide you along
Let your heart be the anchor
And the beat of your own song

You don’t get something for nothing
You can’t have freedom for free
You won’t get wise
With the sleep still in your eyes
No matter what your dreams might be

Perspective changes everything: ahh-ha moment with Glenn Beck

Ed F Bias — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 03:30:13 +0000

I watched Tuesday and Wednesday’s (3/9-3/10) shows and the work at the chalkboard. I have to admit that I had a light bulb/AH HA moment. I do not believe that my “discovery” was your intent and may already be obvious to you and your audience. To me it was that dot that connected a few others and made the final picture a bit clearer. Let me attempt to explain.

Background:

I agree with the basic premises of the left and right being replaces by full government on the left and anarchy on the right (though I tend to read left to right). It is also true (and important to recognize) that Fascism and Communism are both full government control. Looking at the Republicans and Democrats as an independent (or Up and Down) in comparison to this scale is incredibly valuable.

Libertarians see themselves as much smaller government a notch above anarchy. Conservatives a bit further down the line. Progressives in both parties have increased the size and scope of government for their purposes. Democrats generally grow government for social programs, a welfare state tax law; Republicans for national security, corporate law and tax incentives. Neither have been fighting to pull it back. Though this adds a useful component to the discussion, I think there are a few elements that were missed in the analogy.

My light bulb moment:

As the R vs. D bar moves left to right it does not remain constant in size or color. When the bar moves towards government control it grows in power. It is not truly Blue (up) and Red (down) but it changes between shades of both as the power shifts in Washington. For most Americans, that sit somewhere a few notches to the right of the current government [desiring a smaller sized government]; watch this bar toggle from something approaching Communist, to Fascist, and back again. How “bad” you think this is depends on how much power you are willing to allow in either direction. It depends on your perspective; from your location on the chart.

You can view the interactive version for “Government Growth Creates Polarity“ here.

The distance from any point on the spectrum is dependent on both philosophy and the overall power of government. In fact, a flaming Liberal that wanted 16% government involvement would be closer to me then George Bush was. I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “It neither breaks my legs nor picks my pocket.” With the size of the current government, every action does have impact on my life and when those actions are against my judgement, morals and beliefs is does pick my pocket.

Let me explain the perspective shift with a recent example. 9/11 occurred and many wanted legislation to help corral information and better monitor terrorists: The Patriot Act was born. The left screamed Fascism seeing a military apparatus with the increased power to monitor phone calls to suspected terrorists. Many conservatives saw the controlled use of this power under Congressional oversight as an acceptable expansion of power. Well, now the color of that power has changed from Red to Blue and congressional oversight is being “performed” by the same Liberal wing of that party. How do you feel now? The power grown under either the GOP or the DNC will eventually change hands and no matter which side you are on the perspective will continually change. In other words, ”A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford

Taking a newer and possible pending example of Government managed health care. The bill allows for the government to select treatment alternatives and suggest treatment at the point of service. Could that power be allowed to limit coverage to the elderly, unproductive members of society or military veterans? Could it limit coverage for Hollywood celebrities active against a new administration or college professors? The good or bad of these examples may depend on your perspective.

Am I arguing for Centrists with no strong political views or a third party? Though that would help many with their relationship to the current size of government; No. The simple fact is that government should never get this much power. Without the size and scope and the ability to influence your liberties on a daily basis, the question is mute and the change of party in Washington has much less impact on your perspective. It does not surprise me that the founders had little need for party labels.

Been thinkin’ really conservative these days

Ed F Bias — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 05:43:43 +0000

I have been thinking a lot about deep conservative values lately. Not just big government is bad and debt will kill us. That reaches across the isle (at least part way across a wide isle). But more deeply about (to use Mark Levine’s terms) Liberty and Tyranny. About how and what our founders were thinking.

One thing struck me today: Individual rights. These words (which I hope you have heard)…”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ”

The natural rights that this country was formed upon are not really between us and the government but more so between each other as individuals. No one would question personal injury, theft or vandalism as a violation of these rights by one individual against another. And every jurisdiction would see all of these as crimes on this basis.

Which brings me to the words that many may have forgotten. Note that they follow without break and separated by a hyphen. “— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Governments are created to secure these rights, they do not create them, they only help us manage society as a whole when is becomes too much for one individual. This, making police forces, judiciaries, schools and the like an obvious extension to secure these rights.

But when the government created by these individuals is used to steal from one individual to give to another, to change the playing field in favor of one group or another; is it not violating these rights as well? It becomes a mob mentality and simple majority rules. If we want to “take” your rights, we can because we are bigger. This is the opposite of “securing” and 180 degrees from the original intent.

This is where we are today and the administration thrives on it. Pitting masses against banks, insurance companies, etc in the hopes of expanding its authority to take away more individual rights. It is wrong, I felt it, I knew it. If those men have committed crimes, violated contracts, etc. Then bring them up on charges. But mob rule is a violation of their individual rights.

I do not know how we back up, but moving forward along this path is not an option. The best course of action is a change in course, to veer from this path in the hopes of finding our way back some where down the road.

Teachable moment from Healthcare Summit.

Ed F Bias — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:35:16 +0000

As most have reported the Health Care summit was a bit of a show, with both sides trying to push their agendas and no real bi-partisanship. This, being the Republicans first time with a national spotlight on their plans, allowed them to stand out. Even David Gergen recognized this.

In the end, there was one back and forth early on that got some news coverage. It was the “discussion” between the President and Lamar Alexander. Mr. Alexander stating that insurance costs would rise 14% and the President stating that they would drop 20%. Was this a simple disagreement? You can dig into the details behind the two numbers (FactCheck.org has it here). And almost all research you do you will bump into this statement in some way, “CBO said well over half of those buying individual policies would get government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law.” So does this prove the President’s point?

Only is so far as the raw numbers. And in this is the teachable moment, “get government subsidies that would reduce their costs.” Just where did that “government money” come from? Taxes on others, including Cadillac plans. This is simply redistribution of wealth, nothing else. You may agree with it but Paul Ryan was right that they are hiding socialist plans behind capitalist words and using tricks to hide the facts.

No matter how you read the numbers you need to also come away with this simple fact. They are both talking about insurance costs. Health care costs are not being reduced. The cost curve continues to go up. The only way to control costs of insurance is to control the costs of services. [Insert typical complaint about corporate profits here. L. Alexander put it in context... 100% of the profits from all Health Insurance would pay for 2 days of services.] You simply cannot create a edict to limit profits within a specific industry. Unless you take it over, which is again the single payer model with price controls.

Add to this that the subsidized government plans will continue to be funded from taxes on the private sector and on private health plans. This will cause the private plans to offer reduced coverage to compete in a unfair market. This will cause a larger and larger shift towards the public plans, destroying the private industry in just 5-10 years.

What this summit showed clearly is that Single Payer is the goal. This redistribution is intentional and was on full display during the summit. Paul Ryan put in well in the Summit that “there really is a difference between us. We do not think the government should be in control of all this.” He hits this point head-on on in an MSNBC interview.

What if John Galt got to Dr. Lamelas?

Ed F Bias — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:30:24 +0000

You may have heard about the Canadian Premier that decided he wanted a more advanced surgery then his home country was willing to let him have. He decided to pick the best doctor from the best hospital which happened to be (no shock) in the United States. ”My Heart, My Health, My Choice” does not sound anti-freedom Canadian Socialist… it sounds almost defiantly independent; even libertarian. Sadly it is more likely a typical politician that demands the best for himself so that he might rule you.

Much is being made of this on the right and the left. Does it prove the Canadian system is flawed? Does it prove the excesses of the rich? You can read the original Canadian Press article here and the few more points from Hot Air here.

What is continually missing from these health care conversations is the basic understanding that the procedure is available because of the free market US health care system. Those that do this in Canada were likely trained by US doctors (maybe even this one) or doctors trained by Dr. Lamelas. Premier Williams wanted the best care possible and went to the US, this hospital and this doctor by choice.

Exerpt from the Mt Sinai Web Site: http://www.miami-cardiology.com/resources.php
Great advances have been made in minimally invasive valve surgery, and Dr. Joseph Lamelas, chief of cardiac surgery at Mount Sinai, is on the leading edge. Board-certified in cardiac and thoracic surgery, as well as surgical critical care, Dr. Lamelas he pioneered an advanced one-man surgical technique for minimally invasive valve procedures. He teaches this method to surgeons across the United States and around the world.

Dr. Lamelas consistently has had one of the lowest morbidities and mortalities in Florida and the United States. He has completed almost 8,000 cardiac surgeries and more than 800 minimally invasive procedures, making him South Florida’s most experienced surgeon in his area of expertise.

What if the US health care system did not exist? What if it were socialized and no private payment existed? What would a non-citizen do? Even worse..forgive me my Atlas Shrugged moment…What if Dr. Lamelas; like so many from his profession; had decided that the bureaucracy, paper work and law suits were just not worth trying to advance the science and he retired early? Where would we all be had “John Galt” found Dr. Lamelas before he advanced the surgery and trained 100s of others? That is the true risk in the socialization of the US system: stifling rapid advancement and ground-breaking research.

I am sure the 8000 surgeries Dr Lamelas performs (800 of these advanced forms) make him and his hospital a tidy sum of money… how dare he make money off advancing the entire practice of medicine and saving 1000s of Americans (and a Canadian or two it seems)…Damn him…