Thursday, July 26, 2012

US now importing corn

From Investor's Business Daily (h/t Instapundit):
For the first time, U.S. agricultural companies are importing corn from Brazil — the equivalent of Saudi Arabia importing oil, as the Financial Times noted.
Why is the US experiencing an unprecedented shortage of food? The left may  want to blame it on a drought but the problem is actually man-made (or, should I write, "Mann-made"):
The problem here is the man-made element that is exacerbating the U.S. drought. There should be plenty of corn from U.S. reserves after recent record harvests for exports — 61 million metric tons in 2008 — were it not for the 2007 law that forces U.S. corn producers to turn ever greater percentages of U.S. corn into ethanol.

"As biofuel production develops and expands, it will continue to put pressure on U.S. corn and other feed grain production, exports, livestock feeding, and other domestic uses," the Agriculture Department says.

Today, 40% of our corn is consumed by ethanol making — the filling of gas tanks instead of stomachs. And another 20% is being destroyed by drought this year. [Emph. added]
In a world in which an estimated “billion people suffer from chronic hunger,” and with global warming theories in ever greater disrepute, this policy is ever more reprehensible.

PREVIOUSLY on global warming:
Global warming provokes laughter, even in the San Francisco Bay Area
"If I wanted America to Fail"
Global warmism as anti-science
More ethics problems among Global Warming "scientists"
4.5 Billion to die this year, or maybe not
Global warmists propose mass killing of animals
Democrat: Global Warming will destroy Washington DC by the year 2000
Earth Day: environmentalism and the test of science
The collapse of the UN IPCC's credibility
Yet another UN IPCC Glacier-gate scandal
UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud
Environmentalists at war with environmentalists over green energy
EPA's new global warming rules, illustrated
California global warming rules backfire
France's carbon tax ruled unconstitutional
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Global warming and the test of science, III
Global warming and the test of science, II
Global warming and the test of science, I
141 scientists wrote letter to UN challenging global warming hysteria.
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
BBC propaganda on global warming
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data
The resemblance of global warming true-believers to Islamists
James Hansen "muzzled" by Bush White House?

Obama: "our union may not be perfect, but it is perfectible"

Speaking to the National Urban League (RealClear Politics has the video), Pres. Obama discussed his time as a community organizer in Chicago:
And I confess the progress didn't come quickly, and it did not come easily. Sometimes it didn't come at all. There were times where I thought about giving up and moving on. But what kept me going day in and day out was the same thing that has sustained the Urban League all these years. The same thing that sustains all of you. And that is the belief that in America, change is always possible. That our union may not be perfect, but it is perfectible. [Emph. added]
To liberals, that quote may sound like noble idealism. To the rest of us, it displays an utter lack of understanding of human nature that, when coming from a world leader, is quite frightening. Humans have human nature which includes both virtues and flaws. Humans respond to incentives in a self-interested way. No amount of government intervention will change that. There will, for example, never be a "perfect" health care system nor a "perfect" welfare system. Any attempt to reach "perfection," that is, any policy which denies the existence of human nature, generally leads to disaster.  An example would be LBJ's "war on poverty" which, by the 1990s, even Democrats had to admit was making things worse. Other examples include Canada's free healthcare or Greece's free spending.

It gets worse.  The biggest tragedies of the 20th century were driven by ideologues who believed in perfectible societies.  Following up on the progressive's beliefs in improving humans through eugenics, the Nazis wanted to remove genetically inferior peoples so that genetically superior man could flourish.  Following up on another side of progressivism, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot wanted to create societies filled with the new improved unselfish Socialist Man.

They say that the perfect is the enemy of the good.  But, that really understates the problem.

PREVIOUSLY on the liberal search for perfection:
Obama: "Kingdom right here on Earth"
Those who pursue perfection cannot tolerate dissent
In a perfectible world, there are no trade-offs
Free health care: The Canadian health care collapse
Canadian official: "the system is imploding"
If "profit" the root of all evil, explain this non-profit

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Will Jews continue to vote for Democrats even if the Democrats are anti-Semitic?

In the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon reviews (h/t Instapundit) the state of anti-Semitism on the left:
Anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli venom is on the rise, and it is coming mostly from the left. Anti-Semitism on U.S. college campuses is a “serious problem,” concluded the 2006 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. “There is more sympathy for Hamas [on U.S. campuses] than there is in Ramallah,” wrote award-winning Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, who found during a 2009 speaking tour of the U.S. that it “is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state.”

Surveys by Jewish organizations confirm that anti-Semitism is on the rise, as does a 2009 survey by researchers at Stanford and Columbia University, designed to find explicit prejudice toward Jews as a result of the financial meltdown. To the researchers’ surprise, they found that “Democrats were especially prone to blaming Jews: while 32% of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, only 18.4% of Republicans did so.…” [Emph. added]
The Stanford-Columbia study that he refers to was by Neil Malhotra and Yotam Margalit and you can read more about it here.

According to Solomon, liberal anti-Semitism in Canada caused Jews to switched parties:
In Canada, Jewish alarm at Liberal tolerance of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli policies, coupled with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s unequivocal stance against terrorism — “[There’s no] moral equivalence between a pyromaniac and a firefighter” — persuaded Jewish captains of industry who were also Liberal funders and fundraisers to tear up their Liberal membership cards and throw their support behind the Conservatives.
Every four years, there is talk of something similar happening in the US.  It just never seems to happen.

PREVIOUSLY on left/liberal anti-Semitism:
Round up of anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street
When anti-Semitism is more important than the environment
Noam Chomsky projects anti-Semitism
Louis Farrakhan
CNN's anti-Semite
Hate crimes statistics, Jews, and Muslims, and more
The left and its hatreds
Democrats and anti-Semitism
Obama and anti-Semitism
The academic left and anti-Semitism: Walt and Mearsheimer
More on anti-Semitism and foreign policy
Anti-Semitism and the Connecticut Senate race

TSA harasses elderly man who needs pacemaker and oxygen machine

An elderly man, Primo Meza, just wanted to return home to Florida after visiting relatives in Des Moines. The TSA, however, held him in security long enough that the battery charge on his oxygen machine dropped too low for him to safely fly. While there, the TSA repeatedly refused his ganddaughter's requests that she be allowed to plug the machine in to maintain the charge:

Separately, the TSA allows 25 illegal aliens attend a flight school run by an illegal alien.  Are you looking forward to government-run medicine?

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Obama's view of economics

Tony Branco illustrates:

Businesses will be able to create more jobs when businessmen have less weight to carry on their shoulders.

PREVIOUSLY on "you didn't build that":
"If You’ve Got a Business, You Didn’t Build That": a look at Obama's statement in its full context
Romney's response shows he gets it

Write a check to Romney, get audited?

You may remember that in April an Obama campaign website called out eight businessmen who had contributed to groups supporting Romney with charges that they had "less-than-reputable" records.   For one of those businessmen was Frank VanderSloot, the story didn't stop there.  Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Strassel reports on a continuing stream of what is either (a) simple coincidences or (b) Chicago-machine-style harassment:
Just 12 days after the attack, the [Mr. VanderSloot] found an investigator digging to unearth his divorce records. This bloodhound—a recent employee of Senate Democrats—worked for a for-hire opposition research firm.

Now Mr. VanderSloot has been targeted by the federal government. In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been "selected for examination" by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot's wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).

Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before.…

Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.
We sometimes think that the Supreme Court will defend our freedom of speech.  The Court, however, is inadequate to protect us from this kind of threat to our first amendment rights.

Hat tip: TaxProf and Instapundit.

PREVIOUSLY on Chicago-style ethics:
As an attorney, Obama profited while his client went bankrupt
Obama asks you to make sacrifices for Global Warming. But what does he do?
Obama opposes requiring ID to vote to assure honest elections while Chicago requires a photo ID merely to buy drain cleaner

Friday, July 20, 2012

News media lie

The news media are outraged that Ann Romney referred to a black ABC News reporter as "you people."  As I write this, Google News claims to have 89,700 articles on this story.  The Huffington Post, CNN, and Politico all put the phrase in their headlines. Twitterers were outraged over the insensitivity of it. The only problem with the story is that she didn't say it. The ABC News reporter asked Ann Romney why the Romneys weren't releasing more of their tax returns.  Ms. Romney's reply included the sentence:
"We have given the people all that they need to know."
She didn't say "you people." Listen and judge for yourself:
Sometimes, media bias is subtle. At other times, they just outright lie.

Hat tip: Instapundit.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

California Democrats protect child-molesters

The LA Weekly reports that Democrat legislators have killed an Assembly bill that would have made it easier for schools to fire child-molesting teachers. The Teacher's union opposed it and Democrats, of course, have to do what the unions tell them.

Americans now poorer than Canadians

Canadians used to be America's poorer neighbors.  That has changed.  The Toronto Globe and Mail reports:
Currently, the average Canadian household is more than $40,000 richer than the average American household. (According to the latest Environics Analytics WealthScapes data, the average household net worth in Canada was $363,202 in 2011; in the U.S. it was $319,970.) And these are not 60-cent dollars, but Canadian dollars more or less at par with the U.S. greenback.
It gets worse: 
Furthermore, these figures ignore public-sector (government) debt that presumably people on both sides of the border or their children will some day have to pay. Such debt is higher in the U.S. as a percentage of GDP than it is in Canada.
What happened is that, starting in the 1990s, Canada adopted Reaganesque solutions: reining in government and privatizing it.  Fred Barnes, writing in the Wall Street Journal, explains the challenge Canada faced and how it recovered:
When Jean Chretien became prime minister in 1993, Canada faced a fiscal and economic breakdown. The government's share of the economy had climbed to 53% in 1992, from 28% in 1960. Deficits had tripled as a percentage of gross domestic product over the prior two decades. Government debt was nearly 70% of GDP and growing rapidly. Interest payments on the debt took up 35 cents of every tax dollar.

Mr. Chretien and his finance minister, Paul Martin, took decisive action. "Canadians have told us that they want the deficit brought down by reducing government spending, not by raising taxes, and we agree," Mr. Martin said. The new administration slashed spending. Unemployment benefits were cut by nearly 40%. The ratio of spending cuts to tax increases was nearly 7-to-1. Federal employment was reduced by 14%. Canada's national railway and air-traffic-control system were privatized.
Canada's success continues.  At a time when America needs more jobs, American companies moving north to Canada because of the lower tax rates there.

Canada's economy was repaired by Canada's "Liberal" party.   The contrast between them and Obama's Democrats couldn't be greater.

TSA proves itself useless yet again

You and I may remember those illegal aliens who took flight school in the US and then flew airplanes into buildings but the TSA doesn't seem to.  CNS News reports:
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) approved flight training for 25 illegal aliens at a Boston-area flight school that was owned by yet another illegal alien, according to the Government Accountability Office.

The illegal-alien flight-school attendees included eight who had entered the country illegally and 17 who had overstayed their allowed period of admission into the United States, according to an audit by the GAO.

Six of the illegal aliens were actually able to get pilot’s licenses.

Did some crack Federal investigator uncover this problem?  No.  It was discovered by alert local police:

Discovery of the trouble at the flight school began when local police--not federal authorities--pulled over the owner of the school on a traffic violation and were able to determine that he was an illegal alien.

Success at the local, not Federal, level is not unusual.  The shoe bomber was stopped by alert individuals.  The hijackers on United Flight 93 were stopped by individuals.  The TSA, by contrast, has so far only demonstrated competence at confiscating your vacation snow globe.

The TSA's new slogan (comic)
Remembering Flight 93
Profiting from goods the TSA confiscates from travelers
Obama's TSA proposes expanding searches to trains and buses
New slogan for the TSA
Napolitano and the Christmas bomber
Arab Technology meets German Engineering (humor)

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Romney gets it

Here is Romney responding to Obama's attack ("you didn't build that") on business owners:
Romney may or may not be a RINO but, fortunately, he is no John McCain.

The Tax Code and "Fairness"

At the Cato Institute, Alan Reynolds writes:
A favorite talking point among redistributionists is to say the tax code was much “fairer” under President Bill Clinton, than it has been since the Bush tax cuts of 2003.  New Congressional Budget Office (CBO) figures show that the top 1% paid 21.3% of all federal taxes from 1993 to 2000, when Clinton was president, but they paid 25.1% from 2003 to 2008, after the Bush tax cuts.   If 21.3% was a fair share in the Clinton years, then the top 1% has been paying much more than its fair share since 2003.

In context: ‘If You’ve Got a Business, You Didn’t Build That’

At ABC News, Jake Tapper says that we should look at Obama's comments  about business at Roanoke last Friday, in "full context."  Below is the "full context," with my comments interspersed:
We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts.  We can make some more cuts in programs that don’t work, and make government work more efficiently…We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more …
His claim to be a big budget cutter is just delusional. This is what Obama has done to the budget deficit (click to enlarge):
Obama continues:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.
"Give something back"?  Democrats are under the illusion that economics is a zero-sum game.  It isn't.  A successful business is positive-sum: not only does it provide jobs for employees and business for its suppliers, it also provides customers with a product that they thought was worth buying.  Businesses have already "given back."  If you studied economics, you will recognize this plot showing that both consumers and producers (and, if you extend the analysis, employees and suppliers and ...) all enjoy a positive-sum under a free market:
In contrast to free market activities, government actions can be negative sum.  Obama would know that if, in school, he had studied economics instead of Marxism.

Obama continues:
They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
Here Obama is just clueless: no one works harder than business owners.  It is not like some no-show government job in Chicago.  On the day his advisers should have come to brief him on this, Pres. Obama might have been out playing one of his 102 rounds of golf.

The next paragraph is where he claims that "if you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen":
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. [Emph. added]
Here he retreats to the "roads and bridges" defense.  If the government stuck to things like "roads and bridges," we wouldn't be having this conversation and Obama should know that.

The internet example is also a bit off.  It is true that DARPA funded key parts of its development but the Defense Dept. is the one area of government that Obama does want to cut.  (A full discussion of how technology best transits from a researcher's thoughts to development to industrial production is beyond the scope of this post.)
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Here, he goes back to straw-man arguments.  Republicans are not proposing the elimination of fire departments and Obama knows it.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together.  That’s how we funded the GI Bill.  That’s how we created the middle class.  That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam.  That’s how we invented the Internet.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president – because I still believe in that idea.  You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”
The US Constitution was written because history shows that (a) there are, as Obama says, "some things we do better together" but that also (b) there are some things best done locally or individually.  Foreign policy and defense strategies are best done "together" and the Constitution gives those roles to the Federal government.  Other things, such as intrastate commerce, are best done at the state level and the Constitution grants those powers to the states not to the Federal government.  Other things, such as speech or the press or worship, are best left to the individual.  The framers of the Constitution decided these issues after examining the lessons from thousands of years of human history.   Obama shows no evidence of having put more than ten minutes of thought into his version.

Obama also misses the bigger picture: without successful industry to tax, there would be no money for government projects, no "Golden Gate Bridge or... Hoover Dam."  His mention of a dam is also particularly galling given that his administration is making every effort not to build dams but to actually tear them down.  The original progressives stood for "progress" in the sense of building things, like bridges and dams.  By contrast, Obama-era Democrats, with their Federal agencies creating an ever-expanding network of regulations, stand for the opposite: stasis.  This is why, as Obama discovered much too late, there is no such thing as a "shovel-ready" project.  If he had taken that lesson to heart, he wouldn't have given this foolish speech.

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Democracy fail: Supporters of Tax Increase on Rich Don't Know What Rich Are Currently Paying

Winston Churchill observed that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." His reason for calling it the "worst form" might have been voters such as these Obama supporters who want to raise taxes on "the rich" but have no idea how high those taxes are now:

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

How liberals think about taxes

Norah O'Donnell
Norah O'Donnell is the Chief White House Correspondent for CBS News.  On tonight's newscast, she explained her view of tax cuts:
President Obama is calling on Congress to pass a one-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for households earning less than $250,000 a year and individuals earning less than $200,000. Those tax cuts expire at the end of December and the cost to taxpayers for the year: $150 billion.…

But Republicans -- including Mitt Romney -- want to make permanent all of the Bush-era tax cuts, including those for households earning over $250,000. The cost to taxpayers? An additional $850 billion over the next ten years.… [Emph. added]
Yes, that is right:  She thinks that "tax cuts" occur at a "cost to taxpayers."  This doesn't appear to be a misspeak: she said it twice, once with respect to Obama's proposal and again with respect to Romney's.

Of course, as liberals are wont to do, she is confusing "taxpayers" with the government.  The tax cuts reduce government revenues and thus the government might, in some twisted accounting, think of them as a cost.

I expect that she thinks of herself as an "unbiased reporter" but, with thinking such as this, she illustrates why liberals cannot be "unbiased" even if they try.

More at NewsBusters.

Monday, July 09, 2012

Rev. Wright claims colleges infect black people's brains with "white racist DNA"

Obama & Wright
Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave a sermon at Washington's Florida Avenue Baptist Church on Sunday.  Politico reports (hat tip: TheBlaze) that it included this rant:
Take that baby, him or her away, from the African mother, away from the African community, away from the African experience … and put them Africans over at the breasts of Yale, Harvard, University of Chicago … UCLA or UC-Berkeley,” he said. “Turn them into biscuits. Let them get that alien DNA all up inside their brain and they will turn on their own people in defense of the ones who are keeping their own people under oppression. Sheep dogs.”

“There’s white racist DNA running through the synapses of his or her brain tissue. They will kill their own kind, defend the enemies of their kind or anyone who is perceived to be the enemy of the milky white way of life.”
Unlike some other liberals, at least Rev. Wright, Pres. Obama's former pastor, is honest about his racism.

Saturday, July 07, 2012

Lies, Damned Lies, and Austan Goolsbee's Defense of Obamacare

Austan Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee says that Obamacare is not prolonging the recession and, in no surprise to Mark Twain, he says that he has the statistics to prove it.  In the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Goolsbee, a former Obama adviser, writes:
The employer mandate requiring firms to pay money if they do not offer health insurance, which critics highlight as the biggest culprit for our slow growth, does not apply to companies with less than 50 employees. If this mandate limited growth, then 60-person companies should suffer compared to 30-person companies.…  The data don't show it.
This computer-science name for the logical process that he is using is garbage-in-garbage-out.   Mr. Goolsbee starts with the assumption that the Obamacare mandate is the biggest problem affecting businesses and that, since the mandate applies only to businesses with 50 or more employees, anticipation of Obamacare's effects should not be slowing the growth of smaller businesses.  This is nonsense.  Obamacare's pre-existing-condition clause will disrupt or, more likely, destroy the market for individual insurance which is the kind widely used by businesses too small to qualify for group plans.  Thus, Mr. Goolsbee's starting assumption is simply false.

These issues affect businesses now. even before Obamacare is fully in effect, because, unlike governments, businesses will quickly go broke if they don't plan ahead.  It is reasonable for businesses, both large and small, to anticipate that Obamacare will drive their insurance costs up and no one knows by how much.  That makes hiring risky.  So businesses seek to avoid hiring.

Yes, I know that the Obamacare individual "mandate" is nominally supposed to make the pre-existing-condition clause compatible with insurance.  It doesn't.  Under Obamacare, a person can wait until he is seriously ill before buying insurance.  Compared to the cost of insurance, the tax penalty paid for waiting in this way is quite minor.  For the responsible people who actually bought insurance in advance of need, this drives up the price likely to the point where insurance will be unaffordable.  The Washington Democrats understood this problem but lacked to political will to deal with the consequences.  They have left the rest of us with a system that is broken in more ways than Mr. Goolsbee can imagine.

Mr. Goolsbee's article concludes:
Health-care reform and regulations are not the reason for the economy's slow recovery.
If he talked to actual businessmen, he would know better.  In survey after survey, they cite regulations in general and Obamacare in particular as stifling the recovery.

Mr. Goolsbee was chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers from 2010 to 2011.

Monday, July 02, 2012

The Constitution according to Chief Justics Roberts (Illustrated)

(Image from ImageBlitz.)

PREVIOUSLY on the constitutionality of Obamacare:
The Angry Liberal
Obamacare decision: Blame Bush?
Is Yale University overrated? 

The Angry Liberal

One might have thought that the four liberal Supreme Court Justices would have been happy that Chief Justice Roberts switched sides to join them in upholding Obamacare. They weren't. Instead, they were furious. Here is Justice Ginsburg excoriating Roberts as "rigid," "crabbed," "specious," and "stunningly retrogressive":
"According to the Chief Justice the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive. . . . The Chief Justice's crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress' efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it. . . . The Chief Justice's novel constraint on Congress' commerce power gains no force from our precedent and for that reason alone warrants disapprobation. . . . The Chief Justice also calls the minimum coverage provision an illegitimate effort to make young, healthy individuals subsidize insurance premiums paid by the less hale and hardy. This complaint, too, is spurious. . . . Failing to learn from this history, the Chief Justice plows ahead with his formalistic distinction between those who are "active in commerce," and those who are not. . . . The Chief Justice accepts just such specious logic when he cites the broccoli horrible as a reason to deny Congress the power to pass the individual mandate. . . . If long on rhetoric, the Chief Justice's argument is short on substance."
The full text of the Court's decision is here (PDF). The above excerpt was collected by James Taranto.
Note the left's casual disregard for the constitution when Justice Ginsburg complains of Roberts' thwarting of efforts to "regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it."  The Constitution has no provision enabling regulations in favor of "labor" to override other Constitutional provisions.  Our Constitution is not Marxist.
As a side note, one of the left's justifications of Obamacare is that health care is expensive because of the high cost of the uninsured which is cost-shifted onto those who pay. However, Justice Ginsburg writes:
As a group, uninsured individuals annually consume more than $100 billion in health-care services, nearly 5% of the Nation's total.
In other words, even by Justice Ginsburg's numbers, the cost of the uninsured is a small fraction of healthcare costs and hardly a reason to destroy the system that the rest of us use.
Clicky Web Analytics