Those who have implied that the President’s health care law will establish “death panels,” have encountered excessive criticism. Yet, more and more information is being released identifying that rationing of care will in fact occur, and that it will be done by government bureaucracies.
For example, a phone call into The Mark Levin Show on WLS 890 from a Chicago neurosurgeon last month revealed that a Health and Human Services (HHS) document, associated with the Obama Administration’s federal health law, will inhibit patients over the age of 70 from receiving neurological care. Instead of receiving “advanced neurosurgical care,” “units,” (meaning patients), over 70 will receive care to make them “comfortable.” In order to provide the neurosurgical care, a physician would have to appeal to a “ethics committee” made up of administrators, not physicians, to determine if the services can be administered.
This document, not surprisingly, has not been presented to the public.
Industrial development would have been greatly retarded if sixty or eighty years ago the warning of the conservationists about the threatening exhaustion of the supply of coal had been heeded; and the internal combustion engine would never have revolutionized transport if its use had been limited to the then known supplies of oil (during the first few decades of the era of the automobile and the airplane the known resources of oil at the current rate of use would have been exhausted in ten years).
Previous to the emergence of man, the earth was replete with fertile soil, with trees and edible fruits, with rivers and waterfalls, with coal beds, oil pools, and mineral deposits; the forces of gravitation, of electro-magnetism, of radio-activity were there; the sun sent forth his life-bringing rays, gathered the clouds, raised the winds; but there were no resources.
The confounding of physics with economics has plagued a real-world understanding of mineral resources. The phenomenon of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics rule in their domain. But there is no economic law analogous to the physical conservation of matter. There is no law of conservation of value; value is continually, routinely created by the market process. And this value creation does not deplete.
I encourage everyone to take the time to read Robert L. Bradley's superb, brief (28 pages), and intelligible history of resource economics, Resourceship: An Austrian Theory of Mineral Resources, which, among other things, provides another example of the statist, hence authoritarian, and more politically correct than economically informed nature of mainstream economics.
Here’s the latest synopsis of polls, including the most recent CNN poll that polls nationally, as well as in both Iowa and New Hampshire:
It appears that the race in Iowa is tightening up, with a virtual tie between Paul and Romney. In New Hampshire, Romney holds a commanding lead, but Paul and Gingrich are in a dead heat for 2nd place. The nationwide polls still show a closing of an earlier gap between Gingrich and Romney (where Gingrich had a significant lead)—but Gingrich’s numbers in both Iowa and New Hampshire have fallen in the last couple of rounds of polls, so he may be flaming out.
The numbers in South Carolina, Florida and Nevada are unchanged, and the averages are based on polls take 2-3 weeks ago and longer, so I suspect that their predictive capacity is limited. My guess would be that when the next round comes along in those states, we’ll see more dropping of Gingrich’s numbers, and probably (as we’re seeing with Huntsman, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum) some shifting in the 2nd tier numbers—some of it to either Paul or Romney, some of it among those candidates (Rick Santorum seems to be picking up a little bit of steam). The question is, where will it go?
Santa Fe press conference at which Gary Johnson announced he will
seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president is in its
Q&A stage. Earlier in the hour, Johnson made his case for
switching parties and filled out a new voter registration card,
saying as he signed on the dotted line, "This feels
According to the LP's donor database, Johnson was a dues-paying
member of the LP during his tenure as the Republican governor of
New Mexico. So, this is a homecoming of sorts.
I watched this live-streamed via the internet. It's classic (and perhaps very smart politics), in that Johnson isn't burning bridges to the Paul side of the liberty movement. He, in fact, said (paraphrased, not directly quoted): "I hope people will continue to support Ron Paul for the Republican Party nomination. If he doesn't get it, I will be here to help carry the message into the General Election."
This includes the new Iowa numbers, which Eric L. mentioned in a comment to a previous post:
The Iowa numbers are interesting—not just because Ron Paul is in the lead, but because Newt Gingrich has lost some of his steam, and dropped a few points—now in essentially a statistical dead heat for 3rd with Perry and Bachmann in the Public Policy Polling.
I downloaded and started out printing what I though was going to be a couple of dozen pages of poll data—by the time it gets done printing, I may have a couple of hundred pages! The last time I dug around in survey data this extensive was in the winter of 2004-2005, as I was trying to finish up my dissertation on presidential elections and vote choice. So, I’m a little rusty, but will take a gander at the internals of this poll, and see if I can draw some conclusions to share—tomorrow, after I’ve had a chance to sleep on it a little…
The Republican presidential candidates sharpened their criticism of Representative Ron Paul on Tuesday in an effort to keep his support from growing among voters who are frustrated with government and may be inclined to send a message to the Washington establishment by supporting him in the Iowa caucuses.