California's Single Payer Health Care Plan

The single payer plan for health care being debated in the Democrat-dominated California legislature is estimated to cost $400B per year, more than the total current state budget. Will the cost turn out to be higher if it's implemented? Silly question.

The trouble with all such plans is blazingly obvious: It attempts to defy the law of supply and demand, where the key word is "attempts."

When a good is priced at zero, demand goes through the roof, inevitably outstripping supply.

No-cost health care for all sounds nice, but the imbalance between supply and demand is not without consequences. If demand is not tempered by price, it has to be tempered by something, and that is shortages and long wait times, not to mention hits to quality. How many times does this have to be proven before liberals catch on?

Democrats tell us that a government-run program will be more cost-efficient. What a joke! There's certainly plenty of waste in the present system, but there is no endeavor that a government bureaucracy can't make less efficient and more costly.

Have Democrats not noticed the problems with VA health services? Several administrations have declared that they'll solve the problem once and for all, but it just keeps going. With single-payer, that's what we can look forward to for the entire population.

An Executrive Order is not a term paper

William A. Jacobson at Legal Surrection begins his comments on the 4th Circuit's opinion upholding the president's second executive order (EO2) with this quote that he appropriately calls "completely foolish":

The Second Executive Order does not include any examples of individuals from Iran, Libya, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen committing terrorism-related offenses in the United States.

I suppose it could be argued that it is unfair to critique a judicial opinion on the basis of only one sentence (and Mr. Jacobson comments extensively on other key parts), but this statement shows a complete lack of understanding by Judge Roger Gregory, who wrote the opinion, of the most basic function of the judiciary and separation of powers.

The statement reads like a professor grading a paper: "Unsupported assertion! Cite examples!"

Does the judge not understand that the judiciary has no business second guessing the president on security matters? Has he sat in on Security Council meetings? Seen the president's daily briefings?

It is appalling that an Appeals Court judge can write something so staggeringly stupid.

There is no evidence of collusion

The hyperventilating and calls for special counsel in the investigation of collusion of the Trump campaign with Russia is wildly overwrought because there is no evidence to support it. How do I know that? Because if there was it would have been leaked long ago and we would have read about it in the New York Times. Everything, no matter how highly classified, if it's bad news for President Trump or Republicans, lands in the NYT post haste. Some government bureaucrats, who are almost all Democrats, picture themselves as part of the "resistance" and are eager to strike a blow for the cause. They know the chance of getting caught is very small and think why not?

The March for 'Science'

The trouble with the March for Science is that mixing politics and science is thoroughly corruptive for science, and marching is a quintessentially political act. The motivation for a large part of the march was for "climate change," and pushing that deeper into politics is the last thing it needs.

Berkeley's problem: who's in charge?

The university "cancelled" Ann Coulter's speech set for April 27 because "the police had 'very specific intelligence' of threats 'that could pose a grave danger to the speaker' and others..."

In other words, at Berkeley the mob's in charge.

Coulter has declared that she's coming anyway, which will put the university in a tough spot: if they actually physically stop her, it will show their hypocrisy all too clearly that their declarations to honor free speech are so much blather, not to mention the likely lawsuit by Coulter. They need to make arrests and follow through with prosecutions and serious jail time for rioters. Anything less and the anarchists will only grow bolder.

It's time for the authorities in Berkeley to grow a backbone and take charge.

Hillary's message: they heard it alright

The teeth gnashing by Democrats over the question of why they lost the election seems to have centered on the idea that Hillary didn't get her message out to enough people in the right places. This reminds me of the little story about the dog food company that introduced a new product with a lavish advertising campaign but with dismal results. At a board meeting where they were trying to figure out why it failed, the discussion was all about whether they had the right message in the right outlets, etc. Finally, one board member said, "Maybe the dogs don't like it!"

So that's my theory: Voters heard Hillary's message on which they spent over a billion dollars all right. They just didn't like it.