Feed on

We’re only talking about a small portion of ObamaCare, right?

The result is that, while only about 135,000 people have gotten coverage at some point, they are proving far more costly to insure than predicted.

Read the rest.

In other news, I came across this piece this morning on the decline of the family (I don’t endorse all of it, fwiw):

For most of human history the family was the basic social unit of the species. Family was a way of passing down genes, beliefs and wealth.

The basic practical functions of the family have been replaced by the nanny state. It is the nanny that takes over the care and teaching of the child as soon as possible. And when their parents grow old, it is that same nanny that oversees their care and death.

Governments have come to serve as undying guardians of human society, ushering new life into the world and ushering old life out of it. New parents are as likely to turn to the government for help as they are to their extended family. When their child is old enough to look around for a career, it is the government that they expect to provide the education and the jobs. And when they grow old, the child can keep on working at his government job and paying off his student loans knowing that the government will be there to make all the difficult and expensive decisions about their care.

With all that taken care of, who needs parents or children anyway?

The state gave its citizens the impression that it could fulfill all the functions of a family far better than the real thing. Its appeal was the power of bigness, the stability of a system too big to fail and rooms full of experts working night and day to improve on the fallible family. With its vast industrial social services bureaucracy, the state would be able to provide a more stable social safety net, save everyone money on health care, educate their children, care for their elders, perpetuate their values, protect their income, safeguard their way of life and usher in a bright new future.

Unfortunately not only can’t the state do any of these things better than the family, but it can’t do them at all without the family

The state replaced the family. It told men and women that they no longer needed to make permanent commitments to each or to their parents and children. So long as they paid their taxes, the state would bear the burden of their commitments. And so men and women gave up on each other, parents gave up on their children and children gave up on their parents, the family fell apart and now the state that took its place is also falling apart.


Perhaps a bit hysterical but germane to yesterday’s discussion. I’d like to add that I basically no longer contribute a single penny to charity. At least not the way you might think of it. You may remove me from your polite company now.

And by the way, I was continuing working on my taxes yesterday (already 2 hours down the tubes with more coming down the pipe, but hey, who needs people to volunteer in their communities when they can spend a free Wednesday afternoon doing taxes and calling tax accountants?) and isn’t it just a wonderful world we live in when you cannot easily estimate to within $3,000 how much your tax commitment to the thugs in DC and Albany would be? That’s right, I literally have no idea how much I should pay or will end up paying. My situation is materially similar to what it was last year, and I still have no idea. That’s banana republic material, yet we lambs just sit here and take it. Debating an $80 billion sequester while we allow such a ludicrous situation to persist is beyond jarring.

One Response to “Government Models, Redux and Other Flotsam”

  1. Common Sense says:

    i really dont think that the passage is hysterical at all.

Leave a Reply