Debra Saunders writes about the sham of the environmentalist liberal glitteratti:

Last week, they flew to their Mecca, the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York. For the left-leaning and loaded, this is the meet that has it all — the mega-rich paying to be seen caring about poor people and the environment, while posing for photos with former President Clinton.

You see, they care so much more about the environment than President Bush because they support the Kyoto global warming pact, which they believe would save the planet from greenhouse gases, if only Bush had not rejected it. (Never mind that Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the pact, probably because senators voted 95 to 0 for a resolution rejecting any treaty that exempted China and India.)

Paul Krugman today attempts to answer the question, “Why is the insurance industry growing rapidly, even as it covers fewer Americans?”

In 2005, the percent of uninsured was 15.9%. In 2000, it was 14.0%. In 2000, private insurers covered 72.4% of Americans or 204 million. In 2005, they covered 67.7% or 201 million.

Total number of covered individuals increased from 243 million to 249 million. From 2000-2005, the number employed rose from 137 million to 142 million. The number unemployed rose from 6 million to 8 million.

Could it be that we were experiencing a boom in 2001 and coverage peaked as a percent and that it will rise again if we have another boom with 4% unemployment? The percent of the population working has dropped from 67.1% to 66%.

Could it be that people are feeling secularly more healthy and feel like they can go without health insurance? Between 1999 and 2004, life expectancy at birth has risen from 76.7 years to 77.9 years. At least average health overall is improving by that indicator.

Could it be that the sector is over-regulated? CATO estimates that about 1/6 of daily uninsured would buy insurance if it was less heavily regulated. That would allow health care deregulation to take us from 15.9% to 13.3% uninsured and allow everyone else to save a total of $170 billion a year or $680 per covered individual per year or about 1.4% of GDP.

In short, insurers are covering more people. They are helping increase the average lifespan of all Americans. They are doing it despite a substantial burden of regulation.

Continue reading Anti-Krugman 2:
Single Horrible Payor →

Particularly those on cable news networks struggling to get enough viewers to even count as being in last place. Do not exude idiotic commentary if there’s any chance that James Lileks will hear of it:

Hear ye: if ever I announce that the lightning is sending me messages about how the government seeks to control what I think, please have me commited for paranoid schizophrenia.

He is also spectacularly unimpressed with Ahmadinejad coddlers.

Rich Lowry, on the self-imposed economic woes of my home state. In a lot of ways, Michigan reminds me of California. A place of great national beauty, being run into the ground by its elected officials.

But they should:

“You did not treat my brothers with respect. You refused to acknowledge them, like you’re refusing to acknowledge me. You mocked their southern accents. You literally turned your backs on them, like you’re turning your backs on me tonight.

“You should be ashamed of the way you treated those soldiers. Ashamed! If that is what you think supporting the troops means — turn your backs on them when they come to talk to you — then you are either a fool, a coward, or a hypocrite. I leave it to each of you to decide which word fits you best.

“The charade is over. We all know that you do not support the troops. If you did, you wouldn’t turn your backs on them. You disrespected my brothers, on our front porch. So let me be absolutely clear: You may have a slip of paper from the City of Washington recognizing your right to stand here, but you are not welcome here.

Speaking truth to…well, not power, but to self-righteous foolishness.

The Anchoress compares La Fallaci and Rosie O’Donnell:

So great is my respect for Fallaci, that to mention Rosie O

The Anchoress compares La Fallaci and Rosie O’Donnell:

So great is my respect for Fallaci, that to mention Rosie O

The Anchoress compares La Fallaci and Rosie O’Donnell:

So great is my respect for Fallaci, that to mention Rosie O

Can anyone else figure out what or who Jon Goff is talking about here? Because I sure can’t:

NASA figures that making our nation look like petty hypocrates regarding freedom of speech is a better plan. Inflammatory cartoons about another relgion? No problem. Publically calling for nuking another country off the map? No worries. Wearing the flag of your native land on a spacesuit that you bought for a spaceflight that you paid several million dollars of your own hard earned cash? Sorry, no can do boss.

It’s been sad seeing friends who have told me ithat they’d rather just see Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East nuked off the face of the map, all the sudden trying to turn Ansari’s flight into some sort of political event. Let someone who actually cares about the Iranian people as an end, rather than merely a means, say what she wants to say. It’ll probably do far more lasting good for the people of Iran (and the rest of us too) than all of the words that the spacenut side of Right Blogostan would prefer to put in her mouth.

First of all, there’s an implication that the same people are advocating different policies under different circumstances (otherwise the talk about “hypocrisy” would make no sense). But NASA didn’t publish, or approve the publication of any cartoons of which I’m aware, or publicly call for nuking any countries off the map. In fact, I’m unaware of anyone doing that, other than Jacques Chirac, but maybe I just missed it.

I’m also unaware that anyone who did publish the cartoons, or defended the right of the publishers to do so, has cheered, or even noticed NASA actions with regard to the Ansari flag issue.

(And I’m not sure what Jon’s point is with regard to the cartoons–he calls them offensive, but that’s only because some Muslims consciously decided to be offended when the cameras were around. What was much more offensive, as is the case with the Pope’s recent speech, was all of the violence and death threats over cartoons. Is it only pictures of Allah that offend Jon, or is he also outraged by crucifixi in urine and pictures of the virgin painted with elephant dung?)

So who is it that Jon is kvetching about here? (I’m also curious to know which of his friends would like to see Iran and most of the Middle East being nuked off the map.)

Here’s a suggestion. Don’t blog when angry. You don’t make much sense.

[Update on Saturday evening]

Jon, who is an extremely standup guy, has second thoughts, as I expected he would. I should be so reconsiderate.

I do think, though, that he should leave the original words up for posterity, with accompanying retraction. I correct stuff that I put up, but I don’t delete it. Simply removing it (albeit with apology) seems a little too Orwellian to me…

Considering some of the things that she said about him, I thought that this was pretty classy:

The president said Richards “became a national role model, and her charm, wit and candor brought a refreshing vitality to public life.”

He concluded that “Texas has lost one of its great daughters.”