The National Federation of Independent Business, which says it has 350,000 members with active lobbyists in 50 states, warned politicians and policy makers on Wednesday not to impose new health-benefit obligations on small employers. The group said in a statement of principles that “a health care system built on employer mandates or on pay-or-play taxes is unacceptable.”

***

In its statement of principles the federation called for universal health care, with a government safety net to help the neediest obtain coverage. But it opposed proposals to place health care under an umbrella of Medicare-style “single payer” financing. Government safety nets should not be allowed to “crowd out private insurance and care,” the federation said.

Yup, it’s the math challenged folks at the NFIB staking out their territory–hating the current system, fraudulently demanding universal health care and opposed to any solution.

The incredible thing is that a single pool/social insurance system would be incredibly positive for small business—especially if based on progressive taxation. First, the number one impediment to people starting small businesses is job-lock due to fears over losing health insurance. Second, most small businesses don’t make that much money, so a social insurance scheme would only “hurt” the very few very wealthy small business people. Somehow that group manages to politically dominate the discourse at the NFIB—when they’re not shilling for the richest families in America, that is.

My real analysis of the NFIB was done over at Spot-on last year. It’s well worth a read as it spells out the math on why a universal health care system funded by progressive tax would be a godsend for most small businesses. But sadly they just can’t ideologically get their heads around it.

Every so often I read an article that (I hope) confirms what we know is right. Remember “Trading
Places”? Dan Akroyd is stripped of his upper-class environment and fails. Eddy Murphy is plucked form the gutter and succeeds, and the experiment “proves” that it’s “nurture not nature.”

In this op-ed, All Brains Are the Same Color, psychology professor Richard Nisbett shows that IQ scores are remarkably influenced by the environment in which kids are brought up, and race has basically nothing to do with it. After he demonstrates that fairly conclusively, Nisbett gets to the punchline:

What do we know about the effects of environment?

That environment can markedly influence I.Q. is demonstrated by the so-called Flynn Effect. James Flynn, a philosopher and I.Q. researcher in New Zealand, has established that in the Western world as a whole, I.Q. increased markedly from 1947 to 2002. In the United States alone, it went up by 18 points. Our genes could not have changed enough over such a brief period to account for the shift; it must have been the result of powerful social factors. And if such factors could produce changes over time for the population as a whole, they could also produce big differences between subpopulations at any given time.

Continue reading…