I wish I was a better man. I try to look on the good side of human nature.
I do believe that most people will try to do the right thing, given a chance.
So why do I have this nagging suspicion that all the talk during the 2012
election, and after, regarding the fiscal cliff has been an elaborate dance...a
political gavotte, mesmerizing the public and pundits, setting the stage
for a political kabuki play.
President Obama, the Democrats, the Republicans, all appear to be
aghast at the tragic consequences for our country if we go over the "cliff".
All parties are jockeying for position to blame the pending tragedy on
the other side. No-one wants to admit that they might be the cause
of such an unthinkable event.
But, what would happen if (or when) we do go over the fiscal cliff?
First, the Bush tax cuts would expire, and taxes would go up dramatically
on ALL Americans, not just the top 2%. In addition, drastic spending
cuts would be SLATED to occur. The Apocalypse has begun!
Then, President Obama and the Democrats will blame the Republicans. The
Republicans will blame the Democrats. Independents will blame all politicians.
Same old, same old...and their true believers will will continue to follow their
lead.
Who gains? Now, BOTH Democrats and Republicans will have all that extra
tax money to spend. They can blame each other for their good fortune.
And God knows, it's important to the Republic that we avoid letting those
drastic spending cuts destroy the country. Republicans can save the defense
budget, etc., etc. Democrats can save entitlements, etc., etc. Magically, the
money has arrived in the nick of time.
The rate of growth of the debt has slowed a little, but the debt has not been
reduced. The red ink continues to flow.
So, in the end, Big Government gets the money and the taxpayer (and the
private economy) get the shaft.
The politicians even get to pretend to be statesmen, doing what needs to be
done to save life as we know it.
I know. I know. I feel guilty. A guy that could come up with such a
devious scenario involving such treacherous politicians must have had a
terrible childhood. Washington can't really be that bad, can it?
Let's hope not. I'm sure they'll do the right thing.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
A Commencement Redress
Congratulations! At last you're here...at the culmination of years of
academic effort...after forming lifelong friendships and relationships...
you've earned your degree and the right to be proud of it.
Enjoy it! The key to your future success is in your hands. Use it to
open doors that lead to places where you may never have dreamed
of traveling. Party tonight and celebrate with family and friends.
You've reached one of the key turning points in life.
But keep perspective. You've just won your first race on the way to
the Olympics. There are many races and competitions to go, and you
have to make it to the finals to win the gold.
You've proven you can complete the course work. You have proven
you have a good memory. You understand and use language and
mathematics well. You can follow directions, and you have shown
you can think, organize, plan, and prioritize your time well enough to
succeed in academic work.
In short, you have proven a lot, and you have a right to be proud,
but you haven't won the gold medal yet.
Most likely, though, you still have yet to prove that you can deal with
some of life's more difficult challenges, such as...
1. Are you brave enough to stand up to life's difficult
challenges, and persevere when all goes wrong?
2. Are you wise enough to know when to hold 'em and when to
fold 'em...or when to go all in or all out?
3. Are you strong enough to stand up for the honorable thing, even
when it is not to your personal advantage to do it?
4. Are you are smart enough to recognize the right thing, when
it appears in front of you?
5. Are you generous and unselfish enough to sacrifice some of
your personal ambitions to benefit your family, your loved ones,
or the community, if necessary?
6. Are you resilient in the face of persistent day-to-day frustrations?
7. Can you listen to others and learn from their perspectives,
even if they are not as "educated" as you are?
Hundreds of thousands have sat where you sit today, proud of
their achievement, and sure that they, and their generation, will
solve the problems that bedevil our society and the world. Same
as you, they were trained by professors, who also teach and advise
corporate and governmental leaders, special interest groups, quasi-
governmental organizations, and politicians.
Their solutions have always been pretty much the same. One, take
money from individuals and businesses so that it can be spent on
government programs. Two, take more money from individuals
and businesses so they can spend it on expanded or new programs.
Finally, three, put your trust in well-educated bureaucrats to make
the wise decision for you.
The solutions almost never result in a choice to eliminate unnecessary
or inefficient programs, to apply new technology to substantially
eliminate waste and graft, or to spend less in tough times.
The bad news is, the money is running out, and the old solutions
aren't working. The good news is, you're going to be part of the
generation that will have to find new solutions to old problems.
I know, you've just earned your way into the "well-educated
bureaucrat" (or corporate, or professorial) class. Am I trying
to tell you that you're the problem?
If you can't come up with better solutions, you WILL become part
of the problem, and the future for your generation looks dark. If you
CAN come up with better solutions, your future can be bright
and shining. You control your destiny. You control the country's
destiny.
Lyndon Johnson started the "War on Poverty" almost fifty years
ago. After spending billions (trillions?) of dollars on program after
program, have we eliminated poverty? After years of spending
billions on the "War on Drugs", have we eliminated the drug problem?
Did the "best and brightest" manage Vietnam well?
How about business? Have all those MBAs done right by Wall
Street...or in Washington? Did all those well-educated regulators
and Wall Street titans foresee or prevent the mortgage market
meltdown, even though it would seem to be a no-brainer to require
proof that a mortgagee has enough income to pay back a loan? Has
greed, corruption, or foolishness been eliminated?
All those people who helped create this world that you may think is
all screwed up; they sat where you sit today and thought they were
going to make the world a better place to live. Hey, Bernie Madoff
sat where you sit today, as happy and optimistic and proud of his
future as you are of yours today. Don't do Bernie.
Remember, you're at the beginning of your road, not at the final
destination. Don't think you know all the answers...hopefully, you
will know to ask the right questions. Keep your eyes and ears open,
and feed what you see and hear into an open mind. You can learn
from the most unlikely sources.
Formal education is not learning. Life experience, simmering within
an engaged mind, over a lifetime, leads to learning and to wisdom.
Question what you've been taught and what you hear. Believe in
yourself and don't be afraid to speak your truth.
I envy you today. A page is being turned, and your life is starting
anew today. You have a new beginning, and you are free to choose
what you make of it. Live it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.
Make this world a better place.
academic effort...after forming lifelong friendships and relationships...
you've earned your degree and the right to be proud of it.
Enjoy it! The key to your future success is in your hands. Use it to
open doors that lead to places where you may never have dreamed
of traveling. Party tonight and celebrate with family and friends.
You've reached one of the key turning points in life.
But keep perspective. You've just won your first race on the way to
the Olympics. There are many races and competitions to go, and you
have to make it to the finals to win the gold.
You've proven you can complete the course work. You have proven
you have a good memory. You understand and use language and
mathematics well. You can follow directions, and you have shown
you can think, organize, plan, and prioritize your time well enough to
succeed in academic work.
In short, you have proven a lot, and you have a right to be proud,
but you haven't won the gold medal yet.
Most likely, though, you still have yet to prove that you can deal with
some of life's more difficult challenges, such as...
1. Are you brave enough to stand up to life's difficult
challenges, and persevere when all goes wrong?
2. Are you wise enough to know when to hold 'em and when to
fold 'em...or when to go all in or all out?
3. Are you strong enough to stand up for the honorable thing, even
when it is not to your personal advantage to do it?
4. Are you are smart enough to recognize the right thing, when
it appears in front of you?
5. Are you generous and unselfish enough to sacrifice some of
your personal ambitions to benefit your family, your loved ones,
or the community, if necessary?
6. Are you resilient in the face of persistent day-to-day frustrations?
7. Can you listen to others and learn from their perspectives,
even if they are not as "educated" as you are?
Hundreds of thousands have sat where you sit today, proud of
their achievement, and sure that they, and their generation, will
solve the problems that bedevil our society and the world. Same
as you, they were trained by professors, who also teach and advise
corporate and governmental leaders, special interest groups, quasi-
governmental organizations, and politicians.
Their solutions have always been pretty much the same. One, take
money from individuals and businesses so that it can be spent on
government programs. Two, take more money from individuals
and businesses so they can spend it on expanded or new programs.
Finally, three, put your trust in well-educated bureaucrats to make
the wise decision for you.
The solutions almost never result in a choice to eliminate unnecessary
or inefficient programs, to apply new technology to substantially
eliminate waste and graft, or to spend less in tough times.
The bad news is, the money is running out, and the old solutions
aren't working. The good news is, you're going to be part of the
generation that will have to find new solutions to old problems.
I know, you've just earned your way into the "well-educated
bureaucrat" (or corporate, or professorial) class. Am I trying
to tell you that you're the problem?
If you can't come up with better solutions, you WILL become part
of the problem, and the future for your generation looks dark. If you
CAN come up with better solutions, your future can be bright
and shining. You control your destiny. You control the country's
destiny.
Lyndon Johnson started the "War on Poverty" almost fifty years
ago. After spending billions (trillions?) of dollars on program after
program, have we eliminated poverty? After years of spending
billions on the "War on Drugs", have we eliminated the drug problem?
Did the "best and brightest" manage Vietnam well?
How about business? Have all those MBAs done right by Wall
Street...or in Washington? Did all those well-educated regulators
and Wall Street titans foresee or prevent the mortgage market
meltdown, even though it would seem to be a no-brainer to require
proof that a mortgagee has enough income to pay back a loan? Has
greed, corruption, or foolishness been eliminated?
All those people who helped create this world that you may think is
all screwed up; they sat where you sit today and thought they were
going to make the world a better place to live. Hey, Bernie Madoff
sat where you sit today, as happy and optimistic and proud of his
future as you are of yours today. Don't do Bernie.
Remember, you're at the beginning of your road, not at the final
destination. Don't think you know all the answers...hopefully, you
will know to ask the right questions. Keep your eyes and ears open,
and feed what you see and hear into an open mind. You can learn
from the most unlikely sources.
Formal education is not learning. Life experience, simmering within
an engaged mind, over a lifetime, leads to learning and to wisdom.
Question what you've been taught and what you hear. Believe in
yourself and don't be afraid to speak your truth.
I envy you today. A page is being turned, and your life is starting
anew today. You have a new beginning, and you are free to choose
what you make of it. Live it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.
Make this world a better place.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Dueling Mind-Sets
For almost all of human history, the mind-set of governance has been that leaders lead,
and all others are either enforcers for, or followers of, laws created by the elite leaders.
This has been true of leaders endowed with power by divine right, endowed by religious
theocracy, by the power of the sword, or by the power of a democratic election.
The basic rule is that powerful elites set whatever rules they want, and, as long as they
have the power to enforce their decisions, everyone else must follow the rules...and, if
another set of leaders takes control, then the new leaders set the rules. Same
mind-set, different rulers.
When America was formed, a different mind-set took hold. The basic idea was that
each individual should have the freedom to choose their own road in life, and accept
the risks and rewards that come with their new found freedom.
No longer would a powerful elite control all individuals, and, to ensure that the
federal government would not have the power to intrude into citizen's lives, the
federal government was limited to specific powers, with other specific powers
delegated to the states.
In addition, individual rights were specified that could not be violated by the federal
or state governments.
Finally, the federal government was divided into three distinct parts, legislative,
executive, and judicial...in order to make sure that no one in the federal government could
achieve enough power to prevent individuals from attaining life, liberty, and their
own pursuits of happiness.
Granted, this is all basics civics, but the difference between the two mind-sets is
still in play in the politics of the current day.
When you listen to politicians, do not pay attention to what they are labeled or to
their political party. They might be Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or
Liberals.
What matters is their mind-set. What matters is how they think. Listen to what they
say and ask yourself "Do they want the power to control my life, or do they think I'm
competent to make my own decisions?" "Do they look at me as an individual, or
do they look at me as a cog in a demographic group that they can manipulate?"
Actually, a better question would be "Do I look at myself as a competent individual, or
am I just a mindless part of a demographic group?".
There have always been, and will always be, elites that feel they know better than you
how you should live your life. They have always thirsted for power to enforce their will
upon others...always, of course, for your benefit, not theirs. And, it is true that some
limits do need to be in place to prevent individual freedom from turning into anarchy.
But it is no coincidence that somehow, in the history of the world, those elites have never
delivered the freedom and the economic and human progress that the American
Experiment did in just a few hundred years. For all its problems, America is still one
country that has most learned to embrace diversity and live together; a shining symbol
showing the rest of the world what can be accomplished with good will and tolerance.
Even in America, little by little, year by year, elites have slowly been "transforming" the
federal government from its originally intended limited purposes into a gigantic
conglomerate of regulations, entitlements, promises, spending, and power...a
conglomerate that is well on its way to bankruptcy or to oppressive taxation for
future generations.
Before you vote, listen. Listen hard to what politicians are saying, and ask yourself, "Am
I voting for a safety net, or am I voting for a way of life?
Look. Look hard, not only at what they are saying, but at the effects of what they are
doing. Whether by good intention, or not, the effect of much of the federal legislation
over the last hundred years has been to curtail individual freedom and initiative, and to
replace it with regulation, intimidation, and favoritism.
Its a good thing to have control enough to prevent anarchy...but too much control is a
vice, not a virtue. Do not throw away that which has made us great for that which will
make us mundane.
The greatest gift mankind had ever been given was the freedom our founders
bestowed on this country.
The burden of history has fallen upon this generation. We will either be remembered
as the generation that gave that freedom away, or as the generation that took it back.
I don't know how this story will end. I hope we'll fight to take it back, but I fear
we'll give it up.
Each individual will have to take a side. I hope you pick the right side.
and all others are either enforcers for, or followers of, laws created by the elite leaders.
This has been true of leaders endowed with power by divine right, endowed by religious
theocracy, by the power of the sword, or by the power of a democratic election.
The basic rule is that powerful elites set whatever rules they want, and, as long as they
have the power to enforce their decisions, everyone else must follow the rules...and, if
another set of leaders takes control, then the new leaders set the rules. Same
mind-set, different rulers.
When America was formed, a different mind-set took hold. The basic idea was that
each individual should have the freedom to choose their own road in life, and accept
the risks and rewards that come with their new found freedom.
No longer would a powerful elite control all individuals, and, to ensure that the
federal government would not have the power to intrude into citizen's lives, the
federal government was limited to specific powers, with other specific powers
delegated to the states.
In addition, individual rights were specified that could not be violated by the federal
or state governments.
Finally, the federal government was divided into three distinct parts, legislative,
executive, and judicial...in order to make sure that no one in the federal government could
achieve enough power to prevent individuals from attaining life, liberty, and their
own pursuits of happiness.
Granted, this is all basics civics, but the difference between the two mind-sets is
still in play in the politics of the current day.
When you listen to politicians, do not pay attention to what they are labeled or to
their political party. They might be Democrats or Republicans, Conservatives or
Liberals.
What matters is their mind-set. What matters is how they think. Listen to what they
say and ask yourself "Do they want the power to control my life, or do they think I'm
competent to make my own decisions?" "Do they look at me as an individual, or
do they look at me as a cog in a demographic group that they can manipulate?"
Actually, a better question would be "Do I look at myself as a competent individual, or
am I just a mindless part of a demographic group?".
There have always been, and will always be, elites that feel they know better than you
how you should live your life. They have always thirsted for power to enforce their will
upon others...always, of course, for your benefit, not theirs. And, it is true that some
limits do need to be in place to prevent individual freedom from turning into anarchy.
But it is no coincidence that somehow, in the history of the world, those elites have never
delivered the freedom and the economic and human progress that the American
Experiment did in just a few hundred years. For all its problems, America is still one
country that has most learned to embrace diversity and live together; a shining symbol
showing the rest of the world what can be accomplished with good will and tolerance.
Even in America, little by little, year by year, elites have slowly been "transforming" the
federal government from its originally intended limited purposes into a gigantic
conglomerate of regulations, entitlements, promises, spending, and power...a
conglomerate that is well on its way to bankruptcy or to oppressive taxation for
future generations.
Before you vote, listen. Listen hard to what politicians are saying, and ask yourself, "Am
I voting for a safety net, or am I voting for a way of life?
Look. Look hard, not only at what they are saying, but at the effects of what they are
doing. Whether by good intention, or not, the effect of much of the federal legislation
over the last hundred years has been to curtail individual freedom and initiative, and to
replace it with regulation, intimidation, and favoritism.
Its a good thing to have control enough to prevent anarchy...but too much control is a
vice, not a virtue. Do not throw away that which has made us great for that which will
make us mundane.
The greatest gift mankind had ever been given was the freedom our founders
bestowed on this country.
The burden of history has fallen upon this generation. We will either be remembered
as the generation that gave that freedom away, or as the generation that took it back.
I don't know how this story will end. I hope we'll fight to take it back, but I fear
we'll give it up.
Each individual will have to take a side. I hope you pick the right side.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Money, Property, Contracts, Morality
If you believe in the concept of the "Universal Morality", you must be able
to determine if agreements between individuals and groups are being
forced, or if they are voluntarily agreed upon.
Agreements that are physically forced would obviously be immoral. Less
obviously, agreements secured by lies, cheating, obfuscation, duress, etc.,
would be equally immoral, even though physical force was not used.
But, even if you do not accept immoral agreements, you still need a method
to measure and evaluate agreements that were made mutually, voluntarily,
and morally, between individuals and groups.
Humanity has come a long way since the days of "bartering" services.
Modern society relies on currency and law to regulate relations between
competing, and often conflicting, interests.
If you accept that each individual has the freedom to put a value on their own time
and labor, then, money is one way (not the only way), by which we value our
time and labor. A system of currency aids both individuals and groups in evaluating
decisions they make.
Without the freedom to value our time and labor, we are all slaves. With this
freedom, each of us becomes an agent in control of our own life. One may wonder
IF some individuals are worth what they are paid, but, if no one was FORCED to
pay them, then, obviously, enough others DID think they were worth it.
If an individual has the freedom to own property, then money is the medium
by which we value it, sell it, and buy it. Without this freedom, we are all
serfs, existing at the behest of those politicians that would assign us our living
quarters and possessions.
And, if individuals and groups have the freedom to make agreements and
decisions amongst each other, then contract law is how we enforce those
agreements. Without this freedom, we are all peons, endowing politicians
the political power to decide our conflicts for us...and opening the door to
cronyism and, eventually, to tyranny.
Systems of currency, property rights, and contract law are all intrinsic to human
freedom. To think otherwise is to endanger human liberty.
to determine if agreements between individuals and groups are being
forced, or if they are voluntarily agreed upon.
Agreements that are physically forced would obviously be immoral. Less
obviously, agreements secured by lies, cheating, obfuscation, duress, etc.,
would be equally immoral, even though physical force was not used.
But, even if you do not accept immoral agreements, you still need a method
to measure and evaluate agreements that were made mutually, voluntarily,
and morally, between individuals and groups.
Humanity has come a long way since the days of "bartering" services.
Modern society relies on currency and law to regulate relations between
competing, and often conflicting, interests.
If you accept that each individual has the freedom to put a value on their own time
and labor, then, money is one way (not the only way), by which we value our
time and labor. A system of currency aids both individuals and groups in evaluating
decisions they make.
Without the freedom to value our time and labor, we are all slaves. With this
freedom, each of us becomes an agent in control of our own life. One may wonder
IF some individuals are worth what they are paid, but, if no one was FORCED to
pay them, then, obviously, enough others DID think they were worth it.
If an individual has the freedom to own property, then money is the medium
by which we value it, sell it, and buy it. Without this freedom, we are all
serfs, existing at the behest of those politicians that would assign us our living
quarters and possessions.
And, if individuals and groups have the freedom to make agreements and
decisions amongst each other, then contract law is how we enforce those
agreements. Without this freedom, we are all peons, endowing politicians
the political power to decide our conflicts for us...and opening the door to
cronyism and, eventually, to tyranny.
Systems of currency, property rights, and contract law are all intrinsic to human
freedom. To think otherwise is to endanger human liberty.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Young Americans and the Parable of Stockton
Public employees in Stockton, California are upset that the city's bankruptcy
filing will affect their careers, their health benefits, and their pension benefits. One
retired lady in particular was angry that her promised health benefits would be
cut or eliminated, and she was furious with the mayor and the city council.
I understand her anger and the tragic position she finds herself in...but the
current city officials are not the cause of her problems.
First, her problem was caused by incompetent or corrupt politicians, long gone,
who promised her pensions and health benefits beyond the funds they could
provide for them. Then, they "guaranteed" her pension benefits "at little or no
cost to the taxpayers" because they were only providing backup for benefits
that would be paid for out of pension fund earnings.
They knew they would be long gone before the bill came due, and some other
poor sap would be stuck with it...and she probably voted them in office again
and again because they "cared for her".
Secondly, her problem was caused by the pension fund managers, who, year
after year, continued to project fund earnings far in excess of actual likely
earnings. This made their budget look good, and, if they didn't reach the
earnings, the taxpayers would have to put up the money to guarantee the
benefits to their members. No sweat.
And thirdly, the problem was caused by the public service union that represented
her, using her dues to bankroll the election campaigns of politicians who would
reward the union with sweet-heart deals. Those deals made the union look
good to her, at least until the money ran out and taxpayers got tired of being
taxed to pay for better benefits than they, themselves, received.
But, she was probably pretty happy to take those benefits and to vote for
the candidates that her union told her would give her more. In short, she was
lied to and used by politicians and unions in their search for power and
influence, and now she should realize she's been suckered.
OK, young Americans, what's the lesson in all this for you? What do you
care about her problems?
Well, what do you think the "Affordable Health Care Act" is all about? It's
going to let you stay on your parents health insurance for a few more years?
Wow!! It promises everybody something yet, somehow, costs taxpayers
less?
What it really does is put you on the hook to pay for yours, and everyone
else's, health insurance as well...as well as give politicians the right to decide
what you will pay and what coverage you need.
Regardless of what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama say, there
is no free lunch...and, if you're dumb enough to believe there is, you're
going to be stuck paying the bill
And, when Republicans and Democrats alike say they're lowering the "payroll
tax" to put more cash in your pocket, what they are NOT saying is that the
money is coming from your social security account, or, they are borrowing
the money to replace it in your social security account and are increasing the
national debt that you will have to pay, sooner or later.
One way or another, it affects you. Go into this next election with open eyes.
Be aware of the consequences of your choice, when you vote your
conscience. Don't think you're getting something for nothing, and end up
being tuckered and suckered all the way down the line.
filing will affect their careers, their health benefits, and their pension benefits. One
retired lady in particular was angry that her promised health benefits would be
cut or eliminated, and she was furious with the mayor and the city council.
I understand her anger and the tragic position she finds herself in...but the
current city officials are not the cause of her problems.
First, her problem was caused by incompetent or corrupt politicians, long gone,
who promised her pensions and health benefits beyond the funds they could
provide for them. Then, they "guaranteed" her pension benefits "at little or no
cost to the taxpayers" because they were only providing backup for benefits
that would be paid for out of pension fund earnings.
They knew they would be long gone before the bill came due, and some other
poor sap would be stuck with it...and she probably voted them in office again
and again because they "cared for her".
Secondly, her problem was caused by the pension fund managers, who, year
after year, continued to project fund earnings far in excess of actual likely
earnings. This made their budget look good, and, if they didn't reach the
earnings, the taxpayers would have to put up the money to guarantee the
benefits to their members. No sweat.
And thirdly, the problem was caused by the public service union that represented
her, using her dues to bankroll the election campaigns of politicians who would
reward the union with sweet-heart deals. Those deals made the union look
good to her, at least until the money ran out and taxpayers got tired of being
taxed to pay for better benefits than they, themselves, received.
But, she was probably pretty happy to take those benefits and to vote for
the candidates that her union told her would give her more. In short, she was
lied to and used by politicians and unions in their search for power and
influence, and now she should realize she's been suckered.
OK, young Americans, what's the lesson in all this for you? What do you
care about her problems?
Well, what do you think the "Affordable Health Care Act" is all about? It's
going to let you stay on your parents health insurance for a few more years?
Wow!! It promises everybody something yet, somehow, costs taxpayers
less?
What it really does is put you on the hook to pay for yours, and everyone
else's, health insurance as well...as well as give politicians the right to decide
what you will pay and what coverage you need.
Regardless of what Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama say, there
is no free lunch...and, if you're dumb enough to believe there is, you're
going to be stuck paying the bill
And, when Republicans and Democrats alike say they're lowering the "payroll
tax" to put more cash in your pocket, what they are NOT saying is that the
money is coming from your social security account, or, they are borrowing
the money to replace it in your social security account and are increasing the
national debt that you will have to pay, sooner or later.
One way or another, it affects you. Go into this next election with open eyes.
Be aware of the consequences of your choice, when you vote your
conscience. Don't think you're getting something for nothing, and end up
being tuckered and suckered all the way down the line.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Henry Kissinger and the Raiders of the Lost Ark
"Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" will soon be screening in movie theaters throughout
the country. I've got to admit, my first reaction to this was pretty negative...but then
again, it is pretty creative to piggy back the good vibes of a national hero onto a schlock,
pop movie.
One of our pressing national concerns is what to do with Washington politicians out of
office. These sad, derelict vagabonds wander far from the halls of power, reduced to
using their inside knowledge to lobby their replacements. True, financially, they are well
rewarded...but spiritually, they are shattered souls, begging for favors from the new
power brokers.
Or, they are reduced to lecturing at elite universities, confirming to already pampered
and entitled students, that it is indeed noble to go into public service and tell the rest of
us how to live our lives.
To provide a productive life for these lost souls, we could do worse than offer them
employment as actors. Instead of using dead politicians to make new movies, we
could use live politicians (when they are out of office) to remake old movies and
television shows.
Who wouldn't want to see Chris Christie and Barack Obama as "Laurel and Hardy",
or Barney Frank and George Bush (either Bush) as "The Odd Couple"? How about
Boehner and Obama as "Martin and Lewis"?
White-bread Mitt Romney could change his image, playing a street-wise Richard
Roundtree in "Shaft", or as Marlon Brando's "Godfather". How about George W. Bush
as Jon Voight's "Midnight Cowboy"?
George H. W. Bush as John Wayne, "Read my lips, pilgrim". Bill Clinton would be a
perfect Alec Baldwin in "It's Complicated", or playing Charles Durning's Governor, singing
and dancing to "The Sidestep" in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" (never heard of
this one? Look it up on youtube).
Perhaps I'm a wee bit sexist (OK, I'm a pig), but wouldn't you like to see Hilary, or
Condoleezza, "Do Dallas"? Why not "Hilary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, and
Madeleine Albright--Tomb Raiders"?
Las Vegas could get in on the action, too. How about a Chippendale's Review with
Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack
Obama as "Presidents Gone Wild!!"? It won't be the first time someone waved a dollar
in front of them.
OK, so maybe it would be a little bit exploitive of, and demeaning to, their former
positions (or to themselves)...but at least they'd be earning an honest living...and
when they die, Hollywood could turn them into vampire slayers with a clear conscience.
the country. I've got to admit, my first reaction to this was pretty negative...but then
again, it is pretty creative to piggy back the good vibes of a national hero onto a schlock,
pop movie.
One of our pressing national concerns is what to do with Washington politicians out of
office. These sad, derelict vagabonds wander far from the halls of power, reduced to
using their inside knowledge to lobby their replacements. True, financially, they are well
rewarded...but spiritually, they are shattered souls, begging for favors from the new
power brokers.
Or, they are reduced to lecturing at elite universities, confirming to already pampered
and entitled students, that it is indeed noble to go into public service and tell the rest of
us how to live our lives.
To provide a productive life for these lost souls, we could do worse than offer them
employment as actors. Instead of using dead politicians to make new movies, we
could use live politicians (when they are out of office) to remake old movies and
television shows.
Who wouldn't want to see Chris Christie and Barack Obama as "Laurel and Hardy",
or Barney Frank and George Bush (either Bush) as "The Odd Couple"? How about
Boehner and Obama as "Martin and Lewis"?
White-bread Mitt Romney could change his image, playing a street-wise Richard
Roundtree in "Shaft", or as Marlon Brando's "Godfather". How about George W. Bush
as Jon Voight's "Midnight Cowboy"?
George H. W. Bush as John Wayne, "Read my lips, pilgrim". Bill Clinton would be a
perfect Alec Baldwin in "It's Complicated", or playing Charles Durning's Governor, singing
and dancing to "The Sidestep" in "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" (never heard of
this one? Look it up on youtube).
Perhaps I'm a wee bit sexist (OK, I'm a pig), but wouldn't you like to see Hilary, or
Condoleezza, "Do Dallas"? Why not "Hilary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, and
Madeleine Albright--Tomb Raiders"?
Las Vegas could get in on the action, too. How about a Chippendale's Review with
Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack
Obama as "Presidents Gone Wild!!"? It won't be the first time someone waved a dollar
in front of them.
OK, so maybe it would be a little bit exploitive of, and demeaning to, their former
positions (or to themselves)...but at least they'd be earning an honest living...and
when they die, Hollywood could turn them into vampire slayers with a clear conscience.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
A Citizen's Decision
In their heart of hearts, all believers see perfection of the human condition as a possible
and worthwhile goal.
If you're a cynic, you believe that you can use the popular sentiment for such noble
causes as the means to achieve your more worldly goals of achieving political power
and control.
If only enough of the correct, enlightened, people are in positions of political power,
the believers know our problems can all be solved, if only we behave as they tell us
to behave...because, of course, they know best.
What a wonderful world is in store for us, if only the liberals or the conservatives, the
socialists or the fascists, the theists or the communists, or the monarchists, have their
way.
Even Ayn Rand and the libertarians seem to believe that rationality will deliver us to the
promised land...as if humans could, or would, ever attain pure rational behavior.
The truth is, no man is perfect. No man knows the entire truth. No man would see
himself, or his family and friends suffer, if he had the power to prevent it, even at
the expense of others.
OK, maybe "no man" is an exaggeration. Perhaps there are some, few, truly exceptional
individuals out there who fit this profile. You and I and maybe Jesus come to mind,
but other than us, I can't come up with any politician, bureaucrat, executive, professor,
businessman, or union leader who fits the bill.
Actually, I'm not that sure about you, either...and, if I'm really honest about it, I know
I'm no saint, for sure.
It continues to amaze me how the founders, so many years ago, saw the problem with
human nature and designed a structure to protect the individual from abuse at the hands
of a federal government run by the few and the powerful.
None of the prior, existing forms of government, or the more recent structures such as
Socialism, Communism, or Fascism, have proven themselves more effective or more free.
And the more modern incantation of American government...a sort of cacophony
of Democrats and Republicans competing for re-election funds from corporations,
unions, ethnic groups, religious groups, environmental groups, and every other
special interest group conceivable, does not seem to be much concerned about
the freedom and welfare of the individual, either.
The founders knew that, if the power was there to be used, it was there to be
abused...and it IS human nature to abuse it.
It's time to reel in some of the power the federal government has taken, to limit the
reach of the government, and to return it to its original mission of protecting
individual freedom.
But the truth is, fault lies not with the politicians and organizations that abuse the
system for their own benefit, but with the individual citizens, who do not see
themselves as individuals, but as part of a collective group that is trying to pressure
the federal government to confer benefits on their group at the expense of other
individuals or groups.
Somewhere, somehow, it has become more important to be a black, white, Latino,
or gay American...to be a businessman or union member, to be gender-centric, or an
American with disabilities, or of a particular religion, etc...than it is to be an American.
When citizens identify more with their interest group than with their rights and
responsibilities as individuals, they become easy prey for politicians who would
divide and manipulate citizens, in their search for power and control.
Preventing the federal government from taking from some and giving to others is
a proper goal in many instances, but it will never happen unless citizens view their
individual liberty, rights, and responsibilities as more precious than is their right to
organize into collective groups to petition the federal government to take from
others and to give to their particular interest group.
Citizens do get the government they deserve.
and worthwhile goal.
If you're a cynic, you believe that you can use the popular sentiment for such noble
causes as the means to achieve your more worldly goals of achieving political power
and control.
If only enough of the correct, enlightened, people are in positions of political power,
the believers know our problems can all be solved, if only we behave as they tell us
to behave...because, of course, they know best.
What a wonderful world is in store for us, if only the liberals or the conservatives, the
socialists or the fascists, the theists or the communists, or the monarchists, have their
way.
Even Ayn Rand and the libertarians seem to believe that rationality will deliver us to the
promised land...as if humans could, or would, ever attain pure rational behavior.
The truth is, no man is perfect. No man knows the entire truth. No man would see
himself, or his family and friends suffer, if he had the power to prevent it, even at
the expense of others.
OK, maybe "no man" is an exaggeration. Perhaps there are some, few, truly exceptional
individuals out there who fit this profile. You and I and maybe Jesus come to mind,
but other than us, I can't come up with any politician, bureaucrat, executive, professor,
businessman, or union leader who fits the bill.
Actually, I'm not that sure about you, either...and, if I'm really honest about it, I know
I'm no saint, for sure.
It continues to amaze me how the founders, so many years ago, saw the problem with
human nature and designed a structure to protect the individual from abuse at the hands
of a federal government run by the few and the powerful.
None of the prior, existing forms of government, or the more recent structures such as
Socialism, Communism, or Fascism, have proven themselves more effective or more free.
And the more modern incantation of American government...a sort of cacophony
of Democrats and Republicans competing for re-election funds from corporations,
unions, ethnic groups, religious groups, environmental groups, and every other
special interest group conceivable, does not seem to be much concerned about
the freedom and welfare of the individual, either.
The founders knew that, if the power was there to be used, it was there to be
abused...and it IS human nature to abuse it.
It's time to reel in some of the power the federal government has taken, to limit the
reach of the government, and to return it to its original mission of protecting
individual freedom.
But the truth is, fault lies not with the politicians and organizations that abuse the
system for their own benefit, but with the individual citizens, who do not see
themselves as individuals, but as part of a collective group that is trying to pressure
the federal government to confer benefits on their group at the expense of other
individuals or groups.
Somewhere, somehow, it has become more important to be a black, white, Latino,
or gay American...to be a businessman or union member, to be gender-centric, or an
American with disabilities, or of a particular religion, etc...than it is to be an American.
When citizens identify more with their interest group than with their rights and
responsibilities as individuals, they become easy prey for politicians who would
divide and manipulate citizens, in their search for power and control.
Preventing the federal government from taking from some and giving to others is
a proper goal in many instances, but it will never happen unless citizens view their
individual liberty, rights, and responsibilities as more precious than is their right to
organize into collective groups to petition the federal government to take from
others and to give to their particular interest group.
Citizens do get the government they deserve.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Who Cares?
Somehow, virtue in America has become defined as caring. Whole industries
have grown up around caring and compassion. We care for children, the elderly,
victims, criminals, pets, endangered species, the environment, and on and on.
From the time we are born, modern Americans are preached to from the pulpit,
from the school room, from the media, and from our politicians...if you don't
have compassion, you are not a virtuous person. Your duty is to care.
And, truly, having compassion and caring is a virtue. It's just not the only
virtue, or even the main virtue. Other virtues such as fairness, justice, truth,
honesty, open-mindedness, and practicality remain equally or more important,
depending on the specific situation.
Everyone wants to protect their child from making tragic mistakes or falling
into tragic circumstances. That's a worthy goal, but finding the elusive line
between protecting and coddling is much more difficult. Where does
protection interfere with normal, healthy child development?
The truth is, caring, by itself, is not enough. Caring does not relieve you
from the responsibility to make correct decisions. Caring does not make
you more virtuous or intelligent than another person who cares, but who
makes different choices about how to show their compassion.
Caring is easy...choosing correctly is hard. And, good intentions can be
manipulated.
Politicians will use caring to manipulate and control voters for power and
votes. Vote for me! I'm for the poor, the downtrodden, for you...and my
opponent is basically a fascist who doesn't care for anybody.
Educators use compassion as a tool to manipulate minds. Maybe we
can't teach religion in schools, but we can teach the causes that we
believe in...and, if you don't agree, you're probably a fool, anyway.
Religion teaches compassion to manipulate behavior. Nothing wrong
with that, depending on the behavior that's being encouraged. Helping
the poor is good...beheading infidels is not-so-good.
Even the media plays on compassion in it's search for ratings. Am I the only
one that sees a dichotomy between the anchor stating how badly they
feel for the person in the situation, and the field reporter shoving a
microphone in the face of the person stuck under the car and asking them
"How does it feel to have a two-ton car stuck on your chest?".
Even friends and family will attempt to use your compassion as a way to
manipulate you.
So, be as caring and compassionate as you wish. It is a wonderful quality.
But be aware that unscrupulous and crass individuals are out there, who will
try to use your good intentions to their advantage.
have grown up around caring and compassion. We care for children, the elderly,
victims, criminals, pets, endangered species, the environment, and on and on.
From the time we are born, modern Americans are preached to from the pulpit,
from the school room, from the media, and from our politicians...if you don't
have compassion, you are not a virtuous person. Your duty is to care.
And, truly, having compassion and caring is a virtue. It's just not the only
virtue, or even the main virtue. Other virtues such as fairness, justice, truth,
honesty, open-mindedness, and practicality remain equally or more important,
depending on the specific situation.
Everyone wants to protect their child from making tragic mistakes or falling
into tragic circumstances. That's a worthy goal, but finding the elusive line
between protecting and coddling is much more difficult. Where does
protection interfere with normal, healthy child development?
The truth is, caring, by itself, is not enough. Caring does not relieve you
from the responsibility to make correct decisions. Caring does not make
you more virtuous or intelligent than another person who cares, but who
makes different choices about how to show their compassion.
Caring is easy...choosing correctly is hard. And, good intentions can be
manipulated.
Politicians will use caring to manipulate and control voters for power and
votes. Vote for me! I'm for the poor, the downtrodden, for you...and my
opponent is basically a fascist who doesn't care for anybody.
Educators use compassion as a tool to manipulate minds. Maybe we
can't teach religion in schools, but we can teach the causes that we
believe in...and, if you don't agree, you're probably a fool, anyway.
Religion teaches compassion to manipulate behavior. Nothing wrong
with that, depending on the behavior that's being encouraged. Helping
the poor is good...beheading infidels is not-so-good.
Even the media plays on compassion in it's search for ratings. Am I the only
one that sees a dichotomy between the anchor stating how badly they
feel for the person in the situation, and the field reporter shoving a
microphone in the face of the person stuck under the car and asking them
"How does it feel to have a two-ton car stuck on your chest?".
Even friends and family will attempt to use your compassion as a way to
manipulate you.
So, be as caring and compassionate as you wish. It is a wonderful quality.
But be aware that unscrupulous and crass individuals are out there, who will
try to use your good intentions to their advantage.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Why Not Pie-in-the sky?
I know there is a lot to complain about in my pie-in-the-sky plan. Individuals could have
to pay out up to $7,500 dollars a year in medical expenses. Damn, that's a lot!
Of course, most of us will never reach that amount in a year. And the maximum
that almost all of us will have to pay in our lives is only 15% of the cost of our
medical bills...and far lower than that if we ever reach the catastrophic stage where
the state and federal government help kicks in. So, maybe it's not such a bad deal
for the individual.
And doctors and medical services will scream and complain about having to give one
free service for each twenty for-fee services they deliver. Damn, that's positively
un-American!
Of course, they're only giving away less than 5% of their services...and they can
make a lot of money off the twenty for-fee services they deliver. So, maybe
it's not such a bad deal for the doctor and the hospital.
The states will moan that they have to pay hospitals to care for the
uninsured, plus, they have to pay for catastrophic care. My God, how can they
afford it?
Of course, they can collect some of the money back by billing those uninsured
that can afford to pay for some, or all, of their medical bills...and, they will
probably be paying less under this plan than under the existing health services
they are providing. So, who knows, maybe it's not such a bad deal for the
state, either.
The Feds will whine about providing catastrophic coverage, but, hey, whining and
spending money is what the Feds do best.
Besides, if people are signed into such a health insurance program at a very young
age, by the time they reach 65 it might be possible to modify the program to
replace (or supplement) the Medicare program with some coverage from private
insurance companies and states. Maybe there is a financial future for Medicare.
But, there is no free lunch in life. Even though the cost of medical care
is split between the individual, the insurance company, state government, the
Feds, and charities, in the end, the individual is the one who pays the insurance
premiums and taxes that fund the insurance companies and the government.
What all these programs are designed to do is shift the risk of catastrophic medical
care and improve the odds for the individual to survive the cost of unusual
medical emergencies.
Even with this program, there will be situations where the medical co-pay will
place a hardship on an individual. There will be situations where the money for
the catastrophic situation runs out and an individual is left destitute. It is sad,
but it is life.
This program is designed to protect the vast, vast, majority of people from a
medical disaster. It is designed to protect society from contagious diseases borne
by uninsured individuals. It is designed with dollar limits in order to keep the
cost affordable, and is designed to spread the cost between different entities
in order to minimize the risk of financial failure.
As I said in the beginning, I'm not sure if I have the correct price points or
not. Maybe the co-pay should be 10% or 20% instead of 15%. Maybe the
feds, or state governments, or the medical establishment should cover more,
or less. I just think that a sweet spot could be found, where all the numbers
work out.
I know it would be tremendously difficult to get coordination between the federal
government, state governments, private insurance companies, doctors, medical
groups, etc, to work this all out. Is it hard? Yes. Is it impossible? I don't think so.
But then, that's the advantage of sitting in the basement in my shorts writing a
blog. I don't have to do it, I can just dream about it. Somehow, somewhere,
someone will have the access and the knowledge to pull it off.
to pay out up to $7,500 dollars a year in medical expenses. Damn, that's a lot!
Of course, most of us will never reach that amount in a year. And the maximum
that almost all of us will have to pay in our lives is only 15% of the cost of our
medical bills...and far lower than that if we ever reach the catastrophic stage where
the state and federal government help kicks in. So, maybe it's not such a bad deal
for the individual.
And doctors and medical services will scream and complain about having to give one
free service for each twenty for-fee services they deliver. Damn, that's positively
un-American!
Of course, they're only giving away less than 5% of their services...and they can
make a lot of money off the twenty for-fee services they deliver. So, maybe
it's not such a bad deal for the doctor and the hospital.
The states will moan that they have to pay hospitals to care for the
uninsured, plus, they have to pay for catastrophic care. My God, how can they
afford it?
Of course, they can collect some of the money back by billing those uninsured
that can afford to pay for some, or all, of their medical bills...and, they will
probably be paying less under this plan than under the existing health services
they are providing. So, who knows, maybe it's not such a bad deal for the
state, either.
The Feds will whine about providing catastrophic coverage, but, hey, whining and
spending money is what the Feds do best.
Besides, if people are signed into such a health insurance program at a very young
age, by the time they reach 65 it might be possible to modify the program to
replace (or supplement) the Medicare program with some coverage from private
insurance companies and states. Maybe there is a financial future for Medicare.
But, there is no free lunch in life. Even though the cost of medical care
is split between the individual, the insurance company, state government, the
Feds, and charities, in the end, the individual is the one who pays the insurance
premiums and taxes that fund the insurance companies and the government.
What all these programs are designed to do is shift the risk of catastrophic medical
care and improve the odds for the individual to survive the cost of unusual
medical emergencies.
Even with this program, there will be situations where the medical co-pay will
place a hardship on an individual. There will be situations where the money for
the catastrophic situation runs out and an individual is left destitute. It is sad,
but it is life.
This program is designed to protect the vast, vast, majority of people from a
medical disaster. It is designed to protect society from contagious diseases borne
by uninsured individuals. It is designed with dollar limits in order to keep the
cost affordable, and is designed to spread the cost between different entities
in order to minimize the risk of financial failure.
As I said in the beginning, I'm not sure if I have the correct price points or
not. Maybe the co-pay should be 10% or 20% instead of 15%. Maybe the
feds, or state governments, or the medical establishment should cover more,
or less. I just think that a sweet spot could be found, where all the numbers
work out.
I know it would be tremendously difficult to get coordination between the federal
government, state governments, private insurance companies, doctors, medical
groups, etc, to work this all out. Is it hard? Yes. Is it impossible? I don't think so.
But then, that's the advantage of sitting in the basement in my shorts writing a
blog. I don't have to do it, I can just dream about it. Somehow, somewhere,
someone will have the access and the knowledge to pull it off.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Pie-in-the-sky Healthcare
Private insurers could offer $50,000 (85% with a 15% co-pay) annual coverage
from age 21 until Medicare takes over at 65. Children under 21 would be covered under
special policies available to their parents, but, upon reaching 21, would need to
purchase their own policies. Their parents (or others) could pay for the
policy, but the newly adult child would own it.
Adult health insurance would be made available only at 5-year increments, at
ages 21, 25, 30, 35, etc., but once purchased, the premium could not be
changed until age 65, unless the premium is not paid or the individual opts
out by written notification.
If the insurance is purchased at age 21, coverage can not be denied for pre-
existing conditions, and the premium rate would be calculated to include all
individuals. If the individual opts out of health insurance and then attempts to
enroll at one of the later enrollment periods, rates could be adjusted for
pre-existing conditions.
So, if an individual buys the insurance policy at age 21, the insurance company
is obligated for up to $42,500 (85% of $50,000) per year until the policy-
holder reaches 65.
I believe that such an insurance policy would be affordable, since most people
never reach that limit in any year prior to age 65.
Now, where does that leave the individual? If they did have a year where they
had $50,000 in medical bills, they are stuck with a bill for a maximum of $7500.
Call me cruel, but I do NOT believe that supplemental insurance should be
available to help pay this obligation.
One of the best ways to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and keep
medical costs down is see that the person using the procedure is aware of the
cost, and has to deal with the pain of paying at least part of the cost.
To HELP the individual deal with the pain, state government should offer
low-cost loans to help those who need assistance to pay for the co-pay
portion of the medical costs, based on the need of the individual. This
program could be self-supporting, and should aggressively attempt to
collect all loans.
Catastrophic coverage (over $50,000/year) could be covered as follows:
First Then and then
donated Medical
State Govt Fed Govt & Private Charities
Year 1 $200,000 $100,000 above $350,000
Year 2 $100,000 $50,000 above $200,000
Over 2 years -0- -0- above $50,000
Over 2 years could also be covered by catastrophic private insurance.
Catastrophic coverage would be based per incident, not per lifetime. Sales
and/or payroll taxes could be used to fund the state and federal programs, but
the money should be treated and regulated as an insurance program, not
as a honey-pot for general fund spending. If these taxes were combined with
a maximum income tax rate of 10%, as discussed earlier, there
would not be much impact on an individual's take-home pay.
Finally, what happens to those who either choose not to purchase health insurance, or
those unfortunate enough not to be able to afford it? First off, they would go to
the emergency room, just as they do now. Life threatening emergencies would be
treated, just as now. For those who chose not to purchase health insurance, the
state would attempt to collect for the cost of the service. The state would pay
for those who could not afford to pay back.
For non-life threatening conditions, hospitals should be legislatively allowed to staff
low cost medical clinics near their emergency rooms. The non-insured would be
sent to this clinic, staffed as much as possible with physician's assistants, medical
and nursing trainees, and non-union maintenance worker trainees. Generic drugs
would be required in all instances where they are effective.
Doctors could perform their required free service (1 out of 20) for patients for the
low-cost clinic, helping keep expenses down. The state could still bill uninsured
patients for services rendered, if they could afford to pay. They could even be
billed at a lower-than-market rate for donated medical services.
The low-cost medical clinic would in effect create a two-tiered health care system,
as a strong incentive to get individuals to buy health insurance for better care. The
uninsured would still receive medical care, albeit more of a generic nature and they
may have to wait longer for non-emergency operations. If they are financially
able to, the state would require them to pay for all, or part, of the medical services
they use.
I know, it sounds impossible...but think about it until the next post.
from age 21 until Medicare takes over at 65. Children under 21 would be covered under
special policies available to their parents, but, upon reaching 21, would need to
purchase their own policies. Their parents (or others) could pay for the
policy, but the newly adult child would own it.
Adult health insurance would be made available only at 5-year increments, at
ages 21, 25, 30, 35, etc., but once purchased, the premium could not be
changed until age 65, unless the premium is not paid or the individual opts
out by written notification.
If the insurance is purchased at age 21, coverage can not be denied for pre-
existing conditions, and the premium rate would be calculated to include all
individuals. If the individual opts out of health insurance and then attempts to
enroll at one of the later enrollment periods, rates could be adjusted for
pre-existing conditions.
So, if an individual buys the insurance policy at age 21, the insurance company
is obligated for up to $42,500 (85% of $50,000) per year until the policy-
holder reaches 65.
I believe that such an insurance policy would be affordable, since most people
never reach that limit in any year prior to age 65.
Now, where does that leave the individual? If they did have a year where they
had $50,000 in medical bills, they are stuck with a bill for a maximum of $7500.
Call me cruel, but I do NOT believe that supplemental insurance should be
available to help pay this obligation.
One of the best ways to avoid unnecessary medical procedures and keep
medical costs down is see that the person using the procedure is aware of the
cost, and has to deal with the pain of paying at least part of the cost.
To HELP the individual deal with the pain, state government should offer
low-cost loans to help those who need assistance to pay for the co-pay
portion of the medical costs, based on the need of the individual. This
program could be self-supporting, and should aggressively attempt to
collect all loans.
Catastrophic coverage (over $50,000/year) could be covered as follows:
First Then and then
donated Medical
State Govt Fed Govt & Private Charities
Year 1 $200,000 $100,000 above $350,000
Year 2 $100,000 $50,000 above $200,000
Over 2 years -0- -0- above $50,000
Over 2 years could also be covered by catastrophic private insurance.
Catastrophic coverage would be based per incident, not per lifetime. Sales
and/or payroll taxes could be used to fund the state and federal programs, but
the money should be treated and regulated as an insurance program, not
as a honey-pot for general fund spending. If these taxes were combined with
a maximum income tax rate of 10%, as discussed earlier, there
would not be much impact on an individual's take-home pay.
Finally, what happens to those who either choose not to purchase health insurance, or
those unfortunate enough not to be able to afford it? First off, they would go to
the emergency room, just as they do now. Life threatening emergencies would be
treated, just as now. For those who chose not to purchase health insurance, the
state would attempt to collect for the cost of the service. The state would pay
for those who could not afford to pay back.
For non-life threatening conditions, hospitals should be legislatively allowed to staff
low cost medical clinics near their emergency rooms. The non-insured would be
sent to this clinic, staffed as much as possible with physician's assistants, medical
and nursing trainees, and non-union maintenance worker trainees. Generic drugs
would be required in all instances where they are effective.
Doctors could perform their required free service (1 out of 20) for patients for the
low-cost clinic, helping keep expenses down. The state could still bill uninsured
patients for services rendered, if they could afford to pay. They could even be
billed at a lower-than-market rate for donated medical services.
The low-cost medical clinic would in effect create a two-tiered health care system,
as a strong incentive to get individuals to buy health insurance for better care. The
uninsured would still receive medical care, albeit more of a generic nature and they
may have to wait longer for non-emergency operations. If they are financially
able to, the state would require them to pay for all, or part, of the medical services
they use.
I know, it sounds impossible...but think about it until the next post.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
On Health Insurance and Medical Coverage
The following thoughts are not based on health insurance underwriting statistics. I have no idea where the exact percentages and dollar amounts make sense...I have no access to the medical and insurance facts that would lead to a logical, mathematical solution to the problem.
However, medical and governmental organizations that do have access to appropriate statistics could use the following guidelines to help set dollar amounts and create effective programs. Where I am using dollars and percentages, I am only guessing. Hopefully, it's a pretty good guess.
I am trying to set up a situation where the cost of health coverage could be shared between individuals, private insurance companies, medical organizations, state government, federal government, and private charities.
Since Medicare is already set up as a federal program, I will assume it continues to exist
as is, even though I will mention a potential change in a future post. Right now, the
program I suggest would only cover an individual until age 65, when Medicare takes over.
The basic ideas of the program are...
Everyone should have help available through affordable health insurance.
Everyone should have "skin in the game" for medical expenses, in order to help keep
the cost of the insurance down.
No-one is entitled to an unlimited amount of other people's money to protect them
from all risks in life.
No-one should be forced to purchase health insurance, but the incentive to purchase
it should be extremely persuasive.
Each adult individual owns (and pays for) their health insurance plan, and takes it
with them from job to job, similar to the way an employee takes a 401k plan
from employer to employer. Employers could offer employees an additional
benefit above the normal pay, to help fund health insurance, but the plan
would belong to the employee.
Private charities could be organized to help pay for medical services for those without
To receive their licenses, doctors and medical organizations could be required
to provide one free service for every twenty for-fee services they provide.
So, what would health insurance and coverage look like under these conditions? The following post will give an idea of what might be possible.
However, medical and governmental organizations that do have access to appropriate statistics could use the following guidelines to help set dollar amounts and create effective programs. Where I am using dollars and percentages, I am only guessing. Hopefully, it's a pretty good guess.
I am trying to set up a situation where the cost of health coverage could be shared between individuals, private insurance companies, medical organizations, state government, federal government, and private charities.
Since Medicare is already set up as a federal program, I will assume it continues to exist
as is, even though I will mention a potential change in a future post. Right now, the
program I suggest would only cover an individual until age 65, when Medicare takes over.
The basic ideas of the program are...
Everyone should have help available through affordable health insurance.
Everyone should have "skin in the game" for medical expenses, in order to help keep
the cost of the insurance down.
No-one is entitled to an unlimited amount of other people's money to protect them
from all risks in life.
No-one should be forced to purchase health insurance, but the incentive to purchase
it should be extremely persuasive.
Each adult individual owns (and pays for) their health insurance plan, and takes it
with them from job to job, similar to the way an employee takes a 401k plan
from employer to employer. Employers could offer employees an additional
benefit above the normal pay, to help fund health insurance, but the plan
would belong to the employee.
Private charities could be organized to help pay for medical services for those without
health insurance or those who have exhausted all private, state, and federal
benefits.
Hospitals should offer less expensive clinics to care for those without health
insurance, who don't have life threatening emergencies. Life threatening
emergencies would still be taken care of in emergency rooms.
To receive their licenses, doctors and medical organizations could be required
to provide one free service for every twenty for-fee services they provide.
So, what would health insurance and coverage look like under these conditions? The following post will give an idea of what might be possible.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Five Ten Begin Again
So far, we've maxed out individual income tax rates at 10.0% of gross income. Now, let's compare some of our corporate giants, and the income tax they paid in 2010.
Microsoft 10.0% of gross revenue
Morgan-Chase 7.3% "
Exxon 5.6% "
G E 0.7% "
Gen Motors 0.5% "
Ford 0.5% "
As you can see, some of our corporate citizens have learned how to game the system and avoid tax liability to the federal government. I'm sure that some of the credits and exemptions that helped them avoid liability for federal taxes were put into the tax code for some lofty, worthy, goal.
I'm equally sure that some of those lofty, worthy, goals are no longer necessary...and I'm also sure that some of those tax breaks were put into the system for selfish, partisan, and greedy reasons, not in the least bit concerned with the public good.
It's time to re-think the business income tax. First off, the business tax is not based on the income of the business...it's a tax based on the remaining PROFITS of the business, AFTER the business has written off all of its expenses and taken its credits and exemptions.
The name of the game for the business is to write off as much as it can, so it doesn't show too much profit to pay tax on...and, even if the business tax rate sounds high, it's a small amount because it is only based on the profits of a business, not on the gross income of the business.
Plus, few, if any, businesses really PAY a business tax, no matter what the tax rate is. Whatever the cost of the tax, or regulation, or mandate is, the business really has only two choices. Choice number one is to charge the customer for that cost (to make a profit and stay in business), or, choice number two, eat the cost out of profits (and go out of business, if there aren't enough profits to cover the costs).
The taxes (and regulations) on business are really hidden costs that government covertly forces businesses to pass on to customers. Tinkering with the business tax rate is a convenient way for politicians to favor some industries and companies, without taking responsibility for rising consumer costs. It raises bodacious campaign contributions while leaving very few fingerprints leading back to the politician.
So, let's create a federal business tax similar to the individual income tax, or the state sales tax. Let's make the business tax a flat 5% tax on every sale. It can be handled just like a sales tax, added on to every transaction so that the consumer can see it every time they purchase goods or services.
It should require a 60% majority congressional vote to increase the business tax, and the increase should only be for a specific purpose, and for a maximum of two years, without an additional 60% majority vote every two years to continue the tax.
You could hide this tax from the consumer and make the business pay it, but the net effect would be the same: the business would have to add it to the price of the goods to make a profit anyway. By showing it to the consumer, you would make it more difficult for politicians to hide the cost from consumers.
This tax would not have to be indexed for inflation, since the dollars it raises will automatically rise with inflation and fall with deflation. The tax would apply to all products and/or services sold by licensed businesses. It would be very similar to the "value-added" tax system that is common in Europe, but would be nowhere near as expensive.
The 10% maximum income tax rate and the 5% business tax rate would be much easier to forecast than the current impenetrable fog our current tax system has become, making this "Five Ten Begin Again" format much easier to predict and budget from. It would be a key building block leading toward balancing the budget. It could lead to an awareness of the finite dollars the federal government has, and to setting the priorities on which those finite dollars are spent.
Combine a 10% maximum income tax rate with a 5% business tax rate, and we would be very competitive throughout the world.
I know it would take a miracle to get our current politicians to pass "Five Ten Begin Again". There is no way they will vote to change the system that benefits them so much. But, if you don't have a target to aim for, you will never hit a goal.
We can elect new politicians who accept "Five Ten" as a goal. We can try to change the tax code through constitutional initiatives voted on at the state level. We can shine light on politicians who hide in the shadows and use the tax code to extort campaign contributions, or to hide the true cost of the programs they advocate.
"Five Ten" is not locked in stone. It could turn out to be "Eight Ten", or "Ten Ten". I am not the Congressional Budget Office. I cannot cost out this proposal, but its purpose is to eliminate political tinkering with the tax rate and to come up with enough money to come somewhat near the money the government is currently receiving. From that point on, spending should be limited to the revenue coming in.
This business tax would not eliminate the need for generally accepted accounting practices for business. While there would no longer be any need for the tax code to regulate business profits, there would still be a need for enforced accepted accounting practices to assure that businesses are competing fairly with each other and are providing proper information to investors.
Whether these regulations are best provided by government or by private accounting or business organizations is another discussion for another day.
Microsoft 10.0% of gross revenue
Morgan-Chase 7.3% "
Exxon 5.6% "
G E 0.7% "
Gen Motors 0.5% "
Ford 0.5% "
As you can see, some of our corporate citizens have learned how to game the system and avoid tax liability to the federal government. I'm sure that some of the credits and exemptions that helped them avoid liability for federal taxes were put into the tax code for some lofty, worthy, goal.
I'm equally sure that some of those lofty, worthy, goals are no longer necessary...and I'm also sure that some of those tax breaks were put into the system for selfish, partisan, and greedy reasons, not in the least bit concerned with the public good.
It's time to re-think the business income tax. First off, the business tax is not based on the income of the business...it's a tax based on the remaining PROFITS of the business, AFTER the business has written off all of its expenses and taken its credits and exemptions.
The name of the game for the business is to write off as much as it can, so it doesn't show too much profit to pay tax on...and, even if the business tax rate sounds high, it's a small amount because it is only based on the profits of a business, not on the gross income of the business.
Plus, few, if any, businesses really PAY a business tax, no matter what the tax rate is. Whatever the cost of the tax, or regulation, or mandate is, the business really has only two choices. Choice number one is to charge the customer for that cost (to make a profit and stay in business), or, choice number two, eat the cost out of profits (and go out of business, if there aren't enough profits to cover the costs).
The taxes (and regulations) on business are really hidden costs that government covertly forces businesses to pass on to customers. Tinkering with the business tax rate is a convenient way for politicians to favor some industries and companies, without taking responsibility for rising consumer costs. It raises bodacious campaign contributions while leaving very few fingerprints leading back to the politician.
So, let's create a federal business tax similar to the individual income tax, or the state sales tax. Let's make the business tax a flat 5% tax on every sale. It can be handled just like a sales tax, added on to every transaction so that the consumer can see it every time they purchase goods or services.
It should require a 60% majority congressional vote to increase the business tax, and the increase should only be for a specific purpose, and for a maximum of two years, without an additional 60% majority vote every two years to continue the tax.
You could hide this tax from the consumer and make the business pay it, but the net effect would be the same: the business would have to add it to the price of the goods to make a profit anyway. By showing it to the consumer, you would make it more difficult for politicians to hide the cost from consumers.
This tax would not have to be indexed for inflation, since the dollars it raises will automatically rise with inflation and fall with deflation. The tax would apply to all products and/or services sold by licensed businesses. It would be very similar to the "value-added" tax system that is common in Europe, but would be nowhere near as expensive.
The 10% maximum income tax rate and the 5% business tax rate would be much easier to forecast than the current impenetrable fog our current tax system has become, making this "Five Ten Begin Again" format much easier to predict and budget from. It would be a key building block leading toward balancing the budget. It could lead to an awareness of the finite dollars the federal government has, and to setting the priorities on which those finite dollars are spent.
Combine a 10% maximum income tax rate with a 5% business tax rate, and we would be very competitive throughout the world.
I know it would take a miracle to get our current politicians to pass "Five Ten Begin Again". There is no way they will vote to change the system that benefits them so much. But, if you don't have a target to aim for, you will never hit a goal.
We can elect new politicians who accept "Five Ten" as a goal. We can try to change the tax code through constitutional initiatives voted on at the state level. We can shine light on politicians who hide in the shadows and use the tax code to extort campaign contributions, or to hide the true cost of the programs they advocate.
"Five Ten" is not locked in stone. It could turn out to be "Eight Ten", or "Ten Ten". I am not the Congressional Budget Office. I cannot cost out this proposal, but its purpose is to eliminate political tinkering with the tax rate and to come up with enough money to come somewhat near the money the government is currently receiving. From that point on, spending should be limited to the revenue coming in.
This business tax would not eliminate the need for generally accepted accounting practices for business. While there would no longer be any need for the tax code to regulate business profits, there would still be a need for enforced accepted accounting practices to assure that businesses are competing fairly with each other and are providing proper information to investors.
Whether these regulations are best provided by government or by private accounting or business organizations is another discussion for another day.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Proposed Federal Income Tax Brackets
PROJECTED TAX BRACKETS 2011
(To be adjusted for inflation every year)
% of
Income Rate $ Tax in Bracket Total Tax $ Total Income
Up to $20,000 0% $0 $0 0%
$20,001-$50,000 2.5% $750 $750 1.50%
$50,001-$75,000 5.0% $1250 $2000 2.67%
$75,001-$100,000 7.5% $1875 $3875 3.88%
$100,000-and up 10.0%
$100,001-$1,000,000 10.0% $90,000 $93,875 9.39%
This is a progressive tax rate, with higher incomes taxed at a higher rate than lower incomes, but it does max out at 10%. I believe the total tax burden to an individual (including federal income, state income, local, and property taxes) should not be more than 20%, in order to act as an incentive to achievement.
This 20% (derived from 80/20 Land of Plenty) does not include business taxes, FICA taxes, and Medicare taxes, which will be discussed later on.
As stated in the overview, politicians should only be allowed to increase the tax rates only in an emergency for stated, specific purposes. The increase would require a 60% majority and would automatically expire in a maximum of two years, if it is not re-approved with the 60% majority.
These tax rates would apply to ALL sources of income, including such controversial ones as proceeds from the sale of a house, social security income, and inheritance proceeds.
Tax withholding should be done from all sources of income, including interest, dividends, capital gains, etc., as well as from salaries. Individuals could request what percentage to withhold (similar to exemptions claimed in the current tax system) from 1% to 10%. On unusually large, infrequent transactions such as the proceeds of a sale of a house, individuals could choose to withhold up to 15%, to avoid getting hit with a large tax bill on their normal income at the end of the year.
One may wonder where the money needed to run the federal government will come from if the maximum individual tax rate is 10%. First off, nobody pays the maximum rate on all of their income under the current system. You cannot compare a rate that is not being paid to a rate that will be paid, although I concede that individuals will pay less under my tax proposal. The difference will be made up (1) by eliminating tax exemptions and deductions and (2) with a business (or sales?) tax discussed in the next post.
Under these tax brackets, a family where the primary wage earner earns $50,000 and the spouse earns $20,000 will have a total federal income tax burden of $750.00 ($750 for the primary and $0 for the secondary).
Under the 2010 tax brackets, the couple mentioned above, filing jointly with 2 exemptions and using the standard deduction, would have a tax burden of $6,651.00. The savings to this couple would be huge.
But, there will be additional money coming in to the federal government from the proposed business (sales?) tax discussed in the next post. Some of the savings this couple received will be affected by the business tax.
(To be adjusted for inflation every year)
% of
Income Rate $ Tax in Bracket Total Tax $ Total Income
Up to $20,000 0% $0 $0 0%
$20,001-$50,000 2.5% $750 $750 1.50%
$50,001-$75,000 5.0% $1250 $2000 2.67%
$75,001-$100,000 7.5% $1875 $3875 3.88%
$100,000-and up 10.0%
$100,001-$1,000,000 10.0% $90,000 $93,875 9.39%
This is a progressive tax rate, with higher incomes taxed at a higher rate than lower incomes, but it does max out at 10%. I believe the total tax burden to an individual (including federal income, state income, local, and property taxes) should not be more than 20%, in order to act as an incentive to achievement.
This 20% (derived from 80/20 Land of Plenty) does not include business taxes, FICA taxes, and Medicare taxes, which will be discussed later on.
As stated in the overview, politicians should only be allowed to increase the tax rates only in an emergency for stated, specific purposes. The increase would require a 60% majority and would automatically expire in a maximum of two years, if it is not re-approved with the 60% majority.
These tax rates would apply to ALL sources of income, including such controversial ones as proceeds from the sale of a house, social security income, and inheritance proceeds.
Tax withholding should be done from all sources of income, including interest, dividends, capital gains, etc., as well as from salaries. Individuals could request what percentage to withhold (similar to exemptions claimed in the current tax system) from 1% to 10%. On unusually large, infrequent transactions such as the proceeds of a sale of a house, individuals could choose to withhold up to 15%, to avoid getting hit with a large tax bill on their normal income at the end of the year.
One may wonder where the money needed to run the federal government will come from if the maximum individual tax rate is 10%. First off, nobody pays the maximum rate on all of their income under the current system. You cannot compare a rate that is not being paid to a rate that will be paid, although I concede that individuals will pay less under my tax proposal. The difference will be made up (1) by eliminating tax exemptions and deductions and (2) with a business (or sales?) tax discussed in the next post.
Under these tax brackets, a family where the primary wage earner earns $50,000 and the spouse earns $20,000 will have a total federal income tax burden of $750.00 ($750 for the primary and $0 for the secondary).
Under the 2010 tax brackets, the couple mentioned above, filing jointly with 2 exemptions and using the standard deduction, would have a tax burden of $6,651.00. The savings to this couple would be huge.
But, there will be additional money coming in to the federal government from the proposed business (sales?) tax discussed in the next post. Some of the savings this couple received will be affected by the business tax.
Tax Overview
The following few posts will all refer to the Federal Tax Code. I do not claim to be a tax expert, but common sense and logic could make our tax system a lot simpler and fairer, and in this and the following posts, I will make my case to rethink the income tax, business taxes, social security and medicare taxes.
Before getting into tax specifics in following posts, I want to cover the broad strokes with this overview. First, politicians must not be allowed to tinker with the tax code to incentivize behavior. Every tax break in the code got there because some politician got votes or money for it. Our tax code has become a monstrous conglomerate of tax breaks, incentives, loopholes, and political favors brokered by lobbyists and granted by politicians.
Everyone wants a favor or a tax break...and, if politicians can grant favors for votes, they will.
Rule #1 NO TAX BREAKS, NO EXEMPTIONS, NO DEDUCTIONS, NOTHING!!!
Rule #2 Lower incomes pay lower income tax rates. Maximum income tax rate for
individuals is 10%.
Rule #3 All income tax brackets adjusted for inflation every year.
Rule #4 Income tax rate applies to all income, salaries, interest, capital gains,
social security, proceeds from home sales, company car allowances, etc.
No exceptions!
Rule #5 Income tax rates appy to each individual that earns income,
no joint incomes.
Rule #6 Save 10% of all taxes collected the first 5 years to fund a 50% rainy day
reserve fund, to cover emergencies such as paying off debt, financing a
war, or disaster relief. Unused funds in the reserve could be loaned to
banks at a low interest rate to fund safe, well-qualified, home and
business loans. Once the rainy day reserve is fully funded, politicians
can spend all of the income tax collected (less replenishment of any
rainy day funds spent the prior year).
One purpose of this tax program is to prevent politicians from abusing the tax system to reward benefactors and punish opponents. Another purpose to to provide a simple, predictable, and direct method of taxation that is easy to understand and to forecast, and which would require politicians to budget their expenditures to their available income.
In case of emergency, politicians could raise tax rates only for stated, specific purposes, and only if the rainy day fund did not cover the emergency. All increases in tax rates would have to be voted in by a 60% majority and re-approved every two years.
Now that the overview is done, let's go on to more specific details.
Before getting into tax specifics in following posts, I want to cover the broad strokes with this overview. First, politicians must not be allowed to tinker with the tax code to incentivize behavior. Every tax break in the code got there because some politician got votes or money for it. Our tax code has become a monstrous conglomerate of tax breaks, incentives, loopholes, and political favors brokered by lobbyists and granted by politicians.
Everyone wants a favor or a tax break...and, if politicians can grant favors for votes, they will.
Rule #1 NO TAX BREAKS, NO EXEMPTIONS, NO DEDUCTIONS, NOTHING!!!
Rule #2 Lower incomes pay lower income tax rates. Maximum income tax rate for
individuals is 10%.
Rule #3 All income tax brackets adjusted for inflation every year.
Rule #4 Income tax rate applies to all income, salaries, interest, capital gains,
social security, proceeds from home sales, company car allowances, etc.
No exceptions!
Rule #5 Income tax rates appy to each individual that earns income,
no joint incomes.
Rule #6 Save 10% of all taxes collected the first 5 years to fund a 50% rainy day
reserve fund, to cover emergencies such as paying off debt, financing a
war, or disaster relief. Unused funds in the reserve could be loaned to
banks at a low interest rate to fund safe, well-qualified, home and
business loans. Once the rainy day reserve is fully funded, politicians
can spend all of the income tax collected (less replenishment of any
rainy day funds spent the prior year).
One purpose of this tax program is to prevent politicians from abusing the tax system to reward benefactors and punish opponents. Another purpose to to provide a simple, predictable, and direct method of taxation that is easy to understand and to forecast, and which would require politicians to budget their expenditures to their available income.
In case of emergency, politicians could raise tax rates only for stated, specific purposes, and only if the rainy day fund did not cover the emergency. All increases in tax rates would have to be voted in by a 60% majority and re-approved every two years.
Now that the overview is done, let's go on to more specific details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)