In regard to health care, I feel that we need to create a universal health care system run by the Federal Government along the lines of Social Security (SS) and Medicare. I see few if any advantages to something else. Especially, not an impossibly convoluted bill being considered presently in Congress. We can do it now, which is highly unlikely, or we can do it later when we come to realize what a mess we’ve made of what could be a relatively simple system.
A very basic universal health care program would offer coverage to everyone and be paid into by everyone. The insurance pool and premium base would be the whole nation which allows for true shared risk and reasonable cost. To keep costs down further, a basic system could be created with something like a $500 deductible per person per year and co-payment for insured of 20% up to a maximum of $5000 out of pocket and then full catastrophic coverage beyond that. Those over 65, on disability, or with a chronic disease could be eligible for a tax credit on their co-pay. I would imagine that the poor would need to be given tax credit or assistance to pay premiums they could not afford. Everyone wanting additional coverage could go out on the open market and buy it and/or employers could offer it as a fringe benefit. The basic plan would:
1. eliminate denying coverage for pre-existing condition
2. automatically provide portability
3. involve government negotiating for “fair” pharmaceutical costs
4. identify a fair price for medical procedures
5. not allow dropping of coverage and allow no upper limit on coverage.
The private sector has had well over ¾ of a century to develop a plan to give people in our country a fair and equitable system. But, the system is giving progressively worse coverage at unreasonable increases in cost – we pay more than any other developed nation in the world with health care results that are pretty paltry compared to our relative wealth. I think we should begrudgingly admit there are some things that the private sector just cannot do as well as the government and health care may be one of these. We need a system that allows for basic universal coverage and protects us from economic destitution resulting from poor health.
Would the system be socialistic in nature? Yes it would, just as many other government programs are, like SS, Medicare, universal public education, fees (taxes) on fuel to build roads, farm program with its subsidies, Medicaid and other welfare systems, corporate welfare programs, national park system, etc. At some point we are going to have to get away from the idea that government can’t do anything right and/or that the private sector can do everything better. Both are historically failed notions.
This anti-government ideology is promoted by wealthy conservatives who are comfortable with their privileged position in society and their desire to maintain the status quo; and better yet, add to their advantages. It is seldom mentioned, but they are often recipients of significant special assistance from the government. They have learned that time and money carefully spent catering to public officials pays substantial dividends. Plus, we have learned the hard way that the controls of competition, costs of labor, and supply and demand that are supposed to naturally manage the free-market system to keep things fair and equitable can be too easily circumvented. We are not a nation of small farmers, tradesmen, artisans, and small manufacturers which is what the capitalistic, free-market system was designed for by the founder Adam Smith when he wrote the book the Wealth of Nations.
I prefer that the capitalistic, free-market system be left in place as much as possible to do its magic in allowing everyone to pursue their own productive interests. Some choose to take risk to satisfy their entrepreneurial itch. When they succeed, certainly not a guarantee, they deserve the “fruits of their labor.” Others choose a safer course of selling their gifts of labor to the highest bidder. And, competitive supply and demand should dictate the price of products and services. The capitalistic, free-market system is a thing of beauty when it works this way. But, when it is manipulated in a multitude of clever ways that result in abuse, rewards greed, ignores dishonesty, allows unfair profit taking, and encourages inappropriate risk taking with other people’s money, the government is the only vehicle we have that is powerful enough to insure that the playing field is kept just and fair. In a few selected cases, I think government involvement is the only way we can maintain a vibrant classless society assuring everyone the free choice to take their own “run” at being a productive part of our economy. Health care costs and coverage should not be a barrier to this goal.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Highway 61, McPherson to Hutchinson
Have you driven to Hutchinson lately and watched progress on the new highway being built? Is it just me, or do others agree that this project is “ridiculous over-kill?” I was caught by surprise and more than a little upset by what’s being done.
When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.
We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!
Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.
Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.
But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.
When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.
When the need was expressed that the present 2 lane Hwy 61 was in need of improvement, my thought was, yes it does. There is need for 4 lanes to handle the traffic load safely. I had envisioned another two lanes laid in close proximity to the present 2 lane road with appropriate turning lanes at busy intersections – this is not the case.
We are getting a lot more than that; we are getting a whole new road in most places that has to be a really expensive proposition. In fact, I would guess it is costing more to go around Medora than it would cost to buy out the whole town – sorry residents of Medora. We didn’t have to do that. The road is going around Inman, why? The present road doesn’t go through the main street where traffic would be slowed down to 25 mph or past a school zone with a 20 mph limitation. We have to slow down to all of 55 mph. There would have been some property displaced in both Medora and Inman to accommodate the additional two lanes; but, if fair compensation had been negotiated to displace a few homes and businesses I’m certain the cost of the road would be multiples less than what the taxpayer is now spending. Then, you add to the above the new interchange that is being built to access the new road just south of McPherson. I’m thinking this is all too expensive!
Who makes these final decisions? I intend to find out because I don’t want to be what I consider victimized again with what I feel is unnecessary spending. I’m not suggesting that I could have stopped it, but I would sure have expressed my opinion in regard to it if given the chance. I’m sure there was a public hearing somewhere at sometime that I missed – my mistake. Did our local news media make it clear to the public what was proposed for this road project? If it did, I missed it, which again is my fault. If they didn’t, I for one would appreciate it they would do so in the future.
Obviously, nothing can be done now and maybe the majority of you out there agree with what’s being built.
But, I do think that if government spending is an issue of concern to taxpayers, this might serve as an example of where a much less expensive solution could have accomplished our needs. We can blame this on the government as another example of what is in my mind reckless spending. Or, we can accept collective responsibility for allowing this to happen without at least letting one’s views be known. These are the kinds of things we citizens should be involved in which might save us from some inappropriate spending.
When they cut the ribbon for the new highway’s grand opening, I guarantee you that I will make note of those elected officials who will be smiling at the camera and it won’t be to thank them.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Let's Question the Quality of our Congressmen
Here are some important questions to ask the next time you get involved in a reasonably, rational, pragmatic discussion on the quality of the elected public officials that serve us in legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress. Maybe there are some good reasons why Congress suffers from consistently low ratings with the American people.
First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.
Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.
Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.
Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.
Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.
I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.
Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.
First question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to get successfully elected to Congress? I’ll bet you can quickly come up with a rather long list.
Second question: What characteristics are necessary for someone to be an excellent lawmaker in Congress? Hear a pin drop? I’ll bet it is tough to come up with more than a few and the first one is often – “Well, you have to get elected first!” Bingo! We may have identified a major problem with how Congress does its job. We are looking first and foremost for successful candidates that win elections and we seldom get beyond that.
Third question: Which of the above two is the more important if we are going to have well-crafted legislation from our Congress? After some careful soul searching, I think most would agree, the best answer would be we need people who just might become skillful lawmakers. This is especially true now. We are in one of those periods of history like beginning of 20th century, WW I, great depression, WW II, the 1960’s where legislation crafted in the next few years will be critical for our future. Things are going to change and how they change will in large measure be a result of what our lawmakers accomplish or fail to accomplish in Congress. Presidential leadership of whatever stripe can only take us so far; Congress makes the laws.
Fourth question: How much time does a U.S. Congressman really spend on lawmaking rather than getting re-elected? With a two year term in the U.S. House of Representatives, if they are honest about it, many will tell you almost none. They are running for re-election the day after they are elected. U.S. Senators, with 6 year terms, have a bit of a grace period, but they will tell you that that is changing in many races and like the President’s four year term, re-election is closer to a full time job.
Now, there are some, that for one reason or another, are so secure in their state or district that they hardly have to campaign. Hopefully, it is because they are such good lawmakers that their electorate feels honored to send such an outstanding person to Congress. There have been some of these in history in this category, they have had books written about them, and their names are often associated with the significant legislation of their time. Thank God if you have one of these from your state or district; they are truly to be treasured. Kansas has had a few, but none presently.
I really doubt that such a high honor can be ascribed to most of the incumbents that are being re-elected year after year. It is more often that they are such natural campaigners that their electors feel towards them something akin to a really comfortable pair of shoes – they just fit real well. Their offices are staffed with people who look after their constituent’s personal interests. If you go to Washington D.C. and stop by their office, they fawn all over you, probably assigning a staffer to give you a tour of the Capital. They know where to get money to replenish their campaign war chests, probably by using phone numbers speed dialed into their phones. They are undoubtedly on a first name basis with the lobbyists representing certain selected groups from their state and district where the age old practice of “you pat my back and I’ll pat yours” goes on year after year. They are readily available as speakers for certain groups where they can be counted on to entertain the troops while maligning the opposition as inept bunglers leading this country down the road to rack and ruin. They make sure they use their increasing seniority to insure that their states and districts get earmarks needed to make certain groups thankful for how “ole Joe” looks after us folks back home. The cycle goes on and on and these people have to get totally corrupt, immoral, down right crazy or senile before they lose their seat. But, unfortunately, most of these are less than stellar law makers.
Let’s circle back to the first two questions. We’ve answered the first. Wouldn’t we be better served if we could readily answer the second? Maybe the electorate should spend some quality time discussing these issues to make sure we don’t just continue to re-elect that old comfortable pair of shoes instead of sending people who have the qualities to become great lawmakers. People can make that distinction, but it takes some time and effort to discern the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
