Thoughts on health care reform

The core of the health care debate springs from an assumption that we as a society have a moral obligation to assure at least a basic level of health care for all members. Before proceeding we must recognize that health care has a cost - a very high one at that. Unlike our unalienable rights, we really can't guarantee unlimited universal health care, simply because we can't guarantee that enough health care will be produced. Try as we might we can't force health care to exist unless people produce it. So we're faced with a limited resource and the question becomes: how close we can get to the ideal of universal health care? This really brings us back to the original premise; do we as a society value it enough? Do we have sufficient good will to take care of the poor and needy? If not then I rather doubt that government mandate can create it. If so then we have to create an environment where that spirit of charity is protected and given the freedom of expression. Likewise, it is necessary to provide incentives for frugal use of health care lest people be tempted to take more than their fair share of this limited resource and take it away from those who need it more.

A price-coordinated system where people have to bid for the scarce resources of health care makes the most sense for achieving the second part but of course does not well answer the question of how to provide for the poor and needy, the main point that got us talking about this. We've got to couple the incentive to conserve with an incentive to manifest this collective goodwill to willingly give to those in need.

How do we do this? I don't know exactly but in my humble opinion it's not the federal government's role to do it. If government is the answer then it needs to be at the state level, where people are more accountable for how their tax dollars are spent (not to mention that it’s constitutionally prudent (see amendment 10) and because experience shows that the federal government is wasteful and prone to corruption and misuse when it delves into issues beyond those granted by the constitution).

There are some hard facts of life that we have to acknowledge. You simply can't guarantee any level of health care to everyone. There simply isn't enough to go around, so I think there needs to be some type of two-tiered system where everyone has access to some level of basic care and then there's another level for those who are willing to sacrifice and give up other things in life to get additional resources for medical care. For example, consider the parents of an autistic child who want to pay for cutting edge care that isn’t really a matter of life and death but it’s something they want to try. It's expensive but if they value it enough they should be able to pay for it and get it rather than waiting in line for forever.

In a nutshell here are my suggestions:
1. If people want to give to the poor via the government let them choose how to do so at the state or local level. In other words, get the federal government out of the picture.
2. Create a two-tiered system where specialized, non-life critical care carries a cost. This helps ensure that the most costly medical care gets to those who want it most.
3. Tax health care benefits (only those used, ie when you go to the doctor not if your employer or somebody pays part of your insurance) up to certain level to help incentivize frugality.
4. Remove the tax incentive for employers to provide health benefits. It is illogical and absurd for health care to be coupled with employment. Model it more like care insurance that is independent of who you work for and is priced according to a consumer level market.
5. Tort reform. Create a system where a person incurs a cost when losing a frivolous law suit. In other words, if you’re going to sue your doctor you need to have “skin in the game” not a system where you have nothing to lose for suing someone.

Thoughts? Feedback?

Eat the Rich

There seems to be a growing sentiment of hostility towards the producers in our society. I'm speaking particularly about the belief that those with more, the rich, should be taxed more than those who have less. This idea seems to rest on the notion that opportunity and luck dictate wealth and therefore it is unfair for anyone to have more than anyone else. But is this really fair? Do we strive for a world in which everyone is equal in what they have? Certainly there are people who produce more, who do more, and accomplish more in our society and I find it impossible to believe that this is bad. So often I hear the accusation that the rich are greedy, selfish, and uncaring. Such an irrational stereotype is not only untrue it promotes a type of thinking that would undermine a true notion of fairness and equality.
Admittedly there are greedy and selfish rich people who steal and cheat to get what they have but the vast majority of the wealthy people in the US are highly productive people who are no greedier than the general populous. I would even make the argument that those who demand an unearned handout from the rich are more greedy than the rich who are reluctant to have their property forcibly taken from them ala Robin Hood.
Trying to identify the underlying motives such as greed, charity, etc. however, is not very useful. It is more practical to look at the actual outcomes of government and social policy. The rich are the ones who drive the economy of our society; they create jobs and produce the things that all of us need like health care, cars, computers, software, food, and everything else. Burdening the producers with ever growing taxes is reminiscent of the goose and the golden egg, wherein one becomes so greedy for the goods that he kills the very thing that produces it.
I find it profoundly hypocritical for the thieves and abusers of power who occupy many political positions to label the rich as greedy and to suppose that they would be better stewards of their wealth. History has shown too often that their purported noble intentions betray an underlying greed and lust for control and power that far exceeds the accusations they point at the rich.
I believe that there is sufficient goodwill in the hearts of mankind that if given the right to property, freedom, and an environment of morality, the rich will give to the poor. They will help them far better than the meddling hand of government can because it will be done in the framework of charity and sincere kindness. If such goodwill does not exist then we are hopeless and no level of government intervention will save us.

Remember what they said about the auto bailout?

The American Public has a short memory. Perhaps it has always been so but it seems that each generation is a little less capable of remembering the lessons of the past. The headline on CNN.com today illustrates that we have a hard time remembering things that happened even six months ago. Most politicians and lawmakers assured the public then that bankruptcy of the auto industry would be a catastrophe.

"It would be a travesty for the irresponsible, reckless behavior of Wall Street to result in the sweeping away of the American automobile industry," said Mike Jackson, CEO of Autonation, the nation's largest auto dealership group. "If indeed it came to bankruptcy, it's going to make what happened with Lehman Brothers and all the consequences of that a nice day."
CNNMoney.com, November 25, 2008

"Under public pressure, these companies now are willing to take draconian steps that they should have taken a long time ago," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., told FOX News, adding that he believes the automakers will have to go bankrupt. "I find it difficult to believe the steps are going to be strong enough."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, however, suggested that allowing bankruptcies would create a harmful long-term problem.
"I believe that an intervention will happen legislatively or from the administration," Pelosi said. "I think it's pretty clear that bankruptcy is not an option. ... A short-term loan is the appropriate way to go."
FOXNews.com, Tuesday, December 02, 2008


Now that they are beginning to accept the inevitable, their prognosis isn't quite so grim:
Filing for bankruptcy maybe not so bad for GM
CNN Money, May 27, 2009

One or the other..that's all there is

Why is it that so often the response to criticism of the Obama administration sounds something like "What, would your rather have Bush back in office?"? Why do we reduce it down to the idea that those are the only choices? Are there only two political ideologies in the world, called "Bushism" and "Obamaism"? Why not compare the Obama administration to the Clinton administration or the Jefferson or Washington administration? Why is it always a comparison anyway?
This type of response deflects any criticism on the notion that it's OK because it's not as bad as the years before. To me that's like arguing the merits of "Thief A" who ransacks my house but leaves everything and "Thief B" who robs everything but leaves it nice and tidy. Does it make sense to minimize the actions of Thief B because in light of the alternative, it's better? No, the actions warrant scrutiny on their own merit and independent of what might have been.
Instead of excusing shortcomings, mistakes, or poor judgment in the attitude of moral relativism I think we would all benefit from examining our government from a viewpoint of what we ideally want and what is best for us and the future of our country, not what we’re willing to settle for because “it could be much worse”.

Liberty vs. The State

Over and over again our leaders make statements that indicate that they consider personal liberties and human rights as being mutually exclusive with their ambitions for government programs. I believe, however, that national security, economic well being, and the welfare of our country cannot be maintained without protecting the individual liberties, human rights, and privacy of all men and women.

"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises,"

-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in talks with China's foreign minister

Voice of warning...32 years ago

Part II can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isLB2oH3Mew

Let's put this in terms we can all understand

So I was talking to my friend Joe Tackspaier the other day and he told me about some of the financial problems he's having. Apparently he let's his girlfriend use his credit card and she recently went on a shopping spree at the mall and bought $7,800 worth of clothes, shoes, and other stuff. When she told him about it he was a little upset but she calmed him down by explaining that she got a bunch of stuff on sale and that normally it would have been $9,000 so really she saved him $1,200 and besides, it's stuff they "need" anyway. The problem is that Joe only makes $27,000 a year plus they're already $107,300 in debt. To me it's pretty obvious that they are never going to be able to climb out the financial hole they've dug for themselves.
Part of the problem is that Joe doesn't really understand how money works and thinks that because she's putting this on a credit card it's not that bad - that someday in the future he'll be able to pay it off much more easily.

Morality in a Time of Crisis

A lot of people are scared and are unsure of what the future holds in regard to the financial crisis we are facing and I can't say I blame them. Many of our leaders have completely violated the trust that was placed in them and yet they continue to reassure Americans that everything is under control.

It is precisely because of the gravity of the situation that I suggest that we do not succumb to fear by making foolish decisions. Those who do so will surely perpetuate the mistakes that are snowballing our country into financial ruin. Instead it is our responsibility to stand up for what is right and help others to remember that truth can prevail.

In the winter of 1776 Thomas Paine put into words the sentiments of a small band of patriots who faced a battle to save a nation they loved. His words have found profound meaning in times of crisis since then and lend wisdom to our present crisis:


"THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."


I would not suggest that the financial problems of today are comparable in magnitude to the fight for independence that Thomas Paine referred to but the nature of the challenge before us is the same, our freedom and liberties are in danger. Our economy teeters on the brink of ruin and in the frenzy of panic there are those who are trying to grab up power and control just like tyrants have done throughout history. Many wonder what to do, who to turn to, and what is right. While the details of the financial situation are admittedly complex, the principles are simple. The right course is to stand up for freedom and realize that you are not alone. Countless patriots have stood up and fought for liberty before you and their memory and the principles for which they fought implore you to take your turn to carry the torch of freedom and boldly hold it up for others to see the way.

The behavior of our elected officials has made more than a few people bitter and frustrated for a variety of reasons. One of those is the blatant encouragement of moral hazard. It's so obvious that many can only respond with half-joking sarcasm, thinking to themselves: "well since the government is handing out free money I should just buy that big ol' house that I've had my eye on. Heaven knows I can't afford it but hey if Uncle Sam is going to make sure I stay in it then why not?".

Don't be tempted to join the wave of immorality that is in fact part of the cause of this present crisis. The ultimate liberty to choose the moral path can never be taken from you and it is in times like these that that liberty must be exercised with unflinching confidence.

Our culture of herd behavior has led many to wrongly believe that only the masses can make significant change and so it is worthless to try to make a change.

My point is this; the greatest freedom you are inalienably entitled to is the freedom to choose whether or not to be moral. It is true that many of us do not have sufficient ability or opportunity to affect the political and economic decisions being made presently but all of us posses the sole ability to chose how we will live and those choices echo across the entire spectrum of our worldwide society.

You can make a difference.

You can practice sound principles of personal finance and responsibility

You can be honest in giving a full day’s work to your employer

You can care about your neighbor and those in need

You can add your voice to the small but growing group of those who raise the battle cry of freedom

That’s a small list. There’s a hundred more things I could add to it. My point isn’t about a to-do list though, it’s about choosing for yourself how you’ll live each day even if the markets crash, people around you lie and steal, or hope seems dashed to pieces.

Not much of a change

Two weeks ago Barak Obama was sworn in as our country's next president. The media and most Americans seem to be elated at the idea. It feels more like a wedding between lovers than a political appointment. I, on the other hand, feel despair and defeat. Ironically Obama's campaign motto was "change" yet the only change we'll see in political ideology and direction is the pace. Obama will simply accelerate the march towards socialism and the erosion of personal liberty and accountability. There is nothing new or unique about his philosophy and intentions.
Unfortunately there are few people who evaluate politics in terms of what it actually accomplishes instead of its intentions and promises. The American public has taken this naiveté and ignorance to a new level with the election of Obama. They don't even pause to ask what type of change he plans to implement or what the consequences of it will be. "Anything is better than what we have" they seem to say. What I think they will find is that things can and will get much worse. The reason I believe this is that history has taught us that governments can be a tremendously powerful force for good or bad for those it governs. History is replete with examples of tyrannical governments that have caused untold suffering, despair, and oppression through bad choices and policies. Ironically these choices have almost universally been accepted by the public through a belief in their good intentions rather than their inescapable consequences. The lesson that seems to never be learned is that less government is generally better than more government. Our natural desire for comfort and abundance makes us want to believe a politician who promises abundance without price yet nature itself does not allow this. No government mandate can provide health care, food, housing, jobs, and defense without a cost. All these things must be paid for, the question is how and by whom.
Counter intuitive as it may seem, the most likely way for a society to achieve abundance and productivity is through individual responsibility and good will. Government can best provide these things by creating an environment where people can provide for themselves, and through their own good will and choice provide for those who cannot do so themselves.
I fear that the more we look to government to provide for our needs the more we will come up wanting. It is a terrible illusion that proposes that government can better allocate the resources of a nation than individual choice and accountability can. Man’s unfortunate tendency to control others and abuse power virtually guarantees that too much power in a government will lead to oppression and suffering no matter how lofty and noble the original intentions.
If it were up to me I would choose less government, more individual responsibility, and with God's help a better world.