Saturday, August 11, 2012
The aging population problem
Yesterday (Friday, August 10) I watched a segment of the news from Japan on Channel 28. A large part of the half hour program was devoted to how the Japanese government plans to deal with the rising cost of social security and other services for its increasing population of retired workers. Can you guess? Very simple. The government plan is to phase in increases in the consumption tax and probably the income tax over the next eight or ten years to provide the extra money. There was no talk of reducing the tax burden on the rich or reducing social security benefits. Social security benefits may have to be trimmed some time in the future, but there was no talk of such changes. There was talk of reducing "wasteful spending" by government.
How different is the discussion of this problem in our country! Mr. Romney has just today announced his choice of Vice President: Paul Ryan. The choice of Mr. Ryan signals that Mr. Romney is committed to the Republican program of reducing the taxes on wealthy Americans and reducing government services to retirees, to persons on Medicare, and other middle class and poorer segments of society. Mr. Romney has gained the support of Grover Norquist, the Republican Grinch who wants to reduce the size of government to almost nothing. At least now the voters will have a clear choice of the future path of the country in the November Election.
How different is the discussion of this problem in our country! Mr. Romney has just today announced his choice of Vice President: Paul Ryan. The choice of Mr. Ryan signals that Mr. Romney is committed to the Republican program of reducing the taxes on wealthy Americans and reducing government services to retirees, to persons on Medicare, and other middle class and poorer segments of society. Mr. Romney has gained the support of Grover Norquist, the Republican Grinch who wants to reduce the size of government to almost nothing. At least now the voters will have a clear choice of the future path of the country in the November Election.
Labels: Grover Norquist, Japanese approach to social security, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Half-measures for Universal Health Care
It has been written of President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he would first decide what he wanted to do or accomplish. Having decided that, he would then see how close he could come to accomplishing it. He was lauded for following the course of a realistic and practical politician.
There's another side to this approach to governing. If you can not achieve all of what you want to achieve, is it worth while working on something that achieves only a part of what you want? I apply this question to the health plans promoted by several Democratic and Republican politicians: Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Nunez, Romney, and others. These plans all amount to an effort to fix or improve our existing system of providing health care to Americans. Although the supporters of these plans are sincere in wanting to do something to improve a poorly functioning system, I think they are like applying band-aids to a severely injured individual who needs surgery to stop internal bleeding.
The essence of the Clinton-Schwarzenegger-Romney plan is to require all employers (of more than just a few employees) to provide subsidized health insurance for their employees. If an employer wishes, he can instead pay money to the State which will be used to subsidize health insurance to those individuals who are not covered by an employer. There are differences among them as to how much the non-insuring employers should pay, whether all persons are to be required to purchase insurance, and what coverage the insurers are required to provide. Basically, they are all attempts to make a system, originally designed by some employers to attract skilled and expensive workers, provide affordable health care for everyone. These plans are attempts to make a system which was never intended or designed to provide universal health care provide it.
In spite of my criticism, the C-S-R plan does amount to doing something. It won't provide universal health care. It may provide universal health insurance, which is not the same thing. Experience with private for-profit insurers shows that having insurance does not necessarily guarantee having adequate health and medical care. My question is, is it worth while doing?
One can argue that enacting a plan that provides good medical and health care to every American is not politically possible at present. Too many people will argue against it with arguments about "big government," bureaucratic control of medical decisions, inefficiency of government, and the like. I argue that, in spite of the difficulties, our political leaders should try for a universal health plan and not an almost universal insurance plan. The President should be committed to it and should use his press conferences and other unique opportunities to speak to the American People to explain why a universal health provider plan is better than any insurance plan. And that means that we need a President who is committed to the idea of universal health care. The candidates among the Democrats who are committed to this goal have been discarded by the primary voters. There is no hope, in this generation at least, that a Republican candidate would be so committed.
Perhaps, in the end, we will have to accept, for the time being, a half-measure or a band-aid. Winston Churchill once observed that the "American People will always to the right thing, but only after trying all the alternatives."
There's another side to this approach to governing. If you can not achieve all of what you want to achieve, is it worth while working on something that achieves only a part of what you want? I apply this question to the health plans promoted by several Democratic and Republican politicians: Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Nunez, Romney, and others. These plans all amount to an effort to fix or improve our existing system of providing health care to Americans. Although the supporters of these plans are sincere in wanting to do something to improve a poorly functioning system, I think they are like applying band-aids to a severely injured individual who needs surgery to stop internal bleeding.
The essence of the Clinton-Schwarzenegger-Romney plan is to require all employers (of more than just a few employees) to provide subsidized health insurance for their employees. If an employer wishes, he can instead pay money to the State which will be used to subsidize health insurance to those individuals who are not covered by an employer. There are differences among them as to how much the non-insuring employers should pay, whether all persons are to be required to purchase insurance, and what coverage the insurers are required to provide. Basically, they are all attempts to make a system, originally designed by some employers to attract skilled and expensive workers, provide affordable health care for everyone. These plans are attempts to make a system which was never intended or designed to provide universal health care provide it.
In spite of my criticism, the C-S-R plan does amount to doing something. It won't provide universal health care. It may provide universal health insurance, which is not the same thing. Experience with private for-profit insurers shows that having insurance does not necessarily guarantee having adequate health and medical care. My question is, is it worth while doing?
One can argue that enacting a plan that provides good medical and health care to every American is not politically possible at present. Too many people will argue against it with arguments about "big government," bureaucratic control of medical decisions, inefficiency of government, and the like. I argue that, in spite of the difficulties, our political leaders should try for a universal health plan and not an almost universal insurance plan. The President should be committed to it and should use his press conferences and other unique opportunities to speak to the American People to explain why a universal health provider plan is better than any insurance plan. And that means that we need a President who is committed to the idea of universal health care. The candidates among the Democrats who are committed to this goal have been discarded by the primary voters. There is no hope, in this generation at least, that a Republican candidate would be so committed.
Perhaps, in the end, we will have to accept, for the time being, a half-measure or a band-aid. Winston Churchill once observed that the "American People will always to the right thing, but only after trying all the alternatives."
Labels: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hillary Clinton, Massachusetts plan, Mitt Romney, univeral health insurance, Universal health care, Winston Churchill
Monday, December 03, 2007
Republicans attacking Republicans
How sweet it is to a Democrat like me to see Republicans attacking Mitt Romney because of his religion. Conservative fundamentalist Christians assert that the Morman or Latter Day Saints cult is not Christian! Talk about pots and kettles calling each other black!
Actually, that is a bad metaphor. I've not heard of any Mormon who claims that conservative bible-belt fundamentalist Christianity is not Christian. The accusations seem to go only one way.
You may have gathered by now that this old geezer (I'll be 85 next March) doesn't take any religious claim very seriously. All religions that amount to anything require a belief in miracles. In some cases the miracles occurred 2000 years ago or more. Muslims believe in miracles that occurred about 1400 years ago. Mormons believe in miracles that occurred less than 200 years ago. The only miracle that grabs my respect is the existence of the universe and its development into its present form from the big bang that occurred about 15 billion years ago.
No religion has a monopoly on truth or virtue. If you are inclined to be religious, you have a big choice. If you want my advice (you don't, of course) choose one that is tolerant of the others. Faith should be tempered with doubt. You can never be sure that the things you believe in are actually true in any sense other than what is sometimes called "poetic truth."
Actually, that is a bad metaphor. I've not heard of any Mormon who claims that conservative bible-belt fundamentalist Christianity is not Christian. The accusations seem to go only one way.
You may have gathered by now that this old geezer (I'll be 85 next March) doesn't take any religious claim very seriously. All religions that amount to anything require a belief in miracles. In some cases the miracles occurred 2000 years ago or more. Muslims believe in miracles that occurred about 1400 years ago. Mormons believe in miracles that occurred less than 200 years ago. The only miracle that grabs my respect is the existence of the universe and its development into its present form from the big bang that occurred about 15 billion years ago.
No religion has a monopoly on truth or virtue. If you are inclined to be religious, you have a big choice. If you want my advice (you don't, of course) choose one that is tolerant of the others. Faith should be tempered with doubt. You can never be sure that the things you believe in are actually true in any sense other than what is sometimes called "poetic truth."
Labels: comparison of religions, miracles, Mitt Romney, Mormonism
Saturday, April 07, 2007
A Pessimistic Prediction
Looking at the front-runners in the present Presidential race, I predict the following nominees:
For the Republicans, Mitt Romney
For the Democrats, Hilary Clinton
Although at present Romney seems to be in trouble with the Religious Conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has a year to convince them that, as a Mormon, he follows the teachings of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage and abortion. The Latter Day Saints Church is very conservative with regard to such things. It's also conservative with regard to government programs of assistance to the poor, the aged, and oppressed minorities. These matters should be settled through non-governmental organizations, like the LDS Church. That Church provides generously for Mormons who are out of work by providing jobs and food for them and their families. These teachings are very appealing to other religious conservatives. Romney will have them eating out of his hand by the end of the year.
I predict the Democratic Nomination to go to Clinton. She has the best organization. She is the best known. Her principal opponent, Barack Obama, is a Negro. Many Americans have a secret reluctance to vote for a Negro as our nation's leader. Clinton has a similar problem because she is a woman.
Romney will be our next President.
Why am I pessimistic? If we Americans could elect a Democrat, there would be a chance for a worth-while reform of our broken medical care system. With Romney, or any Republican, the only thing that won't be vetoed is a scheme similar to the one in Massachusetts, in which the insurance companies are still running things and putting profit ahead of high quality health care, as they must, because their stockholders will demand it.
Romney will convince the majority of Americans who oppose our war in Iraq that he will bring it to an end, just as Richard Nixon ended the war in Viet Nam. Romney may even have a "secret plan" for ending the war. The Democrats will have been unable to end or even slow down the war by election day next year. In fact, we may even be at war with Iran by then. Romney will have a secret plan for ending that one, too. The Republicans will be respected again and Romney will have a cooperative Congress.
I hope I'm wrong.
For the Republicans, Mitt Romney
For the Democrats, Hilary Clinton
Although at present Romney seems to be in trouble with the Religious Conservative wing of the Republican Party, he has a year to convince them that, as a Mormon, he follows the teachings of the Church with regard to same-sex marriage and abortion. The Latter Day Saints Church is very conservative with regard to such things. It's also conservative with regard to government programs of assistance to the poor, the aged, and oppressed minorities. These matters should be settled through non-governmental organizations, like the LDS Church. That Church provides generously for Mormons who are out of work by providing jobs and food for them and their families. These teachings are very appealing to other religious conservatives. Romney will have them eating out of his hand by the end of the year.
I predict the Democratic Nomination to go to Clinton. She has the best organization. She is the best known. Her principal opponent, Barack Obama, is a Negro. Many Americans have a secret reluctance to vote for a Negro as our nation's leader. Clinton has a similar problem because she is a woman.
Romney will be our next President.
Why am I pessimistic? If we Americans could elect a Democrat, there would be a chance for a worth-while reform of our broken medical care system. With Romney, or any Republican, the only thing that won't be vetoed is a scheme similar to the one in Massachusetts, in which the insurance companies are still running things and putting profit ahead of high quality health care, as they must, because their stockholders will demand it.
Romney will convince the majority of Americans who oppose our war in Iraq that he will bring it to an end, just as Richard Nixon ended the war in Viet Nam. Romney may even have a "secret plan" for ending the war. The Democrats will have been unable to end or even slow down the war by election day next year. In fact, we may even be at war with Iran by then. Romney will have a secret plan for ending that one, too. The Republicans will be respected again and Romney will have a cooperative Congress.
I hope I'm wrong.
Labels: Barack Obama, Ending the War, Health insurance crisis, Hilary Clinton, Massachusetts plan for universal health care, Mitt Romney
