A friend recently posted a video on Facebook of Ronald Reagan the actor, pre-Presidential stature, warning against the dangers of socialized medicine. To me, it was a laughable throwback to the grainy, jerky videos of junior high school. It was also a pathetic and appalling attempt to play on our fears of change. In it, Reagan warned that if we set foot on this slippery slope, we would end up in a country where the government told us where and how to work.
I looked up the video on Youtube, and it turns out to be from Michael Moore's movie "Sicko." (You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCqA4QhfXHA) I don't think my friend realized that!
I wrote my friend "We are already have socialism - it just doesn't work for everyone."
What else do you call it when hospitals are paid by the government to treat the poor? Tobacco farmers are paid subsidies? Dairy farmers, corn farmers, all sorts of agricultural groups receive subsidies. Who else? Educators, for one. We have public radio and public television, both of which receive some federal support I think. There's a subsidy for everybody: one for fossil fuels, one for solar, for small businesses, for veterans.
New in 2006, according to the Cato Institute, are "Healthy marriage promotion" ($150,000,000), "Safety belt performance grants" $124,500,000), and a paltry $60,000 for "Steps to healthier girls." (The source is cited as The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, www.cfda.gov.)
And, horror of horrors, we have a graduated income tax. In a perfect world, that would mean that rich people paid more. What it means in our world, of course, is that people without tax advisors pay more.
So I think all the hysteria about our becoming a socialist country is a little naive. We have government intervention in many aspects of our lives, and I really don't think most of us would want to give it up. Really. Who wants to pay $6 for a loaf of bread, or $10 for a gallon of milk? (Okay, besides people living in Alaska.)
The curious thing to me is that so many of the people hollering loudest have long had advantages from these federal interventions. That includes federally subsidized health care. If it's so onerous and diabolical, why aren't the Republican senators refusing it? After all, that's who their insurance is handled by! You'd think they would at least give it up on principle.
I think a lot of this is just misunderstanding. People are afraid the government will monitor their care; I think we don't have that many government workers. Goodness! We can't effectively track expired visas - how on Earth would we track somebody's birth control usage, or smoking history?
Next post: health care, a personal story.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Health Care: A word from the President
President Obama emails me regularly. Oh yes. Well, me and a half billion other people, but still.
This is what he said today:
Dear Friend,
If you’re like most Americans, there’s nothing more important to you about health care than peace of mind.
Given the status quo, that’s understandable. The current system often denies insurance due to pre-existing conditions, charges steep out-of-pocket fees – and sometimes isn’t there at all if you become seriously ill.
It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections:
Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.
It’s time to act and reform health insurance, drive down costs and guarantee the health care security and stability of every American family. You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.
Thank you,
Barack Obama
My only concern is that he doesn't go far enough. I'm afraid we'll end up with a watered-down plan that will still fail to meet our needs and will cost too much.
But at least he's trying. Bless him! Maybe someday soon we'll join the rest of the civilized world in providing basic care for our citizens.
This is what he said today:
Dear Friend,
If you’re like most Americans, there’s nothing more important to you about health care than peace of mind.
Given the status quo, that’s understandable. The current system often denies insurance due to pre-existing conditions, charges steep out-of-pocket fees – and sometimes isn’t there at all if you become seriously ill.
It’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections:
- No discrimination for pre-existing conditions
- No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays
- No cost-sharing for preventive care
- No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill
- No gender discrimination
- No annual or lifetime caps on coverage
- Extended coverage for young adults
- Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid
Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.
It’s time to act and reform health insurance, drive down costs and guarantee the health care security and stability of every American family. You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.
Thank you,
Barack Obama
My only concern is that he doesn't go far enough. I'm afraid we'll end up with a watered-down plan that will still fail to meet our needs and will cost too much.
But at least he's trying. Bless him! Maybe someday soon we'll join the rest of the civilized world in providing basic care for our citizens.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Weather, whether we like it or not
"The last time the Portland area saw four consecutive days of 100 degree or higher temperatures happened from August 7-10, 1981."
From the article, Heat wave: Day 2 will be even hotter
Posted by Stuart Tomlinson, The Oregonian July 28, 2009 08:18AM
Posted by Stuart Tomlinson, The Oregonian July 28, 2009 08:18AM
Oh, yeah - I remember that heat wave. I had just given birth on July 28th to our first child, a beautiful baby girl who looked vaguely Korean and surveyed her new universe with a serious of soft coos and sighs: "Ooooh! Ahhhh!! Ahhh? Ooooooh!
We were enchanted.
She was born into a loving family living in a big house in Northeast Portland. None of us was ready for the weather.
My mother-in-law and sister-in-law Donna came to visit from Miami, where it was a relatively balmly 88 degrees. They nearly died of the heat. But they didn't have to buy clothes, unlike my sister during her August visit in 1973. That summer the mercury scarcely exceeded the 60 degree mark, and her family nearly died too - of freezing, rather than frying.
Those two extremes of experience may explain some of Oregon's charm: a little something for everybody - sort of like a psychotic uncle who can be really fun AND really helpful, and once in a while, really really creepy.
Anyway, there's really no point in fussing about the weather; it does what it will, and our job is to adapt to it.
Some day soon, on some damp chill morning, some poor fool will cry, "What happened to summer?"
Please - let's let him live, okay?
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Zen of Highway
We will begin with the simple, and as you grow in understanding we will move to the more complex. Thus will we approach wisdom at not-excessive speeds. Let us start:
- It's about the journey, not the destination. Nonetheless, we do wish to arrive sometime, don't we? The accelerator is the one on the right. Yes, even on a freeway entrance ramp.
- It is not your job to keep others off the highway. They journey also. Let them in, and see the flow continue; move to block them, and see it screech to a halt.
- Control is an illusion. Still, the Right Path can be found between the white lines, not astride one of them.
- You are not obligated to control the speed of others. They deserve the opportunity to make their own poor choices. Move right; let them pass. Consider the traffic officer as an agent of karma.
- One may desire to leave the freeway; open the way for this one, so he may pursue his own path. More freedom, less gridlock.
- When the time comes for you to move beyond, do so gracefully. Be prepared for the change that approaches. Move toward your new path steadily and calmly. That way you may choose where you arrive - work, for example, instead of the Emergency Room.
- That's your Teacher, in the silver Passat. Move over, you idiot!
Sunday, June 7, 2009
If the opposite of "pro" is "con," the opposite of "progress" is ...
Congress, Congress, I've been thinking
What a grand world this would be
if every federal legislator
Lived a life of normalcy.
I think the reason Congress has a hard time dealing with the thorny issues of our times (banking, finance, health care) is because most of them have never had to worry about these things. Yes, I know there are exceptions; don't be tiresome. But mostly, they've never been in the position of deciding whether to take the baby to the ER or to daycare; whether to pay the mortgage or the insurance; whether to buy heat or light for the coming month.
So, to clarify things for these deprived fellows, here's how health care should work in the US:
A: Honey, the baby threw up again!
B: I'll call the Clinic.
C: Here are three things you can try. I'll call you back in one hour.
...
C: How's it going?
A: The baby threw up again!
C: Can one of you bring her in?
A: I can't, I have to work in the morning. B can, though.
C: Okay, we'll expect you.
A: What will this cost?
C: $5 for the visit and $5 per prescription if medication is prescribed. We can bill you, if necessary.
A: Okay, B will bring the baby right now.
Now, except that Congresspersons would never bother asking about the cost, that's how it is for them. And how it was for us, back in the golden era of a Union job and terrific, employer-paid health care. But those days are gone forever; I don't even know anybody with a Union job. And while my employer pays some of my healthcare, so do I.
In the days when a man held a job with the same company for 30 years, it made excellent sense to tie his health care to his employment. But that's no longer the way this country works. We are mobile. We are willing to change. And we want our benefits to travel with us.
Here's my modest proposal for health care coverage:
1. It's global. No exclusions because you're diabetic or homeless or once got arrested. Or because you have "lifestyle" illnesses from smoking drug use/addiction, alcohol use.
2. There is no deductible. You don't have to pay the first $100 or $200 for medical, the first $100 for dental.
3. There are no limits. It's okay if you're sick more than once a month.
4. It's government-run. You don't have to sign up with Blue Cross or Aflac or State Farm. You just have to get a Social Security card.
5. It includes all other programs currently in place: Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's care, public health clinics.
6. It is non-exclusive. If you want "extra" health care, you can still get it at your own expense. Maybe by subscription. Maybe the insurance companies will add programs for people with disposable income to buy into, private clinics, whatever. That's fine, as long as everyone has the basics.
7. It is fair to providers: doctors and other medical staff will be paid a living wage, commensurate with their education levels.
8. There's no enrollment: get a Social Security card, you're covered.
9. Health records are centralized and portable. They can be accessed with your Social Security number and fingerprint or retinal scan.
Where does the money come from? Well, if employers aren't paying for health care, perhaps they'll increase wages and tax income will increase. If we combine programs, perhaps there will be savings of scale. If we eliminate the payments to support insurance companies, certainly the costs will go down.
We're smart; we can figure it out.
What a grand world this would be
if every federal legislator
Lived a life of normalcy.
I think the reason Congress has a hard time dealing with the thorny issues of our times (banking, finance, health care) is because most of them have never had to worry about these things. Yes, I know there are exceptions; don't be tiresome. But mostly, they've never been in the position of deciding whether to take the baby to the ER or to daycare; whether to pay the mortgage or the insurance; whether to buy heat or light for the coming month.
So, to clarify things for these deprived fellows, here's how health care should work in the US:
A: Honey, the baby threw up again!
B: I'll call the Clinic.
C: Here are three things you can try. I'll call you back in one hour.
...
C: How's it going?
A: The baby threw up again!
C: Can one of you bring her in?
A: I can't, I have to work in the morning. B can, though.
C: Okay, we'll expect you.
A: What will this cost?
C: $5 for the visit and $5 per prescription if medication is prescribed. We can bill you, if necessary.
A: Okay, B will bring the baby right now.
Now, except that Congresspersons would never bother asking about the cost, that's how it is for them. And how it was for us, back in the golden era of a Union job and terrific, employer-paid health care. But those days are gone forever; I don't even know anybody with a Union job. And while my employer pays some of my healthcare, so do I.
In the days when a man held a job with the same company for 30 years, it made excellent sense to tie his health care to his employment. But that's no longer the way this country works. We are mobile. We are willing to change. And we want our benefits to travel with us.
Here's my modest proposal for health care coverage:
1. It's global. No exclusions because you're diabetic or homeless or once got arrested. Or because you have "lifestyle" illnesses from smoking drug use/addiction, alcohol use.
2. There is no deductible. You don't have to pay the first $100 or $200 for medical, the first $100 for dental.
3. There are no limits. It's okay if you're sick more than once a month.
4. It's government-run. You don't have to sign up with Blue Cross or Aflac or State Farm. You just have to get a Social Security card.
5. It includes all other programs currently in place: Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's care, public health clinics.
6. It is non-exclusive. If you want "extra" health care, you can still get it at your own expense. Maybe by subscription. Maybe the insurance companies will add programs for people with disposable income to buy into, private clinics, whatever. That's fine, as long as everyone has the basics.
7. It is fair to providers: doctors and other medical staff will be paid a living wage, commensurate with their education levels.
8. There's no enrollment: get a Social Security card, you're covered.
9. Health records are centralized and portable. They can be accessed with your Social Security number and fingerprint or retinal scan.
Where does the money come from? Well, if employers aren't paying for health care, perhaps they'll increase wages and tax income will increase. If we combine programs, perhaps there will be savings of scale. If we eliminate the payments to support insurance companies, certainly the costs will go down.
We're smart; we can figure it out.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Unstuck
Lately I find I want to get a handle on time,
A handle on the timeline of my life. I can't seem to keep track
of the events that I think define me; sometimes I feel, oh, childlike.
Or thirty.
Or nearly at the end of my path.
I was born in 1951 - can that be right? Smack in the middle of the 20th Century?
I started school in '56 or so, I suppose; I've been told, but don't remember.
I stopped school in 1969, just after the Summer of Love,
matriculated into marriage, got my "Mrs degree," as we used to smirk.
Now I have children
Older than I was then; and isn't that strange?
One went to the military, one went to Computer Science.
Now the one who went to the military knows all about computers
and the one who was born geek
plays at war on the weekends.
And their mother is lost in time,
Dreaming of days they never saw.
I'm past middle age, well beyond 3 score and ten divided in two.
Oh, to be that age again! No -
I wouldn't do it. This wandering in time's alleyways is far preferable
to the grim struggles of my 30s, the fears of my 40s.
I'll sing the sweet slow song of my sixties soon,
and bless every breath and note from my throat.
A handle on the timeline of my life. I can't seem to keep track
of the events that I think define me; sometimes I feel, oh, childlike.
Or thirty.
Or nearly at the end of my path.
I was born in 1951 - can that be right? Smack in the middle of the 20th Century?
I started school in '56 or so, I suppose; I've been told, but don't remember.
I stopped school in 1969, just after the Summer of Love,
matriculated into marriage, got my "Mrs degree," as we used to smirk.
Now I have children
Older than I was then; and isn't that strange?
One went to the military, one went to Computer Science.
Now the one who went to the military knows all about computers
and the one who was born geek
plays at war on the weekends.
And their mother is lost in time,
Dreaming of days they never saw.
I'm past middle age, well beyond 3 score and ten divided in two.
Oh, to be that age again! No -
I wouldn't do it. This wandering in time's alleyways is far preferable
to the grim struggles of my 30s, the fears of my 40s.
I'll sing the sweet slow song of my sixties soon,
and bless every breath and note from my throat.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Love, actually
Back when my daughter was small, I was talking with someone about her starting school. That someone (I have no memory of who) said to me "Well, isn't it time she learned that she's not the Center of the Universe?" and I mindlessly agreed.
Today, I rejected that idea completely.
Children do NOT need to know they aren't the center of the universe. They should grow up certain that the world does, indeed, revolve around them, and that all creation is there for their delight.
I think that's what we mean when we say "love." It's what my husband and I do for each other: we are the center of each other's universes. And it's what I hope my children feel, when they remember thair childhoods: that all our daily life was about them.
Somewhere, in that heart of love, in that center of delight, is God. Smile. Say hello. Yep; it really is all about you.
Today, I rejected that idea completely.
Children do NOT need to know they aren't the center of the universe. They should grow up certain that the world does, indeed, revolve around them, and that all creation is there for their delight.
I think that's what we mean when we say "love." It's what my husband and I do for each other: we are the center of each other's universes. And it's what I hope my children feel, when they remember thair childhoods: that all our daily life was about them.
Somewhere, in that heart of love, in that center of delight, is God. Smile. Say hello. Yep; it really is all about you.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Dismal Science
I’m in Labor
Not only do I think labor unions are a Good Thing, I think they are essential things. We have seen some of the consequences of unbridled greed, and no, I'm not talking about the United Auto Workers. I'm talking about the energy speculators of Enron, who destroyed many families' livelihoods and savings; the Savings & Loan debacles; the current banking and investment-house crisis.
Underlying and worsening it is the unabated plundering of our nation's wealth by the executive officers of major corporations (as well as leadership of some churches and some non-profit organizations). These people grasp huge bonuses, “golden parachutes,” fringe benefits and various annual "gifts" as though they were medieval Earls, enriching themselves on the backs of their fiefs, working men and women.
Numbers Game
Here's a number I haven't seen: what is the total taking, with bonuses, of the three top execs at - let us say, GM - compared with the total salary of their UAW employees?
At GM, the Chairman and CEO (one guy) made $14.4 million in 2007. The Vice Chairman and CFO (also one guy) made $7.6 million. The Vice Chairman for Global Product Development made $6.9 million. That totals about $28.9 million. (http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/general-motors-corp.asp?yr=2008)
Ask Yahoo says “According to the Indianapolis Star: Base wages average about $28 an hour. GM officials say the average reaches $39.68 an hour, including base pay, cost-of-living adjustments, night-shift premiums, overtime, holiday and vacation pay” (http://malaysia.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O). That works out to about $83,200 per year for the highest paid UAW members. (The more modest, beginner UAW guy gets only about $58,200.)
This is a meaningless intellectual exercise, of course. But those three executive salaries ($28,900,000) are roughly equal to the wages of 347 of the highest paid UAW members. How many UAW workers are there? A footnote from an article (http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm2162.cfm) claiming the workers' costs are actually much higher - $70 and hour! Or more! - says, in part: "Heritage Foundation calculations based on General Motors Form 5500 data ... 85,000 active hourly workers in the pension plan, each working 35.5 hours a week ..."
Well, wait a minute. That means most workers don't work 40-hour weeks, right? So my wage calculations are higher than they should be. Well, never mind. The conclusion here is that the three top guys make as much as 347 of the guys who are actually working to produce the income.
I've been white collar my entire life, until 2 years ago. I've owned a small (tiny!) business. I will not argue that intellect, education and the ability to lead and direct are not job skills, or that employing them is not work, and doesn't deserve compensation. But $7,000,000 versus $83,000? More than 84 times as much? Does that seem right?
Equal Poverty
I'm constantly surprised by the Wal-Mart shoppers of America saying the UAW (or other union) workers should earn less. What?!?!? Why? Why not say, instead that YOU should earn MORE? If every worker in the US earned at least $28 an hour, one parent could stay home with the kids without being condemned to poverty. A medical emergency would not be followed by a bankruptcy filing. And the family could afford to drive a Chevy, or a Ford. Equally compensating the workforce makes more sense to me than equally impoverishing the workforce!
A Level Playing Field
Back to those executives. I've heard it said that one way of "equalizing" would be to fix executive compensation at 20 times of the wage of the highest-paid worker. Am I the only one who immediately sees that this would create a tier of management that was extremely well compensated (3 guys making a few million a year), and a workforce that still scrounged by on Federal minimum wage, about $14,560? (An interesting chart, for you numbers freaks: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html)
How about this: tie executive compensation to 20 times the wage of the LOWEST paid worker. Now, that's equalization! In the great US tradition, as the lowest wage rose, the wages above would rise; but none would catapult to astronomical levels. If the bottom was $28/hour, the top guy would still net about $1,165,000 a year. Most of us could struggle by on that, I think. Even the MBAs. After all, they could still earn pocket money by sitting on each others' boards and renting out their extra houses and yachts.
Everything's Relative
One thing has always bothered me. When I read about some executive extravagance - the most recent vacation home purchase or elegant party for 750 close friends - I always relate to it on a very personal level. I remember when my children were small. I was an at-home mom, my husband was a union worker making roughly three times the minimum wage of the time (that would be about $21/hour today), and our bills were an unscalable mountain that I could only manage by nibbling at the corners.
Ten thousand dollars. $10,000 lousy bucks. It would have changed our lives. It would have spared us months of worry, of feeling we were skating on the edge of a black hole of failure. And we had it good, relative to many people. Sure, we would have blown some of it on extravagances. We probably would have saved less than 10%, donated less than 10%. But we could have paid off the ever-escalating heating bill, and maybe even caught up with the phone company and a few others. If it was $50,000, we could have paid down our mortgage, invested for our future, put some aside for education.
Eat the Rich
I would read about some hotshot flying his girlfriend to Paris for a little shopping and say, "Wow. The cost of that trip alone would pay me out of every debt I have!" I had the same reaction just months ago, when I read the reports of Sarah Palin's wardrobe purchases.
Please don't tell me the answer is to get an education and get into an Ivy League school and make the right career choices and make the right friends. That's just insulting the people for whom that was never, ever an option. You know - the vast majority of us, who only enter the halls of power as waiters, audio-visual techs, stenographers and cleaning staff.
Dollars and Sense
The US population is around 303 million (from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html). Of those, 203,987,724 are between the ages of 15-64; let's call them wage-earners, although that's not strictly accurate. The proposed auto bailout amount - just for the auto industry - is $15 billion. That's $15,000,000,000, or about $78 for each of those citizens. Peanuts. But what about the other bailouts? Still small potatoes per person, eh? Now add in corporate tax breaks.
If you gave that money to those citizens, instead of using it to prop up failed businesses that have decades of terrible decisions behind them, most of it would re-enter the economy quickly - perhaps by feeding a hungry child, or giving a tired working parent the opportunity to refuse overtime.
I'm not suggesting a literal handover of a check. I suggesting a re-thinking of our priorities. I'd be stupid to say that businesses aren't important to our economy. But people are vital to our businesses: people to make things, people to sell things, people to service things, people to buy things. We are not doing a very good job of taking care of our people, our workers.
A Modest Proposal
So here are my hopes for the New Year, for a new administration, for a country tired of the feudalism that US business has become.
1. Family Wage jobs. Jobs where one earner can support an entire family. Not at poverty level, but at a comfortable level. And none of this crap about shortened work weeks or enforced holiday unpaid “vacations.”
2. An end to Federal financial support of businesses. Microsoft needed no bailout because it produced what people wanted. John Deere isn't asking for money. Even the loathed Wal-Mart succeeds by giving people what they want at prices they can afford.
3. Please, oh please: decent health care for everyone, even people without cushy union jobs
4. A cap on executive earnings and benefits for all publicly-traded companies and all tax-exempt entities, tied to lowest-earner wages.
Where's the Beef?
Okay, where will we get the money? We can't literally - or legally - extract it from the pockets of the already-rich (can we? No? Damn!). But we can offset the cost of (for example) health care by pooling all the money used currently for lousy, ineffective, costly public health programs: Veteran's care, Medicaid, various health clinics and so forth. That will at least make a dent. Include the amount employers pay for employee health care. Include the amount people currently pay for health care out of their own pocket. Look at what other countries do, and Americanize it.
For the hourly-wage improvements, the best - the only, as far as I know - way to achieve that is to unionize, and strike as necessary. It's painful, it's ugly, and it works.
Perhaps when we get US workers off food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, WIC and other aid programs, there will be a little more cash in the economy.
We can make this work the way it should: for the people, by the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)