Public Option vs Non Profit Coops

Well, the insurance industry has come up with a new clean way to shut down the public option. We are not against robust competition, we just don't want it to come from the government. Therefore, we will support non-profit coops as an alternative that you, chicken hearted Democrats can vote for.

Why would the insurance industrial complex support coops. Because they know they would be toothless weak shells that could be run over by the insurance industry. They also know that it sounds so democratic to support coops as viable competition. These coops will take years if not decades to even organize and begin to service people. They do not resolve any of the overhead issues [where most savings might lie] costing health care so much money in the current situation - rather they will be saddled with as much or more because they will lack economy of scale that either most major insurance companies or govenrment health plans would have. They will be denied financing by the same industry that they are supposed to compete against and they will either eventually do ok and then become for profit insurance companies ala Blue Cross, or they will go out of business like so many coops do. The insurance companies will be no worse the wear.

Furthermore, as part of their support, they have succeeded in obtaining an individual mandate [but not an employer mandate] in the bill. This means that the insurance companies can expect another 40 million lambs for them to slaughter. What's not to love?

Thirty to fourty percent of our health care dollar is paid for administrative overhead. This includes profit, marketing, huge salaries and other benefits for the executive class, denial of coverage specialists, state and federal lobbying expenses, underwriting to reduce claims, along with some necessary expenses such as salaries, benefits, rent, and supplies. One of the main goals of a public option is to save money by getting rid of the first five items. By being able to streamline the claims process because only one entity will be processing the claims, further savings will occur. Medicare for example has only a 3% overhead. This is not money for medical care, this is money for conserving and promoting the insurance industrial complex. On the other hand, this is also the best reason for single payer because all this fat is sliced from the budget [estimated at 400 Billion dollars]. However, since a mini public option is viciously attacked by so many as socialized medicine, there is not hope that a single payer program could be passed. However, a public option would provide much of this benefit for the people receiving the coverage, thus allowing an affordable insurance program for the currently uninsured and perhaps demonstrating where the waste is in the system we now have. That demonstration is what the insurance companies so fear that they and their allies will say anything, do anything to ensure that it does not pass. Unfortunately, with their lies and distortions, they seem to be able to scare enough uninformed, low information voters about the program that the weak-kneed well greased Blue Dog Democrats and others in the Senate seem prepared to scuttle the public option so that nothing will change, except our premiums, which will of course go up.

This is what will pass as health reform, until the country either goes broke or wakes up to its puppet masters.

Bacon vs. Pork

A blog [can't remember which one] had a game where you could vote bacon or pork on various earmarks contained in last year's budget bill. I started to vote when I realized that all of what was listed was pork [defined as a specific allocation by a Congressman for a specific project, often run by a specific entity]. What is missed in the discussion of these projects is not whether or not they have merit but whether or not this is an adequate way to make policy. Removing gang tatoos is a worthwhile project, building an interchange to improve traffic flow is also, even research into mitigating odor from hog farms. What makes all of these projects pork is that the decision to fund these "worthwhile" projects is not made by any rational, fairly based system, but rather to line the pockets of a legislator with campaign contributions, benefit a friend or ally, or to curry favor at home with a constituent group. These decisions are made without regard to the priority of the project on a state or national basis, without regard to the competence of the entity to perform the task, or the wishes of the locality that is the recipient of the largess.

Most federal grants are required by Congress to be competitive, as are almost all contracts that carry out the project or program being awarded. They require the applicant to demonstrate why its project is better vis-a-vis another project. They require some demonstration of capactity to perform. The priorities are set by Congress by their allocation of a set amount of money to the program and presumably as a result incorporate a priority setting process for what's important and essential. None of this applies to earmarks. Some of these projects are worthwhile, some may even be essential to the well being of an area, but none of this really matters because of the manner in which the earmarks are made.

Earmarks are perhaps the most corrupting practice in Congress outside campaign contributions. They are often repayments for those contributions, but even when they are unsullied by such, they are allowed to skew priorities and, based on a lawmakers standing, allowed to reward projects and places that may not need or be able to use the money effectively and efficiently. But that is ok with the lawmakers because of the political rewards they see such earmarks providing. One lawmaker bristled at the idea that such decisions should be made by faceless bureacrats [who are making decisions on criteria established by Congress and attempting to carry out Congressional intent in a fair and equitable manner] instead of a lawmaker who has his pulse on the local people. However, any benefit of having the pulse of the people is lost by the failure to have a systematic and transparent way of evaluating the projects which might result in effective priority setting, efficient use of funds, and ensuring that money is spent where it is most needed in a way that isn't designed to make some lawmakers friends and supporters rich.

I doubt that we will ever get rid of earmarks because politicians value their political capital. However, would it be so unreasonable that earmarks be less than a set percentage of discretionary funds? Would it be unreasonable that they compete with all the other earmarks sought for a particular bill? Would it be unreasonable that Congress figures out someway to more fairly and openly evaluate the earmark other than the seniority or influence of the lawmakers?

The arrogance of success

I read the comments to so many articles and there is such a disdain for poor people, or people who have fallen on hard times and find themselves and their children homeless or hungry. "If they weren't so lazy they'd get a job; if they hadn't bought more house than they could afford, they'd be okay; if they didn't spend so much they'd have money; its their fault they don't have more, aren't better parents, don't become rich." I wonder if people ever wonder if they are here in good or okay shape because they have just been lucky. They may have a supportive family, a good education, health, community to help them through these hard times. They aren't depressed because they've been laid off or have cancer or are losing their home.

And yet, a significant minority of people on these comment boards have an air of self-righteousness that I don't understand. Walk in the shoes of the people who are not succeeding in life before you declare they are no good or don't deserve better. Think about how it would feel to have been born in Somalia, or Peru, or Yemen. Do you think you would have been as successful as you are now? Do you really think its all because you are so special and so talented that you are surviving without help from government or other sources of support. Do you really think most millionaires or even hundred thousandaires are that way because they just worked harder than the rest? I don't. I think most of us were just lucky, either in birth, genetics, education, breaks along the way, or the right contacts. I think the people who are not succeeding, for the most part, aren't for the very same reasons. Would help along the way change it for them, perhaps, perhaps not, but don't all people deserve a roof over their head, food in their stomachs, and some path to a better future. Why assume you know they are worthless because of where they are and that they don't deserve anything because of that.

Let's try compassionate goverment for a change and just see what happens. We need a smaller gap between rich and the rest of us. We need to spend some tax money on jobs, health care, schools, infrastructure, green industry, and to get us out of this financial hole we are in. Lets just pay our share and hope it makes a better country, instead of worrying about someone getting something they don't deserve.