Economic Stimulus... Who Are They Kidding?

Well, the news is full of our president campaigning for his “economic stimulus” bill. Which any thinking American can see is his way of having the taxpayers dump $447 Billion into the reelection campaign. The one crippling failure in the current administration/congress’s record is the total failure to stimulate a recovery from the economic crisis that admittedly they inherited. What better way to erase that failure than to have the economy make a sudden improvement in the election year. Or, failing that, be able to point to the opposition and blame them for not passing the package and thus transfer the blame to them for the failure to recover.

Now I don’t disagree that we need the government to do something to stimulate the recovery. But really, this is a hodgepodge of things that sound good, but have unintended consequences, are not needed and/or are pouring good money after bad, and are designed to line the pockets of political contributors. What the whole package completely lacks is any kind of inspirational, long term goals that will stimulate the economy beyond the next election.

As I have said in other blogs, economic crises are mostly psychological. Something happens that makes people fear the future so they quit spending and hold on to their money, which slows the economy and makes them hold on to it tighter. This lack of “churn” (money changing hands) compounds in a vicious circle and the economy collapses. The way back out is to inspire people with hope for a bright future and expectation of continued income. They will then open their pockets and the money will “churn” faster and the economy booms. This is the key component of economic stimulus, not creating short term jobs that last only as long as the government funding holds out.

As far as I can determine from the vague statements the president is making, the key components of the stimulation are infrastructure improvements and education. These were obviously picked as being easily “sold” projects. After all, who can argue with better roads and better education. The vagueness and lack of detail in the proposals are unsettling however. What “infrastructure improvements” are we going to pay for? More “bridges to nowhere” or something that is really needed, like fixing deteriorating bridges before they collapse. 

I do not disagree with the need for infrastructure improvements and I agree it is a good way to spend money for short term relief, so long as it is spent for worthwhile projects. However, it will have little long term effect on the economy beyond maintaining the status quo. It will need to be monitored closely as most times in these cases a chunk of money is handed to the states to spend as they will, and a lot of it gets wasted on projects to glorify local politicians and gain them campaign funds for their next election, rather than what’s best for the people in general. Unfortunately, infrastructure improvement has a low-to-medium economic “churn” factor and thus won’t give us the boost we need to get the economy back on track. However, it is needed and useful in the short term and should get a share of the stimulus money. Lets just make sure the money is spent in the US buying made in American goods. No sense stimulating China’s economy.

It is no secret that this country’s educational system is failing. It needs to be fixed, but throwing a large chunk of money at it will not fix the problems, in fact it will make them worse. For a long time the business of education has been a gravy train for a lot of people. The amount of money that is spent on non education related things is a massive drain on the system. We are fortunate in having a dedicated corps of teachers that do the best they can to educate our children in spite of budget cuts, growing classroom sizes, and crushing regulations. All the time watching the “administrators” take luxury vacations, work in lavish offices and pull down huge salaries, while making up rules to make the teachers jobs impossible. More money will just let more hogs feed at the trough and won’t improve the system or our children’s education. We need serious reform and acceptance that we live in a very different world than the one where the current educational system was designed. Some things are simply obsolete and forcing our kids to learn them, when it’s obvious that it’s worthless, merely reinforces the student’s feelings that school is a waste of time. I’ll rant about education more in another blog. The bottom line is that, without a complete overhaul of the educational system, adding more money to it is simply throwing good money after bad. Furthermore, it isn’t the inspirational stimulus we need. Even if we could magically make the educational system work, all we’d get is a bunch of PHDs flipping burgers if the jobs aren’t out there.

As I have said in other blogs, we need an inspiring, long term goal to get the economy moving. There are several things that I can think of that meet the requirements of inspiring and stimulating as well as having the potential to spin off sub industries that will stimulate the economy for years to come. Manned missions to Mars, or moon bases smack of the 60s space program and could provide the stimulus and spinoffs. But, lacking the Cold War and given the hard economic times will be a hard sell. A cure for cancer is a great idea, but given the current climate of suspicion of the medical industry and universal health care (see my blog on that) might not be as inspiring as we’d like. But i’d like to see a few billion thrown that way as we are very near to figuring that out. 

The goal that really stands out to me is achieving energy independence. It’s something that every American can feel positive about. Helping our balance of trade by not pouring large amounts of our money into unstable, and unfriendly governments overseas, using “Green” technologies, as well as enhancing national security, what’s not to like? Furthermore, it has an extremely high economic multiplier as well as a good “churn” multiplier. The government’s involvement needs only to be some basic research funding to figure out the methods, some initial purchases to stimulate the manufacture, and tax incentives to implement them. The economy is ready for this, and it is a patriotic thing to do. So I ask that a substantial amount of the stimulus funding be spent on this goal and the associated development of better batteries for energy storage and electric cars. The only drawback, as I see it, is this won’t have a huge impact per se for a few years and thus won’t impact the elections much (which means it’ll be hard to get it passed) but hopefully the inspiration of the idea will start to have a positive psychological impact on the economy before the real impact is apparent. As before stated however, we must insure that the money is spent in the US on American made goods or it won't have the desired effect.

Then there is a essentially free method of stimulating the economy that we should have done a long time ago. Simply pass a law that states that starting in 5 years the government will not purchase anything that does not have a 75% or larger US made content (substitute your own numbers). Since the government purchases a fairly large percentage of the countries GNP it will bring a lot of manufacturing jobs back to the US from overseas. An offshoot is that as long as they have to have a factory for making whatever in the US they might as well make the product for the whole US market there so the law will have an impact beyond just government purchases. Furthermore, increases in tax revenues from the new industries and their workers should offset any increased costs over foreign made products.

What Is Happening in the Economy

It’s been just over a week since the Congress and the President passed the debt ceiling bill. The fact that it was a complete piece of crap did not miss the attention of Standards & Poor (a credit rating agency) and they rightly downgraded the US’s Credit rating from AAA to AA+. This threw the stock market into a completely irrational panic (which happens often) and it has been in free fall. The amount of (virtual) wealth that has disappeared because of this would have made a substantial dent in the national debt, and precluded the problem in the first place. Of course all this panic will cause consumer spending to go down and the economic boost of “back to school” will be killed. Kinda makes me wonder what those idiots have planned for Christmas.

Of course rationality will prevail, and eventually the stock market will settle down. People will stop hoarding their cash and start spending again and this will all be a bad memory. But, for an economy that was tentatively sticking it’s toe back in the water it will slow the eventual recovery by another year. The brave will buy stock in solid companies and make some money off of the fearful, and the rest of us will struggle on. 

The sad thing is it was unnecessary for it to happen, and even so, the credit downgrade isn’t really a terrible thing. Our rating is still better than Japan’s and no one thinks they are in trouble, in spite of the disaster earlier this year. The rating simply says we aren’t being physically responsible. It’s like we were a person with a $500,000 debt, an income of $75,000, who spends $100,000 a year and wants to borrow money to pay the difference. Any bank would laugh at you, even if you had a perfect payment record. The difference is, the US has assets equivalent to $1,000,000 so the debt is safe in spite of the lousy money management. But I don’t see the government paying down the debt by selling Yellowstone park to condo developers anytime soon though.

The whole thing boils down to matching income with outgo, plus a little extra to pay off the debt. In short, live within your means. It can be done by cutting expenses or by increasing income. Neither is easy. It’s easy to say "cut expenses", but remember, that money eventually pays someone’s salary, so cutting expenses throws people out of work. To raise income means more taxes, which of course means we have less money to spend, and that throws people out of work too. It’s easy for us poor people to say “tax the rich”, but we have to remember it’s those rich that create the companies that give us our jobs. Basically, raising taxes moves workers from the private sector to Government supported jobs or welfare.

There is no good short term solution. There is a excellent long term solution, and that is to move the government’s spending to projects that will have a long term economic benefit, and try not to increase spending until the economy catches up and tax revenue increases naturally. (see my blogs on job creation and energy independence for more details). 

As an example of how screwed up the Government’s thinking is, I just saw that the President has decreed out of the blue that heavy trucks must lower their fuel consumption by 26% in the next few years. This throws a huge cost burden on an industry that is already reeling from high oil prices. This is an industry that affects the price of everything we buy, so we all are getting hit with a cost increase to satisfy his ego. Sure it sounds on the surface like a good idea. But you can’t just decree something without some knowledge that it can be done practically. In an industry whose major expense is fuel, don’t you think they are already doing everything practical to cut fuel consumption? Now if he had started a research project to seek ways of improving efficiency of heavy trucks I could be behind him 100%. But while its easy to decree things, you need to lead by showing a path to the goal. The industry would leap on a way to save 26% of fuel if it were practical. We just don’t need this kind of "say it and it will be so" Godlike attitude at this time of economic “disaster”.

Retirement Age

We hear a lot of rhetoric about raising the retirement age as a means of saving Social Security. On the surface this sounds like an OK idea. After all we are living productive lives a lot longer than we used to. Staying active and engaged keeps us alert and staves off aging so it improves our health. Boy, I can just hear the bean counters rubbing their hands together in anticipation of the savings in both Social Security payments and medical costs, as well as the extra taxes we will be paying.

Unfortunately there is an unintended consequence. Perhaps in a booming economy with a low unemployment rate raising the retirement age might be advantageous. But, we are not in a booming economy, and the unemployment rate is showing no signs of getting better. In fact if you add in the people who are underemployed, the actual figure is much higher than reported, and getting worse. The recession has enabled a lot of companies to close older less efficient plants (and lay off workers) and when the economy started to recover they expanded production by automating and/or moving operations out of the country. Those jobs are lost forever.

So we have an economy with a limited number of jobs. Given that the normal work career is about 40 years, raising the retirement age by 1 year will increase the workforce by 2.5%. (yes, I know this is a bit oversimplified, but I could do a bunch of complicated math and get an accurate figure which will still be something over 2%). Since there is a limited number of jobs to be had, that automatically raises the unemployment rate by 2.5%. During the whole economic recovery, and with all the job stimulus money spent, we haven’t lowered the unemployment rate that much. It doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

To make it worse, the bulk of those people who enter the ranks of the unemployed will be either the fresh out of college kids looking to start a good paying career (and pay a lot into Social Security) or the older workers (who were going to keep active and healthy an extra year). So, if college graduates can’t get good jobs, whats the reason for kids to go to college? If they’re going to end their career looking for a job and burning their retirement savings it’s not much of an advantage for the older folks as well. Looks kinda like a negative snowball effect to me.

In fact, thinking about it, why not lower the retirement age? If we get 2.5% more unemployment by raising the retirement age 1 year we should get 2.5% less unemployment by lowering it. If we dropped it to 62 from 65 we could wipe out most of the current 10% unemployment in this country. Yes, Thats way simplified and paying for it might be a bitch, but someone should seriously study the economic impact, factoring in savings on unemployment insurance, welfare, defaulted student loans etc. Besides, having all those skilled, vigorous seniors at loose ends might stimulate some them to start businesses and pull this country out of the economic doldrums.

Postmortem of the Economic Collapse

We are now coming up on the third anniversary of the economic collapse. I would like to  discuss an analysis of why it happened and what the long term effects will be. I’d also like to talk a bit about what should have been done (hindsight is always better than foresight) and what we can do to fix the mess. 

The first thing I’d like to point out is the whole thing was to a large extent caused by good intentions, which were thwarted by greed, panic, and the law of unintended consequences. 

Way back in the Clinton administration it was decided that every American had the right to part of the “American Dream” of home ownership. So the government ruled that mortgage lenders had to write mortgages to people who were, prior to that, unqualified to have mortgages. A lot of these people were minorities so it was viewed as a socially responsible thing to do. In order to make these mortgages affordable to these low income people, they were sold adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) which had really low starting interest rates for the first few years and were then subject to “adjustment” to bring them in line with normal fixed rate mortgages. The mortgages were also set up so as to require almost no down payment, which sometimes made the mortgage 110% of the value of the house, in order to cover closing costs. This wasn’t considered a bad thing in an environment of rising house values, That 10% extra would be covered in a year or so by the rising value of the property.

All went well for a few years people enjoyed their new homes and basked in the rising values. The housing boom boosted the economy and made for a lot of well paying jobs. People feeling the paper wealth of owning a asset with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity bought goods and cars with abandon. All was well till the time came to adjust the mortgage rates. At that point a lot of the ARMs had rates as low as 3% while fixed rates were around 6% (for people with good credit ratings). Here’s where greed stepped in. Instead of bumping the rate a percent or two, the mortgage lenders decided to jump them all the way to the fixed rate, since a lot of these people had not good credit ratings the interest rates sometimes jumped 3 or 4X. Since mortgage payments in early years are largely interest that made the payments go up 2 or 3 times what they had been. Most of these people were not making enough money to handle that huge increase in expenses and ultimately defaulted. 

The banks found themselves stuck with a lot of property which cut into their required cash reserves and they found themselves unable to loan people money to buy cars or homes. They tried to dump those houses on the market to recover the cash, and sent real estate prices tumbling. Ordinarily investors would have then jumped on these bargain houses and the market would have stabilized but the credit had dried up and they couldn’t borrow the money to take advantage of the low prices. 

A lot of people who had jobs and could make the payments on their mortgages had borrowed heavily on the value of their homes. Suddenly they saw their equity disappearing as prices tumbled, in a panic they tried to sell before they lost it all, which dumped a bunch more houses on the market and the whole thing spiraled out of control. 

Without that equity cushion people stopped spending. Companies couldn’t borrow money for operations cause the credit dried up, and as a final blow, oil prices went through the roof and the country’s economy caved in. The banks were going belly up with all those valueless mortgages and real estate so the government stepped in with massive infusions of money to save the banks who had caused the crash in the first place and the poor homeowners were left to hang.

Ok what should the government done? This is hindsight, but, it seemed to me at the time that the answer was pretty obvious. Since their shortsighted social program to give mortgages to the unqualified was the root cause of the problem the government should have stepped up when the first waves of defaults started and, via Freddy Mack or Fannie Mae, offered low interest mortgage loans to those people who got hit with massive interest increases. Say a 4% loan for whatever the full value of the mortgage was. This would have prevented a large percentage of the defaults. Those that did occur could have been absorbed by the market or bought up by the government to be resold to needy families at reduced rates. This solution surely would have cost far less that the hundreds of billions we sent to the banks so they could pay ridiculous bonuses to their executives and the more hundreds of billions we dumped into salvaging the economy with little thought as to how to do it effectively.

There isn’t much we could do about the oil price hike except to allow it to inspire us to set up a program to achieve energy independence (see my blog on that).

One of the major negative effects of the economic downturn is the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs, especially in the upper midwest. For years the industries in those areas, especially the automotive industry, have been saddled by outdated factories and oppressive union contracts. When the downturn came the companies shuttered a lot of those factories and moved operations to more efficient plants in other parts of the country or the world. When business returned, they expanded those factories with more automation rather than reopening the outdated ones. Those manufacturing jobs are gone forever. The good news is that now the companies are more competitive, and assuming the plants are in the US, it will help the economy. However, until we can come up with some new industries to employ all those displaced workers, unemployment and underemployment are going to be a way of life.

Government and Abortion

Few subjects fuel rabid emotional hatred as effectively as the debate over abortion. People commit murder over abortion with alarming frequency. Any time some legislation comes up that involves healthcare there is a huge outpouring of rhetoric and demonstrations on both sides. This always causes huge delays in the legislation and costs taxpayers a large amount of money while the subject is endlessly debated.

In my opinion there is only one subject that is open for debate, and that is, when does a embryo become a human baby? That subject has been legally decided by Roe vs. Wade which legalized abortion. Further debate on the subject is simply a religious issue, and the constitution forbids the government to take sides in a religious issue. Therefore, further debate and any law that specifically forbids use of government money to fund abortions is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. If someone decides to introduce a bill reversing Roe vs. Wade, and it passes, and is approved by the supreme court, then things can change. But until then it is a non-issue. The government should stop wasting time and money debating something that has already been decided.

As for my own views on the subject...Since I am unlikely to ever become pregnant it is totally irrelevant.

Gay Marriage

There has been a huge amount of rhetoric and hatred expended over the concept of same sex marriage. The religious right screams that it destroys the family, is against God’s law, and anyone who participates will go to hell. They quote scripture right and left claiming that it condemns homosexuality. In my opinion, not much of it is relevant to the subject (of course the scripture quoters do not share my opinion.)

The Constitution upholds our rights to freedom of religion and I have to admit that any religion has the right to deny marriage in their church to anyone, for any reason. that reason can include homosexuality, being of mixed races or the wrong race, not being a member of that church, being too young, being divorced, or any other thing that they can think of that offends them.

This all is beyond government control, and is completely outside of the scope of the government. The problem is that the government decided to use the same word “Marriage” to define the legal contract that a couple enters in to when they take out a marriage license. This includes joint property, the right to make medical decisions, receive certain benefits from one spouses work, such as medical insurance, and the right to inherit property. 

This confusion between two distinct “marriages” is what fuels the debate. The religious right assumes that if a same sex marriage law is passed it interferes with their right to define what marriage means in their church. The Gay community simply wants the same legal rights granted to hetro-sexual couples. I seriously doubt that any of them want to be married in a church run by bigots. 

It seems to me that the solution is to make the distinction absolutely clear between religious “marriage” and legal “marriage” by either changing the name of the legal contract to something else, for both hetro-sexual and homosexual couples, or otherwise make the distinction absolutely clear. What is absolutely not acceptable is for the government to refuse to grant those legal rights to a segment of our population simply because of who they choose to love. We wouldn’t deny it because of race, religion, country of origin, or almost anything else, because it’s unconstitutional. It shouldn’t be legal to deny any segment of our population those rights either. If the basis of that denial is religious then it’s unconstitutional as well.

How the Government Can Create Jobs and Aid the Economy

The government spent a lot of money trying to get us out of the recession. I remember reading a number of accounts of how many jobs the incentive created. I also did the simple math problem <dollars spent/jobs created> and was a bit shocked to discover that the answer (depending on whose figures I used) was between $50 and $200 thousand per job. Most of those jobs went away as soon as the subsidy ran out. I also saw several of the projects that the money created. They are easy to spot as they have a big billboard proclaiming that it was built with the stimulation funds. The ones I saw were things like improving the road to a small national park, or building a government building that really wasn’t needed, and will be a drain on the public’s pocket for years. None of them had a long term positive economic impact. Since it was paid for with borrowed money it has a long term interest charge associated with it too. This is NOT the way to stimulate the economy.

Economics in my experience is not a matter of the amount of money in the system (that never changes significantly), it is a measure of how often it changes hands, or as I call it “churn”. When times are hard people hang on to their money and the churn drops off. This makes things worse in a vicious circle. When times are good people spend because they know there is money coming in, and the churn goes up. The economy just becomes better and better. So the economy is driven, to a large extent, by emotion rather than reality. Therefore there is a psychological component to economic recovery. So having a national purpose is an important component of any recovery plan. One that has been noticeably missing in the current economic recovery efforts.

Imagine the economy like a staircase. Stimulus money is like a slinky on that staircase. Every time it flips down a step it generates economic churn. Since more churn generates more economic benefits, where on the staircase would you put the slinky to generate the maximum economic effect? The top step of course. Unfortunately, most of the “economic stimulus” projects, I am aware of, are on the bottom 2 steps. 

So how do we know what step a particular program is on? It is a very complex calculation and requires a lot of data that I don’t have access to, but in general something that has lots of spinoffs and/or generates a long term economic product sits high on the staircase. A good example of that was the space program in the 60s and 70s. It funded much research into electronics, computers, lasers, communications, even was part of the reason the internet was born. Directly it brought us international satellite communications, advances in computers, imaging, medicine, and a lot of understanding of fundamental science. Furthermore it inspired several generations of students to study science and engineering.  That was a good investment for the government to make. 

A mid-level example is infrastructure improvements, road and bridge improvements, broadband communications etc. While those have more of an impact on maintaining the status quo they enable a lot of long term benefits. The interstate highway system was created in the 50s but it eventually changed the way Americans live and work as well as stimulating a huge housing boom as people moved to the suburbs.

So, what is the answer? Some of everything, with the emphasis on the higher level projects. Of course we have to do some lower level stuff too while the economy catches up such as unemployment benefits and mortgage assistance. But spend where it’ll do the most good and insist that all the work and production takes place in the US. No sense stimulating China’s economy. We need lots of infrastructure work just to keep up and a fair portion of the money should be spent there (but in projects that help or at least maintain the economy in the long run). 

We do need a flagship project that will not only have high churn but will have a positive effect on the psychology of the country. A goal worth reaching for, that everyone can understand. I propose achieving energy independence. See my blog on that for details. Not only will that generate a high churn it’ll have a very long term economic impact, and keep dollars at home and out of the hands of people who do not have our best interests at heart.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or even an economist, to understand simple economics. I just wish the president and congress did.

The Road To Energy Independence

One of the major drags on the American economy is our thirst for energy. A lot of which comes from foreign sources. This contributes a large percentage of our trade deficit and pours billions of dollars into countries who are not our friends. It is not only an economic drag but a security issue as many of those dollars end up in the hands of those who would do us harm. So the issue of reaching energy independence is vital to our country. 

We cannot reach it by drilling more oil wells or mining more coal as those have serious risks to our environment both in production and use. We must harness resources that are non-polluting, either renewable or sustainable, and economically viable. There are many options that meet those requirements. The reason we haven’t implemented them is that most of them cost more than conventional energy production or have unintended consequences.

An example of unintended consequences is electric cars. On the surface they seem non-polluting and don’t consume imported energy (i.e. oil). However the electricity has to come from somewhere and in this country it is mostly provided by coal fired plants who have minimal spare capacity. A huge surge in electric cars would bring down the grid in short order. Furthermore, is switching our cars to run on coal really the way to go? Additionally, many of the critical raw materials for the batteries come from foreign sources. Admittedly not as bad a problem as oil but still an issue.

So we need a coordinated approach to solving these issues. Since no single corporation or even a consortium can cover all the bases and there needs to be an initial investment to get it started we will have to look to the government to organize and jump start this initiative. Tax incentives, funding for basic research, and large government purchases of the final product are all needed. This initial investment will eventually lead to creation of many real jobs that last long after the government funding goes away as well as a huge boost to the economy and a new sense of national purpose and pride.

Of all the technologies for energy independence that there are, solar cells and wind turbines seem to be the closest to being viable. Wind turbines have their place, but will always suffer from high cost and maintenance issues. They are mechanical assemblies and cost reductions are harder to achieve. Additionally they do require lots of land and have environmental impacts.

Solar cells are likely the most viable short term solution. They and the associated electronics needed to couple them to the grid are for the most part subject to the drastic volume production cost reductions that we have seen in most electronic assemblies. But where do we put them? Huge solar farms that blot up thousands of acres of land..no way. Put them where they are close to the consumers of the energy, on our rooftops. A program where utility companies lease the “Sunspace” on your roof in exchange for free electricity. They re-roof your house in solar cells and you get a huge cut in your utility bills. Hey you can even have energy to charge that electric car. Furthermore, such distributed production will make it much harder for a terrorist, equipment failure, or a stupid mistake to black out a large section of the country by shutting down a critical power plant.

Solar won’t supply all our energy. There are parts of the country where it isn’t viable due to cloud cover and demand outstripping roof area as in big cities. Hybrid cars burn some gas, although much less than regular cars. It’s unlikely that electric 18 wheelers will be viable either (but hybrids seem to be worthwhile to investigate). So we will need oil and conventional power plants for the foreseeable future. However, biofuels, geothermal, water power, wind farms, and even nuclear energy can take up much of that slack. Natural gas (which we have lots of and is cleaner than coal) can power electric plants and even trucks and trains under some circumstances. One thing to remember is that we only have to cut our oil use by 40% to be energy independent. 

Of course the devil is in the details, we have to develop domestic sources for those materials we need to make all those electric car batteries and the solar cells. We need to restart the US manufacturing industry. An important thing we must do is insure that the design and production of all this stuff stays in the US. No farming out the engineering to India, or spending all the incentives to buy stuff from China. The goal is to create jobs and boost our economy as well as gain energy independence.

All this sounds complex, but it is a lot closer to reality than putting a man on the moon was in 1959. We are still reaping the benefits of that program in the form of personal computers, lasers, etc. In short it would be a sustained economic boost to the country. The seed money the government puts in will return many times over, and the security and well being of our country will be greatly enhanced.

How to Handle Healthcare Reform

Well we got a healthcare bill which was riddled with special interest riders and had most of the good parts emasculated. It will cost us a lot of money to implement and from the start was chewed up by Congress trying to undo it. In short it’s a debacle. But there is a rational way to have universal healthcare without breaking the taxpayer’s backs and building another Government bureaucracy.

First off let’s look at some issues in the current healthcare system. First, most people in the US have healthcare available at some level. The uninsured clog up ERs with problems that could have been taken care of by a family doctor if they could have gotten to see one without insurance. In many cases the problems have gotten worse by delaying treatment. Thus a problem, which could have been fixed by a $50 doctor’s visit, cost $500 for an ER visit. Someone in the healthcare system or government has to pay for this. Mostly it’s you and I, the insured, who pay higher prices for insurance so they can pay the higher costs of care so the providers can cover the losses of treating those who cannot pay.

Second, the costs in the healthcare system due to handling paperwork, in many cases equal the cost of the care. Every insurance company has it’s own set of forms and it’s own standards of treatment. Most doctors employ several people just to handle the paperwork.

Third, a large part of healthcare costs are related to malpractice lawsuits. Not only does malpractice insurance cost a huge amount, doctors are forced into a CYA mentality. This causes them to order many more tests than needed, not perform risky procedures, and stick to standard treatments rather than things that might be better for that specific patient.

Finally there is a lot of money in healthcare and medical insurance. Any type of reform that cuts out someone from the cash cow will be opposed by those being cut out and with billions of dollars in potential campaign funds at stake it is easy for those special interests to tie up congress.

So, the solution to universal healthcare has to work within the current system, and not significantly increase overall costs. That means we can’t have a new government bureaucracy formed to run it. With all that said here is my solution.

First a “minimum” standard of care needs to be written. This would be similar to a mid-level insurance benefits list. Co-pays for services and drugs and clearly stated approved treatments etc. all health insurance companies would bid on this package and a base price would be established. An insurance pool would be established consisting of everyone in the US, Employers could opt their employees out by offering a plan that was equal or better. But there would be a huge pool of people left. The pool would be divided among all the health insurance companies according to size and region The division would be selected in a way so there wouldn’t be any “cherry picking” of low risk people by any insurance company. Some flexibility would be given individuals to select their preferred insurance but there wouldn’t be much of a point, as all insurances would offer the same benefits for the same cost.

At the same time a schedule of fees would be established by the doctors and insurance companies who wish to be a part of this program so that normal procedures, office visits and such would have already established costs and there would be no surprises.

Employers could pay or subsidize their employee’s costs. Those who were self employed could pay for it themselves at the same rate as a large employer. There would be a sliding scale of subsidies for those with low incomes so anyone could afford it. All people currently on VA, Medicare or Medicaid would be placed in the pool and VA, Medicare or Medicaid would pay their premiums. The government workers currently running those programs would be adequate to handle the governments role in managing the new program so there would be no need for more government workers  to administer the program.

Where would the funds come from for the subsidies? VA, Medicare and Medicaid funding is already there, The healthcare industry as well as the insurance companies would have to chip in for some, as a price for getting their share of the pool. Why would they do this? Lowering their costs by, commonality of paperwork. Everyone is insured, everyone has the same coverage, so one form would suffice to bill insurance. Furthermore the assurance of being paid for their services should allow them to drop the bill padding to cover people who can’t pay. Electronic records keeping, insurance filing, etc. streamlines the process and minimizes the chances for errors. This should also lower the chances for malpractice suits and reduce the cost of insurance. Perhaps the government could set up an office to handle malpractice disputes and eliminate malpractice suits entirely. Hospital ERs would unclog so the real emergencies could get timely treatment and their costs would go down. In short universal healthcare would cut costs to the medical industry enough that they could afford to assist in paying for the subsidies.

With the leverage of millions of customers the insurance companies (working together since there would be no purpose in competing) could persuade the drug companies to lower prices. The drug companies would benefit because of the reduced cost of marketing, and lower chances for lawsuits, as well as assured markets, would lower their costs as well. Streamlining the drug approval process could lower costs as well. 

All in all, I would bet that the total cost of this program would not be significantly higher than what we currently pay in medical costs and other costs related to inadequate medical care. So we get universal medical care for free. It’s a win win except for the medical malpractice attorneys and all those friends of the politicians, who were expecting to feed at the government trough.

The "Debt Crisis"

As I write this, Congress is paralyzed by debate on increasing the federal debt ceiling. ALl the news media is screaming “The sky is falling.” The paralysis is over who will get to tack on their favorite pork barrel projects on to this “must have” legislation. As well as who will be able to take credit for the “debt reduction” that will also be attached. The rhetoric is getting almost ridiculous as even the President adds fuel to the flames by saying things like “I can’t guarantee that Social Security checks will go out in August if the ceiling isn’t raised.” Of course he can’t, he has NO control over Social Security (who by the way has plenty of money to pay checks for the foreseeable future). But this is simply a scare tactic to get the people to pressurize the Congress to vote for the president’s package, which you can bet pours a lot of money to his supporters.

As I hear from the decidedly biased news, the debate is over a few billion dollars here and there, some of which is already in place like reductions in the war in Afghanistan. All of this is in the face of a 14.6 TRILLION debt. A few billion dollars will only pay the interest on that debt for a few days (the interest is about a Billion dollars a day). We need debt reductions in the trillions to make any meaningful reductions.

We have been warned that if we default on raising the debt ceiling our credit rating will be downgraded, which will increase the cost of borrowing money. Well, since if we can’t raise the debt ceiling, we can’t borrow any more, what does it matter? Is it so bad that the country has to live within it’s means? Besides most of this debt is owed to foreign investors like the China government. Not many of them have our best interests at heart. Defaulting on that might not be a bad idea.

Hey we could even declare bankruptcy and dump all that debt, then use the money we would have payed in interest to invest in some really meaningful things like energy independence and rebuilding the country’s manufacturing infrastructure. Not so bad cause our credit rating would already be in the tank. We’d have to be independent, because no foreign countries would trade with us. Again, this might not be such a bad thing.

OK, yes, I agree that bankruptcy would be a bad idea, but as a worse case scenario it isn't as bad as what some of the media (and the government) says will happen. Besides, what is so hard about passing a bill that raises the debt ceiling enough to give us time to balance the budget. Just leave off all the riders and pass the damn bill.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog. I started this because I feel that the US Government has reached a point of irrationality. The cost of running for public office has become so huge that everyone in Congress and the president spends all their time worrying about repaying their campaign contributors and lining their own pockets. This has lead to total disconnect from what they are supposed to be doing in Washington, running the country in an efficient manner that benefits everyone.

I’m going to post some pretty far out stuff here. Some of which even I believe is grossly oversimplified, and not necessarily well researched. The purpose is to stimulate my readers to think outside the box. Look beyond the canned and badly biased news reports to the real truth.

Give me your feedback and criticism, point out my errors, and flame me if you like. If you’d like me to comment on some subject let me know. Just remember the opinions I express are mine and I don’t expect, or even want, you to agree 100% with me, just think about the subject, and get motivated to demand rationality in government.