When looking over the UN summit and the great G20 conference swamping Pittsburgh at the moment, I'll turn my focus to the foreign policy issues being discussed. Despite the more entertaining elements of the climate change debate and the ever "interesting" stump speaking of Libyan dictator Mommar Khaddafy and the Iranian Prime Minister *unspellable* Ahmini-*unpronouncable*, the present issue on my mind is the Administration's questionable (in my mind) response to any foreign quibble with American policy being to apologize for whatever perceived past wrong we've inflicted and to remedy it through some unilateral concession. The issue this week that caused some stir of course was the decision to remove the missile shield programs placed in the Czech Republic and Poland, seemingly as a way to appease the Russian disagreements with our placing a missile shield against Iran or other possible threats, in their former vassal states. To me this argument by the Russians would be more valid if it were any of the former subject states of the Russian Empire proper (Poland having been continually partitioned during that period) such as the Ukraine or the Baltic States. However, the Poles have good reason for seeking our protection based on that country's unfortunate history and it seems wrong, considering their and the Czechs' support of our policies in recent years, to throw them under the bus against their governments' wishes, in a public manner.
Though the Administration stated that the removal of the missile defense system is one meant to save costs and will be more efficiently pursued from Naval-based platforms, particularly (in a case with Iran's nuclear arm, in the Persian Gulf) The public nature of the program seems keyed more towards appeasing the Russians in a manner to make their foreign policy more friendly towards our aims. That their President Dmitry Medvedev implied Russian "might" be more favorably disposed towards sanctions toward Iran in certain circumstances. I'm skeptical of any Russian policy statement that does not clearly include Vladimir Putin, presently the Prime Minister. If the conduct of Russia's "short victorious war abroad" in the Republic of Georgia in 2008 is any indication, Putin is still largely in charge of foreign affairs from a functional standpoint. It was Putin meeting with and dispatching Russian generals to the front at the time, and it seems unlikely that he would take any unilateral concession from the United States as sign to put more pressure on Iran than he was already willing to. This is the Russian government that seems to endorse the murder of opposition journalists by para-military thugs and maintain foreign policy as a zero-sum game.
Part of my justification for this is that the Russians ALWAYS have seen foreign policy as a zero sum game, dating back centuries. When diplomat and Russian history expert George Kennan wrote his famous "Long Telegram" from Moscow in 1946, he stated essentially that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union was essentially that of the Russian Empire writ-large--- expand into Eastern Europe and maintain a buffer of states as guard against any future aggression or perceived threat. In Russia's subsequent history I see no reason to change that assumption, that Russia's policy is that of the Soviet Union from a weakened standpoint-- as Russia's situation improves somewhat under the admittedly very competent government of Putin and his allies, they will continue to try and exercise a level of control over their former subject states-- the Baltic states, Ukraine, and possibly farther West. I fear all this removal of the missile shield in such a public manner has accomplished is to discourage Eastern Europe from siding with the West in disputes that risk the disfavor of the Russians. It may also embolden the Russians to feel they've a free hand in their former sphere of influence.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Pharmaceutical Problems
We should be making profits on the great medical technology we export around the world. The United States is home to the most cutting edge medical and pharmaceutical research facilities some of which are not too far away from my old home town in Central New Jersey. Johnson and Johnson, Sheering-Plough, Merk, and Glaxo Smith Kline all have research facilities off Route One in the much maligned state of New Jersey. The reason we are not able to export our great new technologies at a profit is due to the socialized nations of Canada and Europe. Since they offer caps on prices for drugs and negotiate as entire nations they can get better prices. Since the price is pushed down by foreign governments the price of drugs in the US goes up. This is therefore a subsidy to develop drugs in the united states that are exported at a net loss to the American citizen. Americans want to see more drugs developed that will help to make people better off. The problem is that other nations love letting us pay for the drugs development and getting the drugs at artificially low prices.
I think there are a few options here. I for one would like to see drugs continue to be developed in the United States however I think it is wrong that Canada and other countries refuse to pay a fair price as dictated by market forces. I say we make it illegal for drug companies to sell drugs at vastly different prices to different countries. Maybe if other countries cannot access our prescription drugs they will finally realize that we have been doing them a favor all along. I realize that profits would decrease briefly thereby temporarily slowing R&D but I think it is important for Europeans to realize that the drugs the average American is paying for is saving their lives or increasing the quality there of. We pay for drug advancements and you shouldn’t be able to get the care and drugs without paying a fair price. Here’s a good site that gives some facts and other suggestions about how to fix this problem. http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html
I think there are a few options here. I for one would like to see drugs continue to be developed in the United States however I think it is wrong that Canada and other countries refuse to pay a fair price as dictated by market forces. I say we make it illegal for drug companies to sell drugs at vastly different prices to different countries. Maybe if other countries cannot access our prescription drugs they will finally realize that we have been doing them a favor all along. I realize that profits would decrease briefly thereby temporarily slowing R&D but I think it is important for Europeans to realize that the drugs the average American is paying for is saving their lives or increasing the quality there of. We pay for drug advancements and you shouldn’t be able to get the care and drugs without paying a fair price. Here’s a good site that gives some facts and other suggestions about how to fix this problem. http://www.supplementquality.com/news/skyrocketing_drug_costs.html
Thursday, September 17, 2009
NRA, say whaaat?
In 2006, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Tom Menino formed the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, whose mission statement reads that "support for Second Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping illegal guns out of the hands of criminals." At first glance, this seems like a natural relationship among politicians that have a vested interest in lowering crime and instances of illegal gun usage; the NRA, on the other hand, begs to differ.
Despite what conservative second-amendment fanatics may suggest, MAIG is not a liberal machine in the slightest. It strives to preserve states' rights regarding weapons, having helped defeat the Thune amendment, and tracks the use of illegal guns by terrorists in order to demonstrate the need for legislation tailored against people seeking to obtain weapons illegally (not registered guns or their owners at large). Hell, even Walmart is in on the fun, participating as part of the Responsibe Firearms Retailer Partnership. No joke.
But, somehow without surprise, the NRA is on the attack. Mayors that have joined MAIG are now being targeted by phone and mailer campaigns that smear them as members of an extremist anti-gun movement. Regardless of how the mayors actually feel about the Second Amendment (and many of them are advocates for the right bear arms), the NRA is dragging their reputations down among communities for whom this issue can decide a vote one way or another. The only machine in this situation is the NRA, which won't bother to look into MAIG activities but instead self-induces the stereotype of the "bitter gun owner" that Obama received so much flack for mentioning. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that stereotype is alive and well within the NRA; all guns, all the time. Should we just be handing them out to everyone on the street? How's that for a pro-gun campaign.
Despite what conservative second-amendment fanatics may suggest, MAIG is not a liberal machine in the slightest. It strives to preserve states' rights regarding weapons, having helped defeat the Thune amendment, and tracks the use of illegal guns by terrorists in order to demonstrate the need for legislation tailored against people seeking to obtain weapons illegally (not registered guns or their owners at large). Hell, even Walmart is in on the fun, participating as part of the Responsibe Firearms Retailer Partnership. No joke.
But, somehow without surprise, the NRA is on the attack. Mayors that have joined MAIG are now being targeted by phone and mailer campaigns that smear them as members of an extremist anti-gun movement. Regardless of how the mayors actually feel about the Second Amendment (and many of them are advocates for the right bear arms), the NRA is dragging their reputations down among communities for whom this issue can decide a vote one way or another. The only machine in this situation is the NRA, which won't bother to look into MAIG activities but instead self-induces the stereotype of the "bitter gun owner" that Obama received so much flack for mentioning. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that stereotype is alive and well within the NRA; all guns, all the time. Should we just be handing them out to everyone on the street? How's that for a pro-gun campaign.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Dream Big
It has been one year since the financial collapse of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the largest financial crisis in the modern era. Over the past couple of months the problems on Wall Street lead to problems on Main Street. People are out of work and trying to figure how to pick up the pieces. As people find themselves out of work I find myself wondering if this financial collapse will lead to a new era in American history. I wonder what areas of the economy will prosperous and which will go the way of Lehman.
The Financial and Insurance sectors have grown from 2.7% of GDP in 1950 to its 8.1% peak in 2006. If you include real estate in with financials the combined percentage of the economy was 20.4% which is far larger than any other part of the American Economy. The only other sector that has grown by a comparable amount has been the Professional and Business services sector which includes lawyers and scientists. The professional and business sectors grew from 3.7% in 1950 to 12.7%. The increases in these sectors have come primarily from the decrease in manufacturing which has decreased from 27% in 1950 down to 11.5% in 2009. There is no way to completely predict the way the United States economy will look in 15 or 20 years but we need to talk as a country about what we want the country to look like. If we don’t have a big vision for the country I worry about our future prosperity.
Any vision is some vision: One vision for the country is that of the environmentalists that favor huge expenditures on developing green technology in order to make the country a prettier place. This vision is one of wind turbines in every field and solar panels on every household. Eventually we would become so good at developing this technology that we will export it all over the world thereby decreasing our trade deficit and increasing prosperity. This vision at least sets up the country to export products around the world like we did with financial products over the past decade. I would argue that this vision doesn’t go far enough to power the future of innovation. These means of alternative energy are hard to transport across the country.
I say the most important thing to our country in the future is developing large labs that engage in primary research. So many of all the great technological developments of the past century have come because of the government or through government sanctioned monopoly i.e. the phone company. If we really wanted to invest in the country we should double or triple our research and do it in an effective way. I think the first thing that we need to do is develop a fusion process that generates net energy. There has to be a way and we can do it. We have a couple of facilities working on it now. If the president set big goals like powering 20% of the country by fusion by 2020, that would be huge. And the power source could pay off in, as of now, unimagined ways. We can do it and people shouldn’t doubt the human ability to invent and innovate. This power could fuel innovation in more primary research that isn’t feasible right now. And this is a technology that we could export around the world.
Some believe that the financial crisis will decrease the influence of finance in the near future thereby dcreasing one of our major exports around the world. I say lets invest in the long term and in projects that wont yeild results for 10 or 20 years. The investments we have made in the past as a country and government have been good ones. I say lets become a fusion powered country and travel the solar system. That’s my idea of dreaming big.
The Financial and Insurance sectors have grown from 2.7% of GDP in 1950 to its 8.1% peak in 2006. If you include real estate in with financials the combined percentage of the economy was 20.4% which is far larger than any other part of the American Economy. The only other sector that has grown by a comparable amount has been the Professional and Business services sector which includes lawyers and scientists. The professional and business sectors grew from 3.7% in 1950 to 12.7%. The increases in these sectors have come primarily from the decrease in manufacturing which has decreased from 27% in 1950 down to 11.5% in 2009. There is no way to completely predict the way the United States economy will look in 15 or 20 years but we need to talk as a country about what we want the country to look like. If we don’t have a big vision for the country I worry about our future prosperity.
Any vision is some vision: One vision for the country is that of the environmentalists that favor huge expenditures on developing green technology in order to make the country a prettier place. This vision is one of wind turbines in every field and solar panels on every household. Eventually we would become so good at developing this technology that we will export it all over the world thereby decreasing our trade deficit and increasing prosperity. This vision at least sets up the country to export products around the world like we did with financial products over the past decade. I would argue that this vision doesn’t go far enough to power the future of innovation. These means of alternative energy are hard to transport across the country.
I say the most important thing to our country in the future is developing large labs that engage in primary research. So many of all the great technological developments of the past century have come because of the government or through government sanctioned monopoly i.e. the phone company. If we really wanted to invest in the country we should double or triple our research and do it in an effective way. I think the first thing that we need to do is develop a fusion process that generates net energy. There has to be a way and we can do it. We have a couple of facilities working on it now. If the president set big goals like powering 20% of the country by fusion by 2020, that would be huge. And the power source could pay off in, as of now, unimagined ways. We can do it and people shouldn’t doubt the human ability to invent and innovate. This power could fuel innovation in more primary research that isn’t feasible right now. And this is a technology that we could export around the world.
Some believe that the financial crisis will decrease the influence of finance in the near future thereby dcreasing one of our major exports around the world. I say lets invest in the long term and in projects that wont yeild results for 10 or 20 years. The investments we have made in the past as a country and government have been good ones. I say lets become a fusion powered country and travel the solar system. That’s my idea of dreaming big.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Innovation and Taxation
I read a NY Times article in the Sunday paper that really got me psyched about the economic policies our President is putting forth as they pertain to innovating our economy for long term sustainable growth. The article outlines the story of a hard working woman whose life spiraled out of financial control because of the failing economy. She went from making $52,000 a year to being homeless practically begging for a job while trying to piece her life back together in a homeless shelter. The end of the article suggests that the portion of the economic stimulus package that puts money into the alternative energy and energy sectors of our economy will help us move towards sustainable growth. While the article makes purely qualitative assertions I believe that in terms of money we will reap the benefits of these investments for many years to come.
The conventional wisdom when discussing fixing the economy is two sided. The right believes that we should lower taxes thus putting money into people’s pockets to spend in the economy while the left side argues that increasing government spending will create jobs and put money into people’s pockets. This wisdom is correct but misleading. Simply putting money into people’s pockets is the equivalent to placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. What our economy desperately needed and continues to need is new places to turn to create new money.
Clearly we are at a pivotal time in our economic history and the last thing we need is more of the same policies (band-aids) to help our economy grow. In the short run putting money into consumer’s pockets will help but in the long run our government needs to invest into innovation so that we can have long term growth. Along with that, cutting taxes will also help our economy. However, I believe that many of these tax reforms needs not be done at the federal level but rather at the state level. Our federal government has a relatively standardized taxation method. While some might disagree, it is simple for me to pay my taxes to the federal government and I can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty how much I will be giving to the IRS each year. What needs to end is the state and local governments (and to some extent the federal government) nickel and diming us into submission every time we make a purchase.
For example, the federal government’s recent decision to raise taxes on cigarettes is a regressive tax and one that, as a democrat, I cannot support. I believe that tax hikes should be placed on those that can afford tax hikes, not on those that are living paycheck to paycheck and sin taxes disproportionately affect the poor. Property tax reform is desperately needed as well especially in Pennsylvania where property taxes are unpredictable and housing is reappraised constantly to assure that the government is getting its fair share.
Thus, we need to make our taxation system more standardized so that people know what their going to pay each year, rather than increasing our sales taxes and EIT’s at the local level.
The conventional wisdom when discussing fixing the economy is two sided. The right believes that we should lower taxes thus putting money into people’s pockets to spend in the economy while the left side argues that increasing government spending will create jobs and put money into people’s pockets. This wisdom is correct but misleading. Simply putting money into people’s pockets is the equivalent to placing a band-aid on a bullet wound. What our economy desperately needed and continues to need is new places to turn to create new money.
Clearly we are at a pivotal time in our economic history and the last thing we need is more of the same policies (band-aids) to help our economy grow. In the short run putting money into consumer’s pockets will help but in the long run our government needs to invest into innovation so that we can have long term growth. Along with that, cutting taxes will also help our economy. However, I believe that many of these tax reforms needs not be done at the federal level but rather at the state level. Our federal government has a relatively standardized taxation method. While some might disagree, it is simple for me to pay my taxes to the federal government and I can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty how much I will be giving to the IRS each year. What needs to end is the state and local governments (and to some extent the federal government) nickel and diming us into submission every time we make a purchase.
For example, the federal government’s recent decision to raise taxes on cigarettes is a regressive tax and one that, as a democrat, I cannot support. I believe that tax hikes should be placed on those that can afford tax hikes, not on those that are living paycheck to paycheck and sin taxes disproportionately affect the poor. Property tax reform is desperately needed as well especially in Pennsylvania where property taxes are unpredictable and housing is reappraised constantly to assure that the government is getting its fair share.
Thus, we need to make our taxation system more standardized so that people know what their going to pay each year, rather than increasing our sales taxes and EIT’s at the local level.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Fall 2009 Governor's Race- Part 1- - Because polling data for Adams County Sheriff was not available.
Steering away from healthcare for a moment (as I'm sure this debate is far from over and I can contribute my comments at some point) I'm going to dedicate a few posts to the upcoming elections in both 2009 and 2010. The 2009 gubernatiorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey can, and the 2010 midterms will, be seen as the first public referendums on any large scale during the Obama Administration. Tonight's post will focus on the elections in Virginia and New Jersey coming up in early November. The next post will get into elements of the much larger topic of the midterms.
I figure it best the break the two elections down into a few categories:
The States:
Virginia- 2008- Obama - 53 McCain 46- 2004 - Bush- 54- Kerry- 45-
In recent years, Virginia - Republican in every Presidential election since 1964 until 2008 has trended to a swing state with increasing Democratic strength at the Congressional level- In the very democratic year of 2006 - Senator George Allen was knocked of fby Marine Veteran and Reagan Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb (fairly tailor made for Virginia- a Vietnam veteran, gun-toting, folksy, technocrat) by a few thousand votes. In 2008, former Governor Mark Warner (possibly the most electable man I've heard of this side of Dwight Eisenhower) overwhelmingly walked into an open Senate seate previously held by Republican John Warner. Obama picked up the state -- but since his election it appears that Virginia turned blue out of a tendency toward moderation and disatisfaction with the Bush administration rather than an embracing of Progressive political causes. Also of interesting note, the one-term limited governor's seat has since the late 1970s, always opted for the opposite party of the recent Presidential winner-- Republican in the late 70s, Democratic in the 80s, Republican 1993 and 1997 and back to the Democrats in 2001 and 2005. Recent electoral history favors the Democrats, the historic trend and the stagnating polls of the President (Republicans have recently been picking off city council seats and local elections in the Northern Virginia suburbs) have given momentum back to the GOP in the state.
The Candidates: Robert McDonnell (R) vs R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Republicans in the state quickly rallied around former Attorney General Robert "Bob" McDonnell, who recently resigned the position he won (over Deeds ironically enough) in 2005, to run . McDonnell is a northern-Virginia based conservative with an economy and job creation based campaign and a fairly strong record (20 years in the Army certainly doesn't hurt either). State Senator Creigh Deeds is from the rural Southern area of the state and won a contested Democratic primary against more liberal opponents (including former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe). Though able to attract support from rural areas more effectively than most Democrats, Deeds may be handicapped by the Obama Administration's difficulties, the conservative leaning independents and nominal Democrats he may be trying to court might like him, but dislike Obama even more and vote as a protest against his policies. It does not take a very large stretch of the imagination to view Virginia's contrarian electoral habits as in part being a reaction to Washington sitting just over the Potomac. McDonnell's focus on the Northern Virginia suburbs might well be more effective to his cause as well. McDonnell recently has been underfire via the Washington Post over elements of his master's thesis at Regents University, where he makes some questionable statements over working women and working mothers. However, he seems to have not suffered particulary in the polls, and has partially touched on this, albeit in treacly fashion in this campaign ad-- mentioning his working mother and his Iraq vet daughter.
The Polls: The race, particulary since July have favored McDonnell by a statistically significant margin: the most recent Rasmussen poll favors McDonnell 49 to 39, while the most recent survey USA poll has him over the 50% mark at 54- 43, while the Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling recently rated the race (the earliest of these polls was taken the last day of August) McDonnel 49 to 42 as well. The average margin of error is 4%
My view: Barring some unpredictable events-- The Democrats would consider themselves very lucky to lose this one narrowly (under 4 points perhaps). If McDonnell wins by over 5, and particularly if he approaches an over 10 point margin victory- the Republicans could find themselves with a nice shot in the arm for the 2010 elections. If Virginia is starting to trend back towards the Republicans (taking back a couple marginal House seats in 2010 would be the real confirmation) it could signal some serious issues with Obama's ability to hold together his coalition.
As it is getting late-- tomorrow I will do my best to post my overview on the New Jersey Governor's Election in 2009.
I figure it best the break the two elections down into a few categories:
The States:
Virginia- 2008- Obama - 53 McCain 46- 2004 - Bush- 54- Kerry- 45-
In recent years, Virginia - Republican in every Presidential election since 1964 until 2008 has trended to a swing state with increasing Democratic strength at the Congressional level- In the very democratic year of 2006 - Senator George Allen was knocked of fby Marine Veteran and Reagan Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb (fairly tailor made for Virginia- a Vietnam veteran, gun-toting, folksy, technocrat) by a few thousand votes. In 2008, former Governor Mark Warner (possibly the most electable man I've heard of this side of Dwight Eisenhower) overwhelmingly walked into an open Senate seate previously held by Republican John Warner. Obama picked up the state -- but since his election it appears that Virginia turned blue out of a tendency toward moderation and disatisfaction with the Bush administration rather than an embracing of Progressive political causes. Also of interesting note, the one-term limited governor's seat has since the late 1970s, always opted for the opposite party of the recent Presidential winner-- Republican in the late 70s, Democratic in the 80s, Republican 1993 and 1997 and back to the Democrats in 2001 and 2005. Recent electoral history favors the Democrats, the historic trend and the stagnating polls of the President (Republicans have recently been picking off city council seats and local elections in the Northern Virginia suburbs) have given momentum back to the GOP in the state.
The Candidates: Robert McDonnell (R) vs R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Republicans in the state quickly rallied around former Attorney General Robert "Bob" McDonnell, who recently resigned the position he won (over Deeds ironically enough) in 2005, to run . McDonnell is a northern-Virginia based conservative with an economy and job creation based campaign and a fairly strong record (20 years in the Army certainly doesn't hurt either). State Senator Creigh Deeds is from the rural Southern area of the state and won a contested Democratic primary against more liberal opponents (including former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe). Though able to attract support from rural areas more effectively than most Democrats, Deeds may be handicapped by the Obama Administration's difficulties, the conservative leaning independents and nominal Democrats he may be trying to court might like him, but dislike Obama even more and vote as a protest against his policies. It does not take a very large stretch of the imagination to view Virginia's contrarian electoral habits as in part being a reaction to Washington sitting just over the Potomac. McDonnell's focus on the Northern Virginia suburbs might well be more effective to his cause as well. McDonnell recently has been underfire via the Washington Post over elements of his master's thesis at Regents University, where he makes some questionable statements over working women and working mothers. However, he seems to have not suffered particulary in the polls, and has partially touched on this, albeit in treacly fashion in this campaign ad-- mentioning his working mother and his Iraq vet daughter.
The Polls: The race, particulary since July have favored McDonnell by a statistically significant margin: the most recent Rasmussen poll favors McDonnell 49 to 39, while the most recent survey USA poll has him over the 50% mark at 54- 43, while the Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling recently rated the race (the earliest of these polls was taken the last day of August) McDonnel 49 to 42 as well. The average margin of error is 4%
My view: Barring some unpredictable events-- The Democrats would consider themselves very lucky to lose this one narrowly (under 4 points perhaps). If McDonnell wins by over 5, and particularly if he approaches an over 10 point margin victory- the Republicans could find themselves with a nice shot in the arm for the 2010 elections. If Virginia is starting to trend back towards the Republicans (taking back a couple marginal House seats in 2010 would be the real confirmation) it could signal some serious issues with Obama's ability to hold together his coalition.
As it is getting late-- tomorrow I will do my best to post my overview on the New Jersey Governor's Election in 2009.
3 Days Left to Vote!!!!
Just so everyone knows there are three days left to vote for our poll! Even though we only have 9 votes thus far and may not get many more I just wanted people to know that I am sending the results to the white house haha.
The healthy, wealthy, and wise
The speech President Obama delivered last night was a long time coming. Personally, I was sick of the "town-hall" debates over health insurance this summer that featured most prominently exagerrated misconceptions and mudslinging rather than policy details. I also believe that it was about time the administration made their platform on healthcare clear, which was successfully done before the very representatives who need to put all the pieces together in Congress.
Health insurance reform needs to be reframed from the perspective that the rich will be paying for the poor and lazy to see doctors, to the understanding that it benefits every American for every American to be insured from the start. By alleviating the uninsured with affordable and accessible plans for coverage, those that already have health insurance reduce the amount of money they pay each year to cover other people's uninsured emergency room visits and treatment.
But the insurance companies also have to be reined in. Everyday, hardworking citizens are denied access to necessary medical attention because insurance companies can cast those with chronic illness or disease aside as economic liabilities instead of recognizing the need for critical care and fulfilling it. As a system driven only by cost/benefits, that is a profitable practice, but doesn't exactly serve the American public the way we deserve. At the other end of the equation, doctors and hospitals, advocacy groups and drug companies have shown willingness to work for a more effective and compassionate reality.
Now, as left-wing as I may be, I don't think that the solution is a singular government-sponsored, socialist system. American principles dictate exactly the opposite, in favor of capitalism and market competition. But the addition of a government-sponsored option in the health insurance industry would stimulate the capitalism in that arena, leading to competitive pricing with higher quality options made more affordable. Insurance will become available to those currently without it, and insurance companies will gain millions of new customers. Capitalism at work, benefitting the public.
For people that can't afford any of the options that open up, a tax credit will be available. This is not a new mechanism in the American government. For example, if a family cannot afford food, they receive food stamps; if they are not making enough money to pay for housing, subsidized housing and welfare are available. As Nate Silver describes in this article, areas with high poverty rates have more support for the public option, whether they support Republicans or Democrats. I think this relationship demonstrates that the insurance debate is no longer just about party politics.
What's great is that if an American wants to keep the insurance they already have, they can. This plan requires no change for those that don't want it; the bill Obama proposes will actually improve the insurance coverage of those who don't want to change theirs by making it illegal for insurance companies to decrease or drop coverage of people with preexisting illness or whose condition worsens. Preventative procedures will also be covered by law, which means that less money can be spent on conditions as they are caught earlier.
To pay for the reforms proposed, money previously wasted in subsidies and fraud within insurance companies will be used. By increasing the effectiveness of Medicare and Medicaid, additional funds will be available to foot the bill. And by requiring that every American have insurance, those that currently are able to pay but choose not to will be supporting the system.
As Obama said last night, "it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch." The points he described all tend to stabilize a healthcare system that has, in the past, been unpredictable and unstable. Individual health is variable and uncertain; the ability to pay for medical attention shouldn't be.
Health insurance reform needs to be reframed from the perspective that the rich will be paying for the poor and lazy to see doctors, to the understanding that it benefits every American for every American to be insured from the start. By alleviating the uninsured with affordable and accessible plans for coverage, those that already have health insurance reduce the amount of money they pay each year to cover other people's uninsured emergency room visits and treatment.
But the insurance companies also have to be reined in. Everyday, hardworking citizens are denied access to necessary medical attention because insurance companies can cast those with chronic illness or disease aside as economic liabilities instead of recognizing the need for critical care and fulfilling it. As a system driven only by cost/benefits, that is a profitable practice, but doesn't exactly serve the American public the way we deserve. At the other end of the equation, doctors and hospitals, advocacy groups and drug companies have shown willingness to work for a more effective and compassionate reality.
Now, as left-wing as I may be, I don't think that the solution is a singular government-sponsored, socialist system. American principles dictate exactly the opposite, in favor of capitalism and market competition. But the addition of a government-sponsored option in the health insurance industry would stimulate the capitalism in that arena, leading to competitive pricing with higher quality options made more affordable. Insurance will become available to those currently without it, and insurance companies will gain millions of new customers. Capitalism at work, benefitting the public.
For people that can't afford any of the options that open up, a tax credit will be available. This is not a new mechanism in the American government. For example, if a family cannot afford food, they receive food stamps; if they are not making enough money to pay for housing, subsidized housing and welfare are available. As Nate Silver describes in this article, areas with high poverty rates have more support for the public option, whether they support Republicans or Democrats. I think this relationship demonstrates that the insurance debate is no longer just about party politics.
What's great is that if an American wants to keep the insurance they already have, they can. This plan requires no change for those that don't want it; the bill Obama proposes will actually improve the insurance coverage of those who don't want to change theirs by making it illegal for insurance companies to decrease or drop coverage of people with preexisting illness or whose condition worsens. Preventative procedures will also be covered by law, which means that less money can be spent on conditions as they are caught earlier.
To pay for the reforms proposed, money previously wasted in subsidies and fraud within insurance companies will be used. By increasing the effectiveness of Medicare and Medicaid, additional funds will be available to foot the bill. And by requiring that every American have insurance, those that currently are able to pay but choose not to will be supporting the system.
As Obama said last night, "it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch." The points he described all tend to stabilize a healthcare system that has, in the past, been unpredictable and unstable. Individual health is variable and uncertain; the ability to pay for medical attention shouldn't be.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Limitation on New Enrollment
Healthcare
While there is no doubt in my mind that this topic will come up over and over again in the near future, my first official post relates to one piece of the insanely overwhelming healthcare debate. What I find so interesting about this topic is there are so many different ideas that there is no prevailing conventional wisdom. When I ask people about this issue and the proposed legislation it seems there are at least two conventional wisdoms if not more. The ideological left views healthcare as a fundamental right that the government must provide to its citizens, while the right views healthcare as a right that cannot be taken away or infringed upon by the government. This to me is the most essential ideological debate going on in this enormous issue. All honest Liberals would prefer one single payer national healthcare program while the far right is in favor of decentralizing healthcare in favor of creating more competitive markets for healthcare. I think that both of these plans could reduce costs which is something that everyone is in favor of which is why that’s what they talk about since, who could be in favor of increasing costs for the same quality system. Answer? No one. But really people could care less ideologically about reducing costs except for Ron Paul who is having a conniption as I write this post. Honestly with the size of this deficit and involvement of the Fed I am shocked that Ron hasn’t duck tapped himself to the top of a large Midwestern cross to draw attention to the deficit. If the Fed gets anymore power I think he is going to lose it and exercise his second amendment rights against Uncle Ben Bernanke.
But I hugely digress. As with many debates the spin machines on both sides tend to find the most powerful rhetoric to energize their side while not alienating centrist voters. The President for example has said over and over again that if people like their healthcare they can keep it. The right on the other hand says that the government plan will take over almost immediately. Like in Many debates the truth is somewhere in the middle.
HR 3200 states
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
I know I had to read this a few times to understand it but it says that, while people are free to keep the coverage they have since it will be grandfathered in, if you lose your job you can’t have coverage like that anymore since the health insurance company can’t enroll you in that same coverage anymore. So unless you retain your healthcare coverage you will need to change to a plan that you may not want in the future. That’s just the way it is.
While there is no doubt in my mind that this topic will come up over and over again in the near future, my first official post relates to one piece of the insanely overwhelming healthcare debate. What I find so interesting about this topic is there are so many different ideas that there is no prevailing conventional wisdom. When I ask people about this issue and the proposed legislation it seems there are at least two conventional wisdoms if not more. The ideological left views healthcare as a fundamental right that the government must provide to its citizens, while the right views healthcare as a right that cannot be taken away or infringed upon by the government. This to me is the most essential ideological debate going on in this enormous issue. All honest Liberals would prefer one single payer national healthcare program while the far right is in favor of decentralizing healthcare in favor of creating more competitive markets for healthcare. I think that both of these plans could reduce costs which is something that everyone is in favor of which is why that’s what they talk about since, who could be in favor of increasing costs for the same quality system. Answer? No one. But really people could care less ideologically about reducing costs except for Ron Paul who is having a conniption as I write this post. Honestly with the size of this deficit and involvement of the Fed I am shocked that Ron hasn’t duck tapped himself to the top of a large Midwestern cross to draw attention to the deficit. If the Fed gets anymore power I think he is going to lose it and exercise his second amendment rights against Uncle Ben Bernanke.
But I hugely digress. As with many debates the spin machines on both sides tend to find the most powerful rhetoric to energize their side while not alienating centrist voters. The President for example has said over and over again that if people like their healthcare they can keep it. The right on the other hand says that the government plan will take over almost immediately. Like in Many debates the truth is somewhere in the middle.
HR 3200 states
GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.-(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
I know I had to read this a few times to understand it but it says that, while people are free to keep the coverage they have since it will be grandfathered in, if you lose your job you can’t have coverage like that anymore since the health insurance company can’t enroll you in that same coverage anymore. So unless you retain your healthcare coverage you will need to change to a plan that you may not want in the future. That’s just the way it is.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Saving Money Saves Time
When I ran across this (on the saving rate, sorry but for some reason its not accepting my links!?) article in the New York Times I was hardly surprised by the news. For decades Americans have been spending more money than they have been saving. Even though our economy is consumer driven, it is of utmost importance that we begin to wane the culture of excess spending and begin to live more frugally. Conventional wisdom suggests that the way to stimulate the economy is to provide disposable income for Americans to spend which will generate profit in businesses. If a business is generating profit then it will have more income to hire employees thus creating more jobs and therefore more disposable income. This model is not incorrect by any means but this model fails us in a plethora of ways. Let’s say the government was going to give me $500 to spend. If I took that $500 and put $100 into a savings account and only spent $400 then I would still be stimulating the economy and following the model. However, the extra $100 which I placed into a savings account will turn into more money. Therefore, the more I save in the short term, the more disposable income I will have in the long run.
Thus, saving is also good for the economy and there are a few remedies for the shortfall of savings we have currently.
Creating a culture of saving
Creating a culture of saving is integral to creating a more fiscally sound and stable economy. We can do this in two ways. The first way is to have the department of education implement a financial planning curriculum for schools across the country. Starting in the first grade students should learn about money and how to manage it. By the time we are 6 or 7 years old we are receiving money and its left up to parents to educate children about what to do with it. The book Rich Dad Poor Dad outlines the different ways high and low income parents teach their children what to do with money. If we implement a comprehensive financial education program we can increase the savings rate and thus create a more stable economy.
The second way to create a culture of saving is to pass the ASPIRE act. This ASPIRE act provides all children with a $500 lifetime savings account at birth that can only be accessed for educational expenses, the purchase of a new home, or in retirement. However, the child and parents have control over the money in the account and thus can invest it however they choose. A lifetime savings account at birth coupled with comprehensive financial education will create a wealthier society with more disposable income and thus breed a stronger American economy. The best part of the ASPIRE act is that it is cheap! According to the CDC, about 4 million babies are born each year. Thus the ASPIRE act would cost the American people about $2 billion each year or .06% of the federal budget (based on a $3 trillion dollar federal budget).
Surely creating a culture of saving in the Untied States will boost our economy and create a more stable economic environment for our future! Remember that what we ultimately purchase with money is time and by saving more now we purchase time in the future.
Thus, saving is also good for the economy and there are a few remedies for the shortfall of savings we have currently.
Creating a culture of saving
Creating a culture of saving is integral to creating a more fiscally sound and stable economy. We can do this in two ways. The first way is to have the department of education implement a financial planning curriculum for schools across the country. Starting in the first grade students should learn about money and how to manage it. By the time we are 6 or 7 years old we are receiving money and its left up to parents to educate children about what to do with it. The book Rich Dad Poor Dad outlines the different ways high and low income parents teach their children what to do with money. If we implement a comprehensive financial education program we can increase the savings rate and thus create a more stable economy.
The second way to create a culture of saving is to pass the ASPIRE act. This ASPIRE act provides all children with a $500 lifetime savings account at birth that can only be accessed for educational expenses, the purchase of a new home, or in retirement. However, the child and parents have control over the money in the account and thus can invest it however they choose. A lifetime savings account at birth coupled with comprehensive financial education will create a wealthier society with more disposable income and thus breed a stronger American economy. The best part of the ASPIRE act is that it is cheap! According to the CDC, about 4 million babies are born each year. Thus the ASPIRE act would cost the American people about $2 billion each year or .06% of the federal budget (based on a $3 trillion dollar federal budget).
Surely creating a culture of saving in the Untied States will boost our economy and create a more stable economic environment for our future! Remember that what we ultimately purchase with money is time and by saving more now we purchase time in the future.
Welcome
It’s an exciting time to be writing about politics and the economy. It seems that people are far more people are engaged in the political process then they were a few short years ago. And not only are more people engaged it seems like people are thinking more for themselves. While I still hear some people simply regurgitate what they here on MSNBC or Fox I am hearing these new ideas from people who have become disillusioned with the political party they use to associate with. That in and of itself is the first step in people forming their own ideas, which is critical for the future of our country.
My own political views have always fallen between the major parties which is why I typically describe myself as a libertarian. For me it takes the best parts of the Democrat and Republican platforms and combines them into a coherent political Ideology. It has always struck me as strange that Democrats believe is social freedoms like the right to choose and gay rights but believe that choice less healthcare in the form of a government option is the way to proceed. Republicans on the other hand believe in the power of markets yet fail to acknowledge certain individual rights because they are outside a constructed moral boundary i.e. gay rights.
While my ideology is important to me I try to remain practical about the political process. I find that the best part of this country is that we make choices and decisions together and as long as people get the legislation they want; I have some faith that things will work out. I get most worried when legislators simply pass what they want without regard for the nation as a whole. I believe that we have gotten in trouble recently because legislatures are more concerned about pleasing the fringe of their parties to gain political donations then doing the right thing for the country. While our political system does not count on the good will of our legislators it couldn’t hurt to have more empathic legislators.
Finally, If you have an idea or want to make a comment please do. We are really excited about this project and look forward to growing and learning with the help of those who follow us.
My own political views have always fallen between the major parties which is why I typically describe myself as a libertarian. For me it takes the best parts of the Democrat and Republican platforms and combines them into a coherent political Ideology. It has always struck me as strange that Democrats believe is social freedoms like the right to choose and gay rights but believe that choice less healthcare in the form of a government option is the way to proceed. Republicans on the other hand believe in the power of markets yet fail to acknowledge certain individual rights because they are outside a constructed moral boundary i.e. gay rights.
While my ideology is important to me I try to remain practical about the political process. I find that the best part of this country is that we make choices and decisions together and as long as people get the legislation they want; I have some faith that things will work out. I get most worried when legislators simply pass what they want without regard for the nation as a whole. I believe that we have gotten in trouble recently because legislatures are more concerned about pleasing the fringe of their parties to gain political donations then doing the right thing for the country. While our political system does not count on the good will of our legislators it couldn’t hurt to have more empathic legislators.
Finally, If you have an idea or want to make a comment please do. We are really excited about this project and look forward to growing and learning with the help of those who follow us.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
I like pina colada's and getting caught in the rain
Well then, I suppose I best add on and say I'm also interested and excited to hear our mix of opinions, and it is quite a mix. My name is Justin Causey, I graduated in May from Gettysburg College with a B.A in History. I am in the midst of my year of figuring out my life-- ie. applying to Graduate School for next year. I was born and raised in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh, PA. Politically my views can be described as a those of a midwestern Conservative Republican-- Pennsylvania once you get west of Philadelphia is essentially a midwestern State, a large rural T throughout most of it, and the Western PA coal country and Pittsburgh suburbs-even with a liberal city of Pittsburgh. I feel my politics come in two forms-- the intellectual opinions I've formed on major policy issues and political philosophy as I've gotten more educated, and my basic more gutteral responses to certain issues-- "the way I've been raised".
These basic responses include opinions that I just basically feel-- I come from a hunting and gun owning background and enjoy these things, so I'm quite pro-Second Amendment. I'm the son and grandson of small business owners, and so favor independent entrepreneurs and personal drive over organized labor and regulation. I believe in law and justice and the preservation of order and lack sympathy for those that do not-- that the punishment be proportionate to the crime-- and so strongly favor the death penalty. I firmly believe the government of the United States is the best yet devised in this world, and believe that our country though not perfect has done the right thing more often than not and continues to be the strongest force for good in this world.
At the policy postion and intellectual level:
I'm a foreign policy wonk, and so enjoy commenting on that particularly-- I'm a realist in IR parlence, with a soft spot for supporting Cold War style proxies and the "balance of power" in various regions. In domestic governance, I prefer a firm notion of Federalism-- that we are not just under the Federal government, and that the Federal government should not engage in undue control of the population in favor of local governments for many issues and services. Unlike many Conservatives in recent years, I'm a bit of a deficit hawk-- I think deficit spending has its place in times of crisis (World Wars for example) but I am skeptical of Keynes and his adherents. I believe that individuals are the ones best suited to make the decisions that affect them, and with this liberty comes responsibility-- because of this responsibility and the obligations that come with the liberty to make your own path in life- I am opposed to an expansion of entitlements and would be in favor of them being scaled back if practical.
My first true post --which will occur this week will focus on the present state of our Political Parties and the first rumblings for elections this fall and the 2010 Midterms.
These basic responses include opinions that I just basically feel-- I come from a hunting and gun owning background and enjoy these things, so I'm quite pro-Second Amendment. I'm the son and grandson of small business owners, and so favor independent entrepreneurs and personal drive over organized labor and regulation. I believe in law and justice and the preservation of order and lack sympathy for those that do not-- that the punishment be proportionate to the crime-- and so strongly favor the death penalty. I firmly believe the government of the United States is the best yet devised in this world, and believe that our country though not perfect has done the right thing more often than not and continues to be the strongest force for good in this world.
At the policy postion and intellectual level:
I'm a foreign policy wonk, and so enjoy commenting on that particularly-- I'm a realist in IR parlence, with a soft spot for supporting Cold War style proxies and the "balance of power" in various regions. In domestic governance, I prefer a firm notion of Federalism-- that we are not just under the Federal government, and that the Federal government should not engage in undue control of the population in favor of local governments for many issues and services. Unlike many Conservatives in recent years, I'm a bit of a deficit hawk-- I think deficit spending has its place in times of crisis (World Wars for example) but I am skeptical of Keynes and his adherents. I believe that individuals are the ones best suited to make the decisions that affect them, and with this liberty comes responsibility-- because of this responsibility and the obligations that come with the liberty to make your own path in life- I am opposed to an expansion of entitlements and would be in favor of them being scaled back if practical.
My first true post --which will occur this week will focus on the present state of our Political Parties and the first rumblings for elections this fall and the 2010 Midterms.
Another Chapter
As all of us recently graduated from college together, each person posting on this blog is experiencing a new chapter in our lives; so, too, is the new presidential administration attempting to shift the direction of American policy at home and abroad. Bringing together five of the political leaders from our graduating class, with five very different perspectives, will certainly be interesting!
My name is Madeline Shepherd, and I hail from a small town north of New York City. Not surprisingly, I'm on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm an ardent believer in big government and welfare programs, the preservation of civil rights and liberties, and protecting minority groups from suffering at the hands of majority opinion. Whether I'll end up working in academia, the justice system, or on capital hill is open-ended. Right now I'm just excited to still be able to discuss politics with the same people I've been hashing it out with for the past 4 years! My posts will be up every Thursday morning, and I look forward to the conversations that will no doubt follow.
My name is Madeline Shepherd, and I hail from a small town north of New York City. Not surprisingly, I'm on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm an ardent believer in big government and welfare programs, the preservation of civil rights and liberties, and protecting minority groups from suffering at the hands of majority opinion. Whether I'll end up working in academia, the justice system, or on capital hill is open-ended. Right now I'm just excited to still be able to discuss politics with the same people I've been hashing it out with for the past 4 years! My posts will be up every Thursday morning, and I look forward to the conversations that will no doubt follow.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Bienvenue
Hello, and welcome to our new blog: Conventional Wisdom! It’s so great to finally get this up and running; our group, (Madeline, Justin, Stephen, Jay, and myself) have wanted to start a political blog for a while now to catalyze the flow of creative juices in the political world to bring forth new ideas for public policy. My name is Owen Carhart and I am a loud and proud democrat from Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. I graduated from Gettysburg College in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with a minor in philosophy. I consider myself a center-left democrat. Socially speaking I am very liberal. However, when it comes to fiscal concerns I tend to be more conservative. I believe in market freedom when market freedom works, in reducing national, state, and local government debt. Cutting taxes is good as long as the government is not increasing services at the same time. However, I also recognize that there are externalities within our markets which create market failures and mandate government regulations to protect businesses and consumers. My blogs will always be posted on Monday mornings and I will also comment on my friend’s postings. I’m very excited to hear your thoughts and can’t wait for our discussions to begin! Bookmark our page, tell your friends and colleagues, and come back often! We are always looking forward to hearing from you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)