National Healthcare - Is it Socialized Medicine?

What needs to be stressed in the debate on the future of healthcare is the obvious, but rarely spoken truth: We already HAVE socialized medicine. Only, because we have failed to institute a comprehensive policy on how to manage it, we end up paying far more than necessary, and have more inadequate care than necessary as a result.

Example, uninsured person has a heart attack in downtown Anytown, USA. Ambulance is called, person is brought to the local hospital, is treated in the ER, is admitted to CICU, and receives days of expensive treatment. Who do you think is paying for all this?
1) Taxpayers ... through a variety of provisions for indigent care.
2) The insured. Yes, we "voluntary" participants get the double shaft. Why? Medical costs are figured taking into account the work that is done without compensation. These higher costs show up as higher fees and higher premiums.
3) The uninsured. You should see the "non-negotiated" rates charged to those who actually pay for their own medical care. Mostly for the reasons cited in #2.
4) Taxpayers ... through higher rates than necessary charged to Medicare and Medicaid due to reasons in #2.

So long as we're not willing to lock the ER door to the uninsured, and let them die in the street, we have socialized medicine. I don't think a nation such as ours can morally bar the uninsured, so we have to face reality. We have socialized medicine. Now what are we going to do about managing it properly?

European nations and Canada's total spending on medicine per capita is close to 1/2 the United States's. Yet they have: lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, generally better quality of care. They spend around $3,700 per year per person. We spend $7,600. That's $2.3 TRILLION! Per year! Imagine what could be done for the US economy, and the wealth of Americans, if that money was not wasted as it is today.

Somehow, we have developed a boogeyman of what a national health care system would mean. But what it realistically could mean is more quality care to more people for less money. We've been sold a bill of goods about why we need to hold onto the system we have. How's that working for you?

Our man dying in the street might rather have had a checkup, caught his condition early, and managed it with medicine, and never cost any of us anything for an ER visit at all. He's much happier, I'm happier. Seems worth looking into.

The Truth About Taxing, Spending, and Stealing from the Future

For all the rhetoric about what party "will raise taxes" and which will cut them, which is dubbed "tax and spend," and which casts that aspersion, I thought it important to take a look at the real numbers. My source is the Government Printing Office, and the raw data is available for download from them. The numbers are also available from the White House in this document. For years 2004 - 2009, I used the White House data. 2008 is estimated, and this data was generated prior to the bailout. The truth will be far worse.

So, looking back to 1940, here are the facts. I will list all numbers in 2000 dollars, to remove the distorting effect of inflation:
Size of Federal Government (spending):


What does this table say?
The government spent 38.5% less in Truman's last year than in Roosevelt/Truman's last year.
The government spent 0.4% less in Eisenhower's last year than in Truman's last year.
Kennedy/Johnson 18.4% more (1 term)
Johnson 35.8% more (1 term)
Nixon/Ford 20.6% more (1.3% and 19.1% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Carter 15.0% more (1 term)
Reagan 23.1% more (10.6% and 11.3% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Bush 12.3% more (1 term)
Clinton 10.2% more (3.0% and 6.9% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)
Bush "W" 32.2% more (16.4% and 13.6% in 1st and 2nd term, respectively)

So... in the last 40 years, the 3 presidents having the largest increases in government, in order:
George W. Bush (32.2%)
Ronald Reagan (23.1%)
Richard Nixon (20.6%)

and the 3 presidents having the smallest increases in government, in order:
Bill Clinton (10.2%)
George H.W. Bush (12.3%)
Jimmy Carter (15.0%)

If we count each four year term as a separate presidency:
in the last 40 years, the 5 presidents terms having the largest increases in government, in order:
Richard Nixon (2nd term 19.1%)
George W. Bush (1st term 16.4%)
Jimmy Carter (15.0%)
George W. Bush (2nd term 13.6%)
George H.W. Bush (12.3%)

and the 5 presidents terms having the smallest increases in government, in order:
Richard Nixon (1st term 1.3%)
Bill Clinton (1st term 3.0%)
Bill Clinton (2nd term 6.9%)
Ronald Reagan (1st term 10.6%)
Ronald Reagan (2nd term 11.3%)

If you look at actual federal budget, the winner for increasing the size of government the fastest? Ronald Reagan. Carter's last budget was $591 Billion. Reagan's last budget was $1,064 Billion. Almost double.

Ronald Reagan came into office in large part due to his lambasting President Carter's deficits, which amounted to $74 Billion in his last year. Reagan's last year's deficit was $155 Billion. More than double.

Which brings me to taxation.
In the last 40 years, the 3 presidents having the largest increases in taxes collected, in order:
Bill Clinton (42.1%)
Richard Nixon (20.6%)
Ronald Reagan (21.4%)

and the 3 presidents having the smallest increases in taxes collected, in order:
George W. Bush (10.0%)
George H.W. Bush (11.9%)
Jimmy Carter (17.7%)

If we count each four year term as a separate presidency:
in the last 40 years, the 5 presidents terms having the largest increases in taxes collected, in order:
Bill Clinton (2nd term 27.3%)
Jimmy Carter (17.7%)
Richard Nixon (16.0%)
George W. Bush (13.7%)
Ronald Reagan (12.9%)

and the 5 presidents terms having the smallest increases in taxes collected, in order:
George W. Bush (-3.3%)
Richard Nixon (2nd term 4.7%)
Ronald Reagan (1st term 4.9%)
Bill Clinton (1st term 11.7%)
Ronald Reagan (2nd term 12.9%)

And finally ...

How do you reconcile these numbers? How is it that Republicans can profess to cut taxes, when they are responsible for increasing spending the most?

Borrowing. Lots of it.
Carter increased the national debt by 40.8% ($288 billion)
Reagan increased the national debt 188.4% ($1,873 billion)
Bush increased the national debt 51.7% ($1,484 billion in 4 years)
Clinton increased the national debt 32.6% ($1,418 billion)
And ... our current president has increased the national debt 82.5% ... $4,761 billion and counting!

Yes, our current president has increased the national debt more than all presidents from Washington to George H.W. Bush ... combined!

Again, to listen to the rhetoric, I don't think one would come away understanding that:
- The largest increases in government have come under "W" and Reagan;
- The smallest increases in government were under Nixon and Clinton;
- President Reagan increased the national debt in percentage terms more than any other president;
- President Bush has increased the national debt in absolute terms more than any other president.

What voters must ask themselves, is whether they believe cutting taxes by borrowing from our children, grandchildren, and further into the future is sound government, or what they really thought they were voting for? Hopefully some facts will help light the way in your analysis of this question.

An excellent treatment in more depth, and with more analysis at "An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing."

This is an excellent article on Wikipedia too.

Congressmen Manage to Bury Their Heads While Trying to Cover Their Asses

Sorry about the headline, but, geez!

In bringing the credit market bailout package proposed by Secretary Paulson, and backed by the Bush Administration and the presidential candidates to defeat on Monday, our Congressmen demonstrated a complete lack of leadership. Worse, they showed a lack of maturity, and lack of ability to put the country above their own jobs.

Although inclined to vote for the package, Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaking for the House republicans, stated "we could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House."

WOW!

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., put this into perspective with his comment, "Because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country? I would not have imagined that degree of pettiness and hypersensitivity. Give me the 12 names and I'll to talk uncharacteristically nicely to them."

What was really going on? A big giant round of CYA. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said in a speech "We're all worried about losing our jobs. Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.'"

Well, they should be worried about their jobs, but its a little late now!

I am no fan of this package, mind you. I am disgusted that this train wreck has been allowed to happen. It was inevitable. Many had been predicting it. It took longer than I guessed. Hell, in 2002, I insisted on a fixed rate mortgage because I felt this ride would have to end some time.

The elimination of barriers between consumer and investment banking, the lowering of underwriting requirements at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the overheated telemarketers calling all of us with reasons to refinance our mortgages, and "take money out" were all harbingers. And Congress was there for all of it.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. Our government has done a terrible job of explaining the situation to the people. (Perhaps because our President has trouble with it himself?) In a nutshell, the credit market is awash with financial instruments of questionable value. Even the investment bankers, once so sure, really have no idea what this stuff is worth. Because of this, they don't know if the other banks are solvent. They are also not so sure about their own solvency. Because of this, they are afraid to lend, and are hoarding cash.

No lending means everything stops. Industry can't buy tools. Businesses can't make payroll. People can't buy cars and houses. It gets ugly, and it gets there pretty fast. This package is about taking these financial instruments off the market, and into the national treasury. This would be done at a huge discount to what they were thought to be worth a few months ago, and probably a good discount to what they are worth today. The banks take huge losses in this bailout. But they're definable. Some banks fail, but there is more certainty as to solvency, and more confidence to allow the credit markets to function again.

The hope is that, with the credit crisis behind us, and real estate markets on the mend, these instruments will have some value, and the government may recoup much of what it put on the line.

Yes, Congressmen will lose their jobs. Banks will fail. This package is about preserving the system to help us figure our way out of this mess.

When faced with the need to act on the result of too little regulation, and Wall Street greed run amock, this nation's leaders failed to act in 1929. The result of that cost us dearly. With 300,000,000 to feed, clothe and house, our leaders should not be fiddling again while the nation burns.

Bio-Fuels Have Been a Dangerous Diversion

A little research I have been meaning to do. The answers surprised me:

Best biofuel conversions (Ethanol gallons / acre):
Switchgrass = 1500 (optimum conditions / current record yield)
Sugarcane = 665
Corn 400

Ethanol Energy Density = 24 MegaJoules per liter (MJ/l)

1 Watt-hour (W-h) = 3600 Joules (J)

1 acre = 4046 square meters (m2)

In the south, the average hourly 200 W-h / m2 accounting for seasons, clouds and night.

Skipping all the fun math:

Record switchgrass crop will yield in one year: 136.275 GigaJoules (GJ)

Using bleeding-edge technology (Spectrolab) @ 36% efficiency, photovoltaics will yield in one year (in GA): 9,186 GJ/acre
El-cheapo, 10 year old technology @ 18%: 4,593 GJ/acre

So, with today's technology, pholotovoltaics provide 34 - 68 TIMES more energy per acre than the most efficient, record crop of bio-fuel producing plant.

IN GEORGIA!
(N.B. This analysis does not account for any energy INPUT to crop fuel sources)

Accounting for the efficiency of ethanol engines (35% is very generous) vs. electric motors (80 percent transmission, and 80 percent efficient = 64%), the miles per acre is even more exaggerated, with photovoltaics gaining 61 to 120 TIMES more output per acre!

What does this mean? Put photovoltaics in the field for 2 weeks, and you get the same energy as a crop grown in that field for a year. OR, put 2% of crop land into photovoltaics, and get the same yield as 100% in biofuel crops.

NOW. Take that to the desert, and its even more impressive AND, you can put that Georgia land back into FOOD production.

Main source = Auto Blog Green
Others = American Energy Independence
alt.solar.photovoltaic


Contrarian source (confirms data) = socialissues.wiseto.com

No "Rift" Among Democrats on War in Iraq

The recent defeat of Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic Primary for U.S. Senator from Connecticut has highlighted what is being described as a "rift" in the Democratic Party. This is simply not so.

What has been brought to light, however, is a burgeoning and increasingly organized anti-war movement. It has been reported that 30,000 voters who were previously unregistered or registered as independents re-registered as Democrats for this election. CNN reports the turnout for this race as 43%, a record, smashing the previous 39% turnout for the 1970 Democratic primary.

What is being lost in the frenzy over Lieberman's defeat is the difference between having voted for the war and supporting the administration's policies in prosecuting the war in Iraq (and elsewhere).

No matter how one feels about the decision to go to war in Iraq. Whether you believed at the time that it was necessary and the right thing to do, or if you believed we were attacking a country under false pretenses to meet ends decided long before September 11 ever happened, should not be seen as defining your position regarding our nation's current involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I happen to fall into the latter camp. But, I must admit having been an ardent supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1991, and also supported our intervention in Afghanistan immediately after September 11. Admittedly not a complete pacifist, I believe it is entirely consistent to now criticize how our country has chosen to conduct these actions.

In 1991, we were all introduced to the "Powell Doctrine," which requries that military action should be used only as a last resort and only if there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target; the force, when used, should be overwhelming and disproportionate to the force used by the enemy; there must be strong support for the campaign by the general public; and there must be a clear exit strategy from the conflict in which the military is engaged. This doctrine was seen as the antithesis of the manner in which the United States conducted the war in Vietnam, and, ironically, the manner in which we have prosecuted the second war in Iraq.

Here we are, embroiled in a conflict where there was no clear risk to national security by the intended target, where the force used was so underwhelming that chaos ensued as we "liberated" Baghdad, and we were powerless to stop it, where support for the campaign was not ensured, and where there was no, and three and one half years into the campaign, there is still no exit strategy.

Whether one believed in the Powell Doctrine, or not, the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" as utilized in Iraq can legitimately be viewed as an abject failure. In Afghanistan and Iraq, it was clear to anyone who was paying attention that "victory" would only be achieved through massive, lengthy occupation, reconstruction and education applied to a resistant populace. We went into Iraq utterly unprepared for that.

It is not unpatriotic to acknowledge that failure, whether you supported the initial action, or not. Democrats nationwide may have been more split at the point of decision than they are now in recognizing that another path must be chosen. The very notion that questioning the course we are on now is akin to "cutting and running" is absurd, and being more and more recognized as such. What, I ask, is the administration's plan for the alternative? All that seems to be on the table is an interminable occupation that will continue to drain our ability to respond to other, real, threats to our nation.

An open debate on where to go from here is healthy for the nation, and healthy for the Democratic party. Perhaps Lieberman's main fault is not having recognized the need for that debate and dialogue in his campaign until it was too late to stem the rising Lamont tide in Connecticut.

Whatever your party affiliation, questioning our continuing policy in Iraq is the most patriotic thing we can do. This is not, and never has been a nation built upon a population that blindly follows their leaders. We vociferously debate and question our leadership, and force them to defend their policies to our satisfaction, or we vote them out. Thus is our duty as citizens, no less. We have the right to sit on the sidelines and blindly trust our leaders, too. But then, we lose the credibility to complain about what we got.

That ain't no rift. That's democracy, baby!