, ,

Socialized medicine: inefficient, unfair

, ,

Recently a message was sent to President Barack Obama’s supporters under his name that urged them to get behind his proposal for universal health care and castigated his critics. I share with him a desire to reform our health care system, but along lines completely different from those which he only vaguely explained. It is not very helpful, as Obama did, to sum up health reform in terms of "core principles" (reduced costs, guaranteed choice, and quality care for every American) when the means employed to fulfill them are unspecified. Nor does it help to oversimplify the issue, as he did, by equating support of the dreaded "status quo" with "half measures and empty talk."

Obama stigmatized critics, moreover, for "spread[ing] fear and confusion about the changes we seek." And then he proceeded to spread genuine "fear and confusion" about "spiraling health care costs" and failed to acknowledge how much government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid have contributed to those rising costs.

The President told the story of his late mother's battle with ovarian cancer, "spending too much time worrying about whether her health insurance would cover her bills," which is very moving but also verging on exploitation. Ovarian cancer presents a major challenge which even the most lavish health insurance cannot mount. No government program can end these worries.

We are responsible for our health. I'm no less mindful than Obama of the persons without health care, but dealing with that deficiency does not require socialism. As his opponent, John McCain, advocated last year, substantial tax credits for health savings accounts will help people who lack employer or government plans.

Before there was massive government involvement in health care, and before third-party payers dominated the field, costs were actually more manageable. Forty years ago my oldest son needed surgery that cost us, a young married couple of modest income, $500. I am sure it would cost many times more than that today, not only because of inflation but because of the proliferation of third-party plans, which shield consumers from the true cost of their care.

In any case, there is no more reason to socialize health care costs than the cost of food, transportation or housing. Obama may not want us to know that what he is proposing is socialism, but many of us don't need to have it spelled out. It is not fear-mongering to point to the experience of nations that already have government care, which entails artificial caps on costs and rationing. Only a free marketplace can bring consumers and providers together and enable them to agree to reasonable terms.

The President is only worsening the current difficulties by proposing more of the same government intervention. We must oppose him in order to preserve, and even return to, the limited government bequeathed to us by our founding fathers.

As a friend of many years has reminded me, however, for millions of Americans justice is central to the health care debate. He wrote: "We will end up with ‘socialized’ medicine unless our people are convinced that justice and fairness are better served, and good medicine is better provided, in a non-socialized system of health care. Many good Americans are willing to accept lesser care (up to a point) if they are persuaded that the promised new system would be more just and fair for each and all of us."

I think he is right. Liberals believe they have a monopoly on justice and fairness, erroneously equating equality of condition with equality of rights. The truth is, the free market exemplifies reciprocity in exchange, a form of justice, as doctors and hospitals provide a service for which they deserve to be paid, and patients deserve a say over costs. They have that say now for virtually all other commodities (automobiles now conspicuously excluded, thanks to President Obama), which makes them largely affordable.

But there is no justice in making some Americans subsidize the health care of others, nor is it fair to deny people health care because some bureaucrat decides that their needs aren’t as worthy as someone else’s. Imagine if food production, distribution and sales were socialized, and the government determined what we ought to be eating!

The American idea of justice is not, as Obama evidently believes, "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Rather, it is our right to govern ourselves. It is better, as the early Pilgrims learned the hard way, for each person and/or family to use their abilities to provide for their needs. Justice and utility are in perfect alignment.

, ,

Teacher's Desk: Degree in Three?

, ,

The soon-to-be graduates marched into the World Arena in Colorado Springs while the organist played "Pomp and Circumstance" and we parents watched proudly. It was amazing that so many degrees were conferred by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. As usual, the most undergraduate degrees were conferred in the colleges of nursing, education, and arts and sciences. The fewest? College of Engineering, of course, and I was glad to watch my son walk across the stage with honors as one of those engineering graduates.

My son was one of the 57.3% of students who earn their degrees in four years. Valerie Strauss, writing for Washingtonpost.com, describes the trend toward three-year bachelor degrees now offered by many universities and colleges.

Rhode Island recently passed a bill in their state legislature requiring state colleges and universities to offer three-year undergraduate programs, but colleges already offering three-year degrees find that many students continue to need four or more years to graduate. Only 4.2% of college graduates do so in three years, but 38.5% of students need more than four years to complete bachelor degree programs.

In order to continue quality programming, many of the new three-year programs are requiring summer classes, preventing many students from earning income to pay for tuition and books or wonderful hands-on internship opportunities in their area of interest.

Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, former leader of the United States Department of Education, is a proponent of three-year programs. He understands the difficulties families are having paying tuition, books, and dormitory costs for four years. Saving $10,000 or more and graduates getting busy in their careers a year earlier can certainly save financial stress on these families.

Purdue has done one better with a two-year bachelor’s program in their college of technology. This degree is designed for the older student needing “re-tooling” and a career change.

Three-year programs have the potential to be useful here. Governor Ritter just signed a bill that will allow motivated high school students to earn a two-year associates degree while earning a high school diploma. The two programs could fit together like a hand in a glove, allowing student to earn a graduate degree in the time span it takes many to earn their undergraduate degree.

Congratulations to all the new grads and their proud parents! Kathleen Kullback is a licensed special educator with an M.A. in educational leadership and is a former candidate for the Colorado Board of Education.

, , ,

Insanity of higher CAFE standards

, , ,

Here we are again, faced with another cramdown policy by the misguided but ever hard-charging President Obama . This time it’s raising fuel-economy standards. Instead of waiting until 2020 to increase the standards, now the President is saying 2016. I think he really wants all the car companies to go out of business. Now before you criticize me by saying I’m not a friend of the environment, let me say that I am a conservationist but at the same time I’m not in the business of making decisions rooted in untruth. Let’s take a look at what previous fuel standards have accomplished. Since 1975 we have had fuel efficiency standards, but they have done little to help reduce carbon emissions. In his book Spin Free Economics, Narmin Behravesh demonstrates the inefficiency of these standards. Here is an excerpt from his book:

    “To begin with, they (fuel efficiency standards) don’t necessarily reduce total fuel consumption. In fact, more fuel efficient cars can, perversely, encourage more driving. Similarly, while the mpg per ton of cars has improved about 20 percent in the United States in the last two decades, average car weight has risen ( heavier vans and SUBs now account for half of all light-vehicle sales, compared with 20 percent in the 1980’s), so the mpg per vehicle has actually fallen about 10 percent.”

Wait a minute here; is Behravesh saying that fuel efficiency has decreased? That is exactly what he is saying. Is not the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? So if the goal is to decrease carbon emissions would it not make sense to do something different instead of the same thing over and over?

I’m not writing to propose an alternative to the fuel standards, but to show the ineptness of the government’s policy. But perhaps a solution to not only this problem but many others would be that of a consumption tax. Talk about fairness, this eliminates the IRS and you only pay for what you use. But I digress. The point is, insanity is not good policy.

BOOKS YOU WILL VALUE *  LANDMARKS IN THE STORM

BROWSE & BUY →