I will admit that I am not an expert on the process of education nor the best way for any level of government to manage this process. I do believe that parents are the critical base for any child's education, that the public school system is the key to success for social mobility and that social mobility is a critical component of what makes the U.S. great. Therefore, I looked at No Child Left Behind and The Race to the Top as well meaning efforts based upon some proven theory about improving the public schools.
A college friend of mine who has worked in education (college level) posted the following blog to his Facebook page. It has caused me to move my thinking over the edge and believe that maybe Congress should reconsider its mandates in this area.
Here is the link to the blog:
http://realmrfitz.blogspot.com/2011/09/teachers-letter-to-obama-lesson-in.html?spref=fb
Monday, January 9, 2012
Sunday, January 8, 2012
The NY Times was a Worthwhile Read Today
Be sure to read "My Life at Guantanamo" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html?ref=todayspaper) to know why we should have confidence in both our judicial system and our jails to hold those guys who deserve to be held forever.
More importantly for this blog is the article in the Business Section written by a Professor of Behavioral Economics at my alma mater. It discusses how negotiation works to improve the welfare of all (involved in the negotiation) and what happens when negotiation breaks down. Either the deal collapses and the parties who disengage are left where they were, or a tit for tat develops and the welfare of all involved declines.
Of course, it is the latter where our national politics are today. And where they are likely to go over the rest of this year. However, national issues do not disappear the way a business deal does. They have to be dealt with sooner or latter.
Both the President and the Republicans need the other to get something in place to control the budget deficit and the cost of health care. (I think I will become like Susan Collins - who mentions Mitt taking the dog to Canada on the roof of his car every time she discusses him - and I will mention that the Affordable Health Care Act was at its core designed by the Heritage Foundation; a conservative think tank.)
They either deal this year through negotiation or risk the election going who knows what way and then having to deal with it next year. Do the Republicans think the Democrats will not use a scorched earth policy - as the Republicans have - to ruin a President Romney's presidency as a tit for tat for any Republican intransigence during Obama's Presidency? Do the Republicans think they will get a better deal from a reelected President Obama? Can the President afford not to try and cut a deal this year going into the election? Can the Congressional Democrats afford not to try and be responsible?
As a business person, I would want to cut a deal this year so I could be positive in front of my shareholders (i.e. voters). Alas, I do not see this happening this year, which means if it comes to pass, all tax rates will go up at the end of the year, the economy will suffer, and any boost to my personal savings from Romney's election will be wiped out by economic softness as political power seems to be more important then good governance.
The national level political discord is hurting all of us and it will not end unless both parties deal in the middle.
Lastly, there is an idea percolating that the Senate should pass a law calling for up and down votes within 90 days of anyone being nominated for a position and no filibuster could go beyond that as a failure to vote would be an automatic approval. The current position of keeping the President from appointing people to run things is not good governance. And it is not acceptable for either party to prevent a President from managing the government in an efficient manner.
More importantly for this blog is the article in the Business Section written by a Professor of Behavioral Economics at my alma mater. It discusses how negotiation works to improve the welfare of all (involved in the negotiation) and what happens when negotiation breaks down. Either the deal collapses and the parties who disengage are left where they were, or a tit for tat develops and the welfare of all involved declines.
Of course, it is the latter where our national politics are today. And where they are likely to go over the rest of this year. However, national issues do not disappear the way a business deal does. They have to be dealt with sooner or latter.
Both the President and the Republicans need the other to get something in place to control the budget deficit and the cost of health care. (I think I will become like Susan Collins - who mentions Mitt taking the dog to Canada on the roof of his car every time she discusses him - and I will mention that the Affordable Health Care Act was at its core designed by the Heritage Foundation; a conservative think tank.)
They either deal this year through negotiation or risk the election going who knows what way and then having to deal with it next year. Do the Republicans think the Democrats will not use a scorched earth policy - as the Republicans have - to ruin a President Romney's presidency as a tit for tat for any Republican intransigence during Obama's Presidency? Do the Republicans think they will get a better deal from a reelected President Obama? Can the President afford not to try and cut a deal this year going into the election? Can the Congressional Democrats afford not to try and be responsible?
As a business person, I would want to cut a deal this year so I could be positive in front of my shareholders (i.e. voters). Alas, I do not see this happening this year, which means if it comes to pass, all tax rates will go up at the end of the year, the economy will suffer, and any boost to my personal savings from Romney's election will be wiped out by economic softness as political power seems to be more important then good governance.
The national level political discord is hurting all of us and it will not end unless both parties deal in the middle.
Lastly, there is an idea percolating that the Senate should pass a law calling for up and down votes within 90 days of anyone being nominated for a position and no filibuster could go beyond that as a failure to vote would be an automatic approval. The current position of keeping the President from appointing people to run things is not good governance. And it is not acceptable for either party to prevent a President from managing the government in an efficient manner.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Why do the Republicans Have to Lie?
John McCain today in his endorsement of Mitt Romney stated that President Obama has destroyed the US military.
I fine this the type of untruthful comment that has driven me from ever considering voting for a Republican despite my desire to keep an open mind. I do not vote for liars. In fact, I have fired anyone who has ever lied to me. One lie, fired. No Grace. As adults, our word is our honor and trust requires honesty.
The military is large, well armed and well paid. Our newest equipment has helped us win the War on Al Qaeda. All this on President Obama's watch.
Now if Senator McCain is thinking of the current budget agreement that requires the military to cut its spending, he need only look at his fellow Republicans who refuse to raise revenues to pay for the current military and the debt that has been incurred paying for the borrowed War on Terror. In fact, he should just look in the mirror because those were his votes also!
I fine this the type of untruthful comment that has driven me from ever considering voting for a Republican despite my desire to keep an open mind. I do not vote for liars. In fact, I have fired anyone who has ever lied to me. One lie, fired. No Grace. As adults, our word is our honor and trust requires honesty.
The military is large, well armed and well paid. Our newest equipment has helped us win the War on Al Qaeda. All this on President Obama's watch.
Now if Senator McCain is thinking of the current budget agreement that requires the military to cut its spending, he need only look at his fellow Republicans who refuse to raise revenues to pay for the current military and the debt that has been incurred paying for the borrowed War on Terror. In fact, he should just look in the mirror because those were his votes also!
More Evidence that Health Insurance should be Divorced from Employment
From an NYT Blog.
Further Thoughts on Why Our Health Rates Fell
By PAUL DOWNS
STAYING ALIVE
The struggles of a business trying to survive.
First, thanks to everyone who encouraged me to keep writing (see my last post). The encouragement was, well, encouraging. I’ll do my best to keep it real, with numbers when appropriate.
Which brings me to this week’s post, a response to the comments on my post about my health insurance rates (executive summary: they went down, perhaps because of the departure of an older, sicker worker). The comments fell into several groups. Some people wanted to know more about whether I discriminate in hiring and how I manage information about my employees’ health status. There were a lot of comments about how insurance companies set rates, and as usual, they were contradictory. And there were pleas for me to weigh in on the policy debate regarding our national health system.
Here are a few highlights, starting with questions about how I treat my workers:
From Aimee: “Kids get sick too — so what do you do exclude people with families? Or women in their 20s and 30s may get pregnant and have complications — do you exclude them? Some groups have a higher tendency towards common chronic illnesses — do you exclude them?”
I want to make this clear: I do not discriminate based on family or health status, in hiring or afterward. I hire based on ability to do the job, and the applicant pool is limited to the people who answer my ads. We’re not a big company, so our employee population does not reflect the diversity of this country. Of the 14 employees, 12 are men, with ages ranging from 24 to 50. Both of the women are over 50.
The company will buy health coverage for any employee who asks for it — and the employee decides how many loved ones are covered. The company picks up two-thirds of the cost, the employee pays the rest. Obviously, the employees’ costs vary depending on what type of coverage they choose. In 2012, every employee but one will be covered by my policies; two who used to be covered under their wives’ policies were left without insurance when their wives lost their jobs. This will increase the company’s costs by $14,848. I’m not thrilled about it, but what can I do?
From Coakl: Do you get any discounts for ensuring your workers are nonsmokers and keeping their weight in check?
Not that I know of. We have only one smoker, and the physical nature of the job tends to keep people in shape (that’s a photo of all of us above, standing in front of an almost finished table). I don’t recall being asked to provide any information about this, other than one time in 2005 when we investigated switching health insurers. Then we had to fill out a fairly detailed census form to get a rate quote (turned out, no surprise, that the rates were identical.)
I presume that insurance companies have a pretty detailed picture of everyone’s health status based on the doctor visits and prescriptions. Even if I did run programs about smoking and weight, I would have no control over my employees’ families.
From Chilling: Do your employees have any privacy in regard to their major health issues? How is it that you know who is causing your rates to go higher and lower?
They have all the privacy they want, but in a small company the reason for sick days is going to be discussed with the boss. My employees are a genial and friendly bunch, so I presume that they discuss some things with each other in the course of ordinary conversation. I don’t keep any records about health status or the reason for sick days. We don’t even have sick days per se — we give out personal days, which can be used for any reason. (We offer six in the first year of employment, with one day per additional year of service to a maximum of 16. This is in addition to six federal holidays.) I don’t actually know how our rates are set — it’s a huge mystery. In the previous post, I speculated that our rate drops were related to the departure of a heavy health care user. But I don’t know that for sure.
Which brings us to these comments about how rates are set:
From Art: The cost of your plan is determined more by the state you live in.
In New Jersey, small group plans (less than 50 fulltime employees) do not have medical underwriting. So if you had medical claims they would not affect your rates. On the other hand New Jersey takes the average age of the group and prices the plan on that. So older workers drive the price of the plan higher
In New Jersey, small group plans (less than 50 fulltime employees) do not have medical underwriting. So if you had medical claims they would not affect your rates. On the other hand New Jersey takes the average age of the group and prices the plan on that. So older workers drive the price of the plan higher
This would be great if I were in New Jersey. Or maybe not. My employees stay with me for a long time, and we gain greatly from a stable, experienced, productive work force. But it’s remarkable that our system essentially puts a special tax on my company for offering people long-term employment (by charging more for older workers). If health costs keep going up, it might be cheaper at some point for me to change to younger, lower-skilled people who are replaced on a regular basis. Investing in technology would be one way for me to do this. That’s not a business model I’m eager to implement, but why does our system offer such incentives? And what if I couldn’t make a profit any other way?
From E.G. Penet: Yes, premiums are down a bit, including mine own BCBS in Michigan. However, deductibles and co-pays are going up, fast. Every good thing costs something somewhere along the line. Just wait until your employees get their bills.
It’s not clear whether you are a boss or employee, but here’s how it works for me. I get offered a variety of plans from our insurer, with different types of coverage and different co-pays. The cost of the policy to the company varies greatly with the size of the co-pay, the amount of prescription drug coverage, and whether it’s an H.M.O. or not. I choose two that I think are the best fit and that I can afford, and that’s what the employees get to choose from. I make a decision, they live with it. I’d prefer not to be involved with this decision at all, but I’m stuck with it.
From Excellency: Next time you write on the subject maybe you could explore the following possibility: You put $5,000 per year into a Health Savings Account for each of your employees insured with you and get a group account with lower premiums and a $5,000 deductible. If your employee does not use the $5,000 for health care it just accrues in his account like an I.R.A. or 401-K. If he uses it he will keep whatever portion he does not use and when he goes over $5,000 per year the insurance kicks in. Would this make sense for you as a businessman and your employees?
We were offered an option for a policy with a $6,000 yearly deductible (per family) which was somewhat less expensive than the H.M.O.: $805 a month versus $971 a month. This may or may not have been intended for us to set up an H.S.A.
Here’s why I didn’t even consider it: plans of this sort put each worker in the position of having to negotiate pricing for medical care with doctors. Those least capable of doing this will get the worst, most expensive health care. I’m an experienced negotiator, and even I don’t want to touch this.
If doctors had easily accessible price lists, it might be different. I checked my doctor’s Web site. The practice is part of the University of Pennsylvania Medical System, which I presume is a well-funded and technologically savvy organization. I searched for “pricing” in the search feature, and turned up no results. I searched “price for doctor visit” and got boilerplate about how to prepare for the first visit. There is no price information, or any indication of how to find it. How are employees supposed to negotiate pricing for an emergency room visit? If you’re filling out paperwork with a bleeding 4-year-old screaming in your arms, you’re going to sign anything put in front of you, which will subject you to whatever the hospital feels like billing you. That’s not a system I want to participate in.
And now for my opinions on current policy. I’ll keep it short. I agree with this, from MHF:
You shouldn’t have to be in the health insurance business at all. That statement has nothing to do whether I support a government backed program or not — it’s just that most business owners don’t have the knowledge/expertise to manage the health care options of a large number of people. Business owners should be running businesses not playing doctor.
Amen to that. And not only would I prefer to shed this responsibility, but think of the wave of creativity and entrepreneurship that would be unleashed if people weren’t tied to crummy jobs just to get insurance. That’s the way forward for us as an economy. Unfortunately, the existing system is too large, with too many stakeholders, for us to change. I think we’re stuck with it.
Paul Downs founded Paul Downs Cabinetmakers in 1986. It is based outside of Philadelphia.
When is a NIMBY attitude correct?
Only when there is an issue of above normal public safety.
So a nuclear power plant that cannot store its spent fuel in a permanent safe manner or operate while keeping radiation inside is a NIMBY situation that I support.
The following NIMBY situations do not make sense to me.
You support non-fossil fuel energy but do not want a wind mill, solar panel or waste to energy plant in your vicinity. You do not want a hydro-electric dam with fish ladders built. Give me a break. Do you want everyone to go back to farming with horses; or rice farming like Chinese peasants and bartering the output for other things. I forgot how to weave wool fibers into cloth and cut them into clothes. Not to mention forgetting any number of other things involved in being a farmer.
I am all in favor of limiting hydraulic fracking for shale gas until you have a sound disposal plan for the waste water which can contaminate drinking water for who knows how long and drinking water is essential for living in any one specific location. However, disposing of it deeply underground makes sense to me as long as you understand what will happen to dangerous components over time. I do not think that 4.0 earthquakes constitute a reason to stop deep underground disposal unless that means bad things are migrating up (and the issue is how far up can then come). People all over the world live with earthquakes bigger than 4.0 so living with them at 4.0 and under seems like an acceptable situation to me to get all this domestic natural gas. So people of Ohio and Oklahoma, study the issue like NY is doing, but make sure to differentiate between true danger and a NIMBY perception of danger.
I am not a big fan of NIMBY's as they are usually being selfish about their specific location and would support the same thing somewhere else. If it is good somewhere else, it is good near you.
So a nuclear power plant that cannot store its spent fuel in a permanent safe manner or operate while keeping radiation inside is a NIMBY situation that I support.
The following NIMBY situations do not make sense to me.
You support non-fossil fuel energy but do not want a wind mill, solar panel or waste to energy plant in your vicinity. You do not want a hydro-electric dam with fish ladders built. Give me a break. Do you want everyone to go back to farming with horses; or rice farming like Chinese peasants and bartering the output for other things. I forgot how to weave wool fibers into cloth and cut them into clothes. Not to mention forgetting any number of other things involved in being a farmer.
I am all in favor of limiting hydraulic fracking for shale gas until you have a sound disposal plan for the waste water which can contaminate drinking water for who knows how long and drinking water is essential for living in any one specific location. However, disposing of it deeply underground makes sense to me as long as you understand what will happen to dangerous components over time. I do not think that 4.0 earthquakes constitute a reason to stop deep underground disposal unless that means bad things are migrating up (and the issue is how far up can then come). People all over the world live with earthquakes bigger than 4.0 so living with them at 4.0 and under seems like an acceptable situation to me to get all this domestic natural gas. So people of Ohio and Oklahoma, study the issue like NY is doing, but make sure to differentiate between true danger and a NIMBY perception of danger.
I am not a big fan of NIMBY's as they are usually being selfish about their specific location and would support the same thing somewhere else. If it is good somewhere else, it is good near you.
Monday, January 2, 2012
More on MItt
A Bloomberg article points out the skills one obtains in Private Equity and say they do qualify Mitt for the Presidency. That is why I wanted to think he would be an OK president. But he is not the person who governed Massachusetts if he governs the way he is campaigning for the nomination.
You cannot balance the budget and keep the social contract with nation if you do not raise revenues. We borrowed the War on Terror and need revenue to pay for it. And we need some type of Universal Health Care if we are going to control the cost of health care.
He managed Massachusetts in a manner that would encourage me to believe he would try to mange the US in a manner that I would approve. But I don't see it in his campaign for the Republican nomination.
You cannot balance the budget and keep the social contract with nation if you do not raise revenues. We borrowed the War on Terror and need revenue to pay for it. And we need some type of Universal Health Care if we are going to control the cost of health care.
He managed Massachusetts in a manner that would encourage me to believe he would try to mange the US in a manner that I would approve. But I don't see it in his campaign for the Republican nomination.
Let Us Recap a Few Things to Start 2012
I should be organizing piles that got created over the holiday, but I always put that off as long as possible.
This blog has become consistently partisan and I am truly a man of the middle so I thought I would recount the evidence that I am a man of the middle. My voting Record:
Presidents: McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.
Governors: Rockefeller, Carey, moved to Illinois Jim Thompson (R) a couple of times moved back to NY Cuomo, Pataki, Pataki (I regret the 2nd one) moved to VT Jim Douglas (R) (every two years) Shumlin
Senators: Javits (R), I don't recall Illinois but I think there was one D and one R, back to NY I never voted for D'Amato but I like my senators to be in the middle, VT Jeffords, Levy and sadly Bernie because by then I couldn't trust any republican to vote their conscience.
So, you see I grew up in the era when the middle supported balanced budgets, providing services to people that were paid for and a strong sense of law & order and national defense. Add to that the belief that the individual has primary responsibility for their own well being but the government has a role to play in keeping the playing field fair.
So the partisanship that comes through here is because the Republicans are no longer willing to pay for a balanced budget and a fair playing field with sufficient revenues. We have to pay for the War on Terror which we have borrowed over the last decade. The only way to do that without reducing the fairness of the playing field is to raise revenues either through closing loopholes & deductions or increasing tax rates. But you can only raise revenues so far and the Bowles-Simpson Commission demonstrated that you can only get about 1/3 of the deficit from revenues and 2/3 has to come from costs. We also need sound regulation so you don't get flim flam artists ruining the economy with products that create an economic bust.
Health care costs are in the critical path to controlling costs. But the market forces that have generated out of control health care costs are at the center of Republican Health Care Policy (individuals getting whatever services they want because employer paid health insurance pays for it and the insurance companies are in control of the rules). The market forces are also a key part of the fairness issue. Tying your access to Group Insurance to your employer creates an unfairness to anyone who for whatever reason loses or leaves their job. Unless you are lucky enough to live in a state that promotes all non-group people as a group, your health care insurance will cost you roughly twice what it would cost a member of any employment group. That is not fair and that is one thing the Affordable Health Care Act is trying to fix. It is also trying to control the cost of health care delivery but that is a long term process. I believe Health Care is a right (32 of 33 developed countries have universal health care as do Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Cuba). Not having to pay for health care insurance is one of the big reasons US Companies move jobs off shore and we need to separate this if we are to restore our economic competitiveness as soon as possible. If the Republicans really believed in government helping the private sector create jobs by getting something out of the way, they would figure out how to separate employment and health insurance.
I am a man of the middle and hope you will continue to follow my thoughts as we move through the campaign this year.
This blog has become consistently partisan and I am truly a man of the middle so I thought I would recount the evidence that I am a man of the middle. My voting Record:
Presidents: McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.
Governors: Rockefeller, Carey, moved to Illinois Jim Thompson (R) a couple of times moved back to NY Cuomo, Pataki, Pataki (I regret the 2nd one) moved to VT Jim Douglas (R) (every two years) Shumlin
Senators: Javits (R), I don't recall Illinois but I think there was one D and one R, back to NY I never voted for D'Amato but I like my senators to be in the middle, VT Jeffords, Levy and sadly Bernie because by then I couldn't trust any republican to vote their conscience.
So, you see I grew up in the era when the middle supported balanced budgets, providing services to people that were paid for and a strong sense of law & order and national defense. Add to that the belief that the individual has primary responsibility for their own well being but the government has a role to play in keeping the playing field fair.
So the partisanship that comes through here is because the Republicans are no longer willing to pay for a balanced budget and a fair playing field with sufficient revenues. We have to pay for the War on Terror which we have borrowed over the last decade. The only way to do that without reducing the fairness of the playing field is to raise revenues either through closing loopholes & deductions or increasing tax rates. But you can only raise revenues so far and the Bowles-Simpson Commission demonstrated that you can only get about 1/3 of the deficit from revenues and 2/3 has to come from costs. We also need sound regulation so you don't get flim flam artists ruining the economy with products that create an economic bust.
Health care costs are in the critical path to controlling costs. But the market forces that have generated out of control health care costs are at the center of Republican Health Care Policy (individuals getting whatever services they want because employer paid health insurance pays for it and the insurance companies are in control of the rules). The market forces are also a key part of the fairness issue. Tying your access to Group Insurance to your employer creates an unfairness to anyone who for whatever reason loses or leaves their job. Unless you are lucky enough to live in a state that promotes all non-group people as a group, your health care insurance will cost you roughly twice what it would cost a member of any employment group. That is not fair and that is one thing the Affordable Health Care Act is trying to fix. It is also trying to control the cost of health care delivery but that is a long term process. I believe Health Care is a right (32 of 33 developed countries have universal health care as do Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Cuba). Not having to pay for health care insurance is one of the big reasons US Companies move jobs off shore and we need to separate this if we are to restore our economic competitiveness as soon as possible. If the Republicans really believed in government helping the private sector create jobs by getting something out of the way, they would figure out how to separate employment and health insurance.
I am a man of the middle and hope you will continue to follow my thoughts as we move through the campaign this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)