Eight ways Obama’s proposed reforms will drive up costs for consumers and drive private insurance companies out of business *
1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
For you: This means that there will be no economic benefits to those who make healthy life choices. Non-smoker? You’ll pay just as much for insurance as that three pack a day chimney.
For your insurance company: This means that insurance companies will be required to take on bad risks.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
For you: No co-pays, or fewer/lower co-pays. This means that policy holders will have less encouragement to limit trips to the Doctor’s office. It will also mean that high volume visitors (like hypochondriacs) will get a fee ride at your expense.
This also means that you will have fewer options, and those options left to you will be the lowest cost options. For example: Instead of allowing you to have brand name medications if you pay the difference from generics, brand names won’t be an option.
For your insurance company: This means that premiums will have to go up, or services will have to be cut. Responsible policyholders will have to pay more to cover their less responsible counterparts.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
This is not a medical insurance issue, it is more of an HMO or budgetary issue. This is akin to requiring car insurance companies to pay for all vehicle maintenance, rather than just repairs after accidents.
Regular checkups somehow don’t sound like the thing we keep hearing about from those who claim we need health care reform – the unexpected medical emergency that bankrupts a family.
Again, costs will go up, and it will force all medical insurance companies to also become HMOs.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Does this mean that if you are ill, and can no longer pay your premiums, your coverage must be continued? Sounds like a bad business model.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
This contradicts the whole point of things like actuarial tables. I guess that we can also require that car insurance companies can’t use gender in their rate calculations either.
Fact: Men get in more car accidents. Women go to the Doctor more often.
Corresponding fact: Men pay more for car insurance. Women pay more for HMOs and medical insurance.
Is this gender discrimination, or simply having the business model match the facts?
Men’s insurance costs will increase. Women’s may come down (but don't count on it).
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Caps on coverage allow companies to balance risk and offer lower cost policies. This will increase policy costs – just as having a smaller deductible on your car insurance, or insuring a more expensive car will increase your car insurance premiums.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
This makes no sense at all, since any adult will supposedly be eligible for care under their own plan, their employer’s plan, or the “public option”. This actually seems like it is a subsidy for upper middle class and wealthy families who tend to send their children to college and grad school straight after high school.
This means that an adult child will have to be covered for nine years after their 18th birthday, since coverage won't end until their 27th birthday, adding 50% to the time that children are covered by their parent's policies, and forcing an increase in costs to the policyholder.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
This will increase costs as the insurance companies will not be able to cut their losses with policyholders who end up using up more money than they pay in. This has also sometimes been described as not allowing insurance companies to raise insurance rates.
What these eight things do is to guarantee that private insurance companies will either have to dramatically raise their rates, or they will lose money and eventually be bankrupted and driven out of the health insurance business.
Even if they raise rates, that means that fewer people will be able to afford the insurance, reducing profitability, and making this a bad business model.
* The eight policy statements (in bold) are courtesy of Mr. David Axelrod, writing in an Official White House email on August 13th, on behalf of President Obama. The responses are my own.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Health insurance is not the same as health care
The President is warning that if we don't pass his health care plan this year, it will be a disaster for Americans. He acts like there won't be time to make any changes next year, and that we must rush a bill through - probably without having a chance to read it and study the impact on the economic environment and the repercussions for health care for Americans.
Why can't we take this slow and make sure we do it right? Why do we have to rush it through before the American people know what they are actually buying for the trillions of dollars that it will cost us?
Obamacare has some odd proponents - including the insurance industry, who are supporting the idea of universal health insurance, as long as there isn't a government insurance program that will use taxpayer subsidies to drive them out of business. They have no problem with taxpayer subsidies - as long as they are getting what they consider to be "their fair share".
My question is this: if we are attempting to fix the problems of our health care system, why pursue an insurance based health care policy?
One problem with insurance is that it ends as soon as you can't pay the premiums any more, or as soon as your employer stops paying the premiums.
This means that while you are healthy and working, you have coverage, but when you are unhealthy and not able to work, you are not able to pay premiums, so have no coverage. This is what makes it profitable for insurance companies - when you most need the service, you aren't eligible.
This is true of private insurance, employer provided insurance, and even government provided insurance - when there is no longer enough money coming in, the insurer will cut benefits.
Another problem is that if you are paying the insurance company, you are not paying for health care, but for a promise of health care.
It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry tries to pick up a rental car and is told that, while the company has his reservation, they have no car for him. Just as Jerry argues "It doesn't matter if you can TAKE my reservation. What matters is that you can KEEP my reservation.", I say "It doesn't matter if you have health insurance. What matters is if you can get health care." - the insurance is a promise to provide care when it is needed, if the insurer finds it possible. Health care is exactly what it says it is.
A further problem with insurance is that it disconnects the health care provider and patient from the decision making process. Health care providers often feel pressured to plan treatment based on what insurance companies are willing to reimburse them for. Patients don't have as much of a reason to weigh the costs and benefits of various options against each other.
In many cases, there are various choices within the broad categories of surgery, medication, therapy, lifestyle adjustment, palliatives, and non-traditional treatments that are ignored because the health care provider can't be reimbursed by the insurance company for them, and the patient only asks about options that are covered by their insurance plan.
This disconnect creates a system where patients and health care providers are not discussing options, and not making their own decisions. Often, this leads to higher costs as we find that one size doesn't fit all.
If the government wants to involve itself in health care, and use taxpayer subsidies to provide a more "socially just" access to care, I see tax exempt health savings plans as a far better option, along with tax credits for health care expenses.
Health savings plans are a great idea, but one that many people might decide not to invest in, because we don't like to think about bad things happening to us. If there were a health savings plan set up similar to a 401k plan, where employers could match contributions as a benefit to attract employees, that would probably work better, but it still wouldn't convince everyone to save up for a possible health emergency. Effective health savings plans need to be tax exempt (with penalties for withdrawing them for non-health expenses), lifelong, and transferable to your heirs. I have seen health savings plans where the money just evaporates at the end of the year - they are fine for saving up for a planned procedure or regular medical cost, but not very useful in the long run.
The larger end of the equation would be medical expense tax credits. These would go a long way to ensuring that an accident or unexpected illness wouldn't wipe out a family's ability to survive. Of course such tax credits would have to be regulated, as we could easily see people getting more money in tax returns via these tax credits than they would pay in taxes, or even earn in a year of working. There would seem to be a need to restrict the number of years a person could claim medical tax credits in excess of their withheld taxes. Perhaps once every seven years, as we restrict bankruptcy?
Whatever is done, the first two steps are to:
1) cut any free or subsidized care for those who are in our country illegally
and
2) restrict the limit of care provided free to felons in prison to the lowest level of care available free to law-abiding citizens.
Why can't we take this slow and make sure we do it right? Why do we have to rush it through before the American people know what they are actually buying for the trillions of dollars that it will cost us?
Obamacare has some odd proponents - including the insurance industry, who are supporting the idea of universal health insurance, as long as there isn't a government insurance program that will use taxpayer subsidies to drive them out of business. They have no problem with taxpayer subsidies - as long as they are getting what they consider to be "their fair share".
My question is this: if we are attempting to fix the problems of our health care system, why pursue an insurance based health care policy?
One problem with insurance is that it ends as soon as you can't pay the premiums any more, or as soon as your employer stops paying the premiums.
This means that while you are healthy and working, you have coverage, but when you are unhealthy and not able to work, you are not able to pay premiums, so have no coverage. This is what makes it profitable for insurance companies - when you most need the service, you aren't eligible.
This is true of private insurance, employer provided insurance, and even government provided insurance - when there is no longer enough money coming in, the insurer will cut benefits.
Another problem is that if you are paying the insurance company, you are not paying for health care, but for a promise of health care.
It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry tries to pick up a rental car and is told that, while the company has his reservation, they have no car for him. Just as Jerry argues "It doesn't matter if you can TAKE my reservation. What matters is that you can KEEP my reservation.", I say "It doesn't matter if you have health insurance. What matters is if you can get health care." - the insurance is a promise to provide care when it is needed, if the insurer finds it possible. Health care is exactly what it says it is.
A further problem with insurance is that it disconnects the health care provider and patient from the decision making process. Health care providers often feel pressured to plan treatment based on what insurance companies are willing to reimburse them for. Patients don't have as much of a reason to weigh the costs and benefits of various options against each other.
In many cases, there are various choices within the broad categories of surgery, medication, therapy, lifestyle adjustment, palliatives, and non-traditional treatments that are ignored because the health care provider can't be reimbursed by the insurance company for them, and the patient only asks about options that are covered by their insurance plan.
This disconnect creates a system where patients and health care providers are not discussing options, and not making their own decisions. Often, this leads to higher costs as we find that one size doesn't fit all.
If the government wants to involve itself in health care, and use taxpayer subsidies to provide a more "socially just" access to care, I see tax exempt health savings plans as a far better option, along with tax credits for health care expenses.
Health savings plans are a great idea, but one that many people might decide not to invest in, because we don't like to think about bad things happening to us. If there were a health savings plan set up similar to a 401k plan, where employers could match contributions as a benefit to attract employees, that would probably work better, but it still wouldn't convince everyone to save up for a possible health emergency. Effective health savings plans need to be tax exempt (with penalties for withdrawing them for non-health expenses), lifelong, and transferable to your heirs. I have seen health savings plans where the money just evaporates at the end of the year - they are fine for saving up for a planned procedure or regular medical cost, but not very useful in the long run.
The larger end of the equation would be medical expense tax credits. These would go a long way to ensuring that an accident or unexpected illness wouldn't wipe out a family's ability to survive. Of course such tax credits would have to be regulated, as we could easily see people getting more money in tax returns via these tax credits than they would pay in taxes, or even earn in a year of working. There would seem to be a need to restrict the number of years a person could claim medical tax credits in excess of their withheld taxes. Perhaps once every seven years, as we restrict bankruptcy?
Whatever is done, the first two steps are to:
1) cut any free or subsidized care for those who are in our country illegally
and
2) restrict the limit of care provided free to felons in prison to the lowest level of care available free to law-abiding citizens.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
An open letter to Congressman Pete Hoekstra
Mr. Hoekstra,
I commend you for calling DHS Secretary Napolitano on her department's obviously politically biased report about right wing "extremists".
At a time when we see so little action or leadership from Republicans in Washington, it is refreshing to see you standing up for veterans and conservatives.
Can we take the next step, and start proceedings to remove Ms Napolitano, and replace her with someone who is qualified and ready to do the job?
It is obvious that she is not a good fit for the job of Secretary of Homeland Security if she is going to conduct partisan witch-hunts that categorize conservatives as threats based on their beliefs or their status as veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces - yet recognizes that it is extreme actions and threats, not ideas that are a danger when speaking of the left. This kind of blatant partisan double standard is not acceptable from a public employee. Why should only liberals have their ideas protected by the First Amendment? Do conservatives have no civil rights in Obamerica?
Also, if Ms Napolitano thinks that people are terrorists if they are opposed to illegal immigration, she needs to be tested for drug use, because she is out of touch with reality. The Department of Homeland Security should be actively seeking to secure the borders so that illegal immigrants (and the dugs, diseases, weapons, and other contraband that they often bring with them) can not enter our nation.
Thanks for doing your job. I wish I had a Congressman like you in my own district.
I commend you for calling DHS Secretary Napolitano on her department's obviously politically biased report about right wing "extremists".
At a time when we see so little action or leadership from Republicans in Washington, it is refreshing to see you standing up for veterans and conservatives.
Can we take the next step, and start proceedings to remove Ms Napolitano, and replace her with someone who is qualified and ready to do the job?
It is obvious that she is not a good fit for the job of Secretary of Homeland Security if she is going to conduct partisan witch-hunts that categorize conservatives as threats based on their beliefs or their status as veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces - yet recognizes that it is extreme actions and threats, not ideas that are a danger when speaking of the left. This kind of blatant partisan double standard is not acceptable from a public employee. Why should only liberals have their ideas protected by the First Amendment? Do conservatives have no civil rights in Obamerica?
Also, if Ms Napolitano thinks that people are terrorists if they are opposed to illegal immigration, she needs to be tested for drug use, because she is out of touch with reality. The Department of Homeland Security should be actively seeking to secure the borders so that illegal immigrants (and the dugs, diseases, weapons, and other contraband that they often bring with them) can not enter our nation.
Thanks for doing your job. I wish I had a Congressman like you in my own district.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Education and budgets - a parable
A family had a son who got accepted at a great college out of state. Since the family valued education highly, the parents figured out the costs of tuition, books, rent, food, utilities, transportation, and other expenses to be $18,000 a year. The son argued that if he had the money for the year he could do a better job of making sure that it was spent wisely than if he had to write home every time an expense arose, so the parents agreed to put the money for the year into their son's bank account, and let him handle it. After their son graduated from high school, he was all set to move to the city where his new college was located, so his parents gave him the money for his first year of school - they decided that their son should have a bit of fun while attending school, so instead of just $18,000, they gave him $22,000 for the first year - an extra $4,000 above and beyond what he needed. The parents were happy to do this because they had been saving for their children's college for years, because they were a family who valued education. The son moved out of the house in early July, so he could get set up in a living space and maybe even get a part time job before school started that fall.
The son was enjoying his life in college, but when he came home for the winter break, he took his father aside. "Dad" he said, "I'm going to need a bit more money to make it through the year. I don't have enough to pay my spring tuition, because I flew to my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving and I spent a lot of money on a fancy necklace for her this Christmas." His father was unhappy that his son had wasted his tuition money on frivolous things, but education was important to him, so he dipped into his retirement investments and gave his son the extra $5,000 he needed to finish the first year of school.
At the end of his first year of college, the parents gave their son $27,000 for his second year, because $22,000 hadn't been enough the first year. Even though they had to take quite a bit out of their retirement account to do so. It was a major setback to their finances, but education was important to them.
That September, their son made a frantic call home, asking for more money. It seems that he had decided to purchase a car, and while he could pay his tuition, he didn't have enough for rent or books. The parents were upset that he had spent the money on a car, when he was supposed to have used it to pay for his tuition and books, but because the family valued education, they sent him an extra $10,000. They sent the money even though this took all of the money out of their retirement account. They were still young, the parents thought, and they were a family who valued education.
That December, the parents purchased a plane ticket for their son to come home and visit them, since he told them that he couldn't afford it. It meant that they had no money for gifts for their other children, but seeing their older brother for the holidays would be a treat for the younger children, and the family could see how their son was doing in school.
When he came home, the son took his father aside again, and once more asked for additional money. "I didn't take a part time job this year, and my roommates moved out so that there would be more space in the apartment for my girlfriend. I'm going to need another $10,000 to make it through the year." His father was disappointed that his son had once again squandered his tuition and rent money on luxuries, but didn't want to refuse his son; after all, their family valued education. That night, he spoke to his wife about the problem. "I guess I could ask my boss for more hours, even if it means I won't have as much time to help the younger children with their after school activities and homework" she said. It was a difficult decision, but since the family valued education, they made the sacrifices with smiles on their faces, and gave their son $10,000 from the money they were saving for his younger siblings' college expenses.
That April, they received a telegram from their son, from the Bahamas. "School is going great" it said, "but I needed to release some stress over spring break. Expenses were higher than expected, please send $3,000 so I can pay rent and buy groceries for the rest of the year." The parents were worried that their son was making such poor choices and wasting the money on frivolous things while they scrimped and saved to pay, but they valued education, so they took more money out of their other children's college savings to send to their son.
That June, the parents prepared to give their son the money for his third year of college. Based on what his costs had been the previous year, they decided that they had to give him $50,000. This meant that there would be almost no money left in the college accounts for his younger siblings, but the father was working a lot of overtime and was also hoping for a big promotion, and the mother was starting to work on Saturdays to make extra money. They hoped that they would be able to put enough away for the other children to attend colleges, and warned their other children to start applying for scholarships.
Things went pretty well that year. Their son didn't ask for money during the fall, or when he came home at Christmas. The parents were relieved that they had finally been able to give their son enough money to pay for his education - because the family valued education.
That May, the parents received a letter from the school, indicating that their son had not yet paid his tuition. The school needed $8,000. The parents cleaned out all of their savings accounts to pay for it. Then they began to get letters from a credit card company. Their son had run up a credit card debt and hadn't made a payment in months. The credit card companies needed $4,000 to pay the son's debts - mostly textbooks and groceries. When the parents asked their son why he had put his textbooks and groceries on the credit card, instead of using the money they had given him, he told them that he had used up all that money on a weekend trip to Vegas with some friends. The parents were disappointed that he had wasted his textbook and grocery money, but scraped together enough money to pay the cards, because they wanted their son to be able to stay in college - after all, their family valued education.
That June, when their son came home, he asked the parents for the money for his last year of school. "With the extra expenses I had last year, it cost me $62,000. I guess I'll need at least that much this year." he told them. "Son," his father told him, "I'm sorry, but all that we can afford to give you this year is $30,000. That will cover tuition and books, rent, food, utilities, and leave you about $12,000 for things you want to do. I hope that will be enough."
"C'mon dad, my girlfriend likes it when I take her on mini-vacations on the weekends and buy her jewelry. The lease payments on my BMW are pretty hefty, not to mention the insurance... I know you can come up with more money than that - you always told me that we value education."
"We do value education, son. I'm working 20 hours of overtime a week, and your mother works six days a week. We hardly have any time to see your brothers and sisters, let alone help them with their homework. We've already exhausted the college savings for all of the children, as well as taken all of the money out of our retirement accounts. There's just no way we can afford to give you more than $30,000 this year.
"You could take out a second mortgage on the house, couldn't you? After all dad, what's more important than education?"
-----
What is more important than education? Is it more important that the son has a nice car, or that he can buy gifts for his girlfriend?
Was there enough money in the budget to pay for the son's education - if he had only made it a priority?
-------------------
In tonight's story, the parents were played by the citizens of California, the siblings were played by their children, and the son was played by your California State Legislature.
The son was enjoying his life in college, but when he came home for the winter break, he took his father aside. "Dad" he said, "I'm going to need a bit more money to make it through the year. I don't have enough to pay my spring tuition, because I flew to my girlfriend's house for Thanksgiving and I spent a lot of money on a fancy necklace for her this Christmas." His father was unhappy that his son had wasted his tuition money on frivolous things, but education was important to him, so he dipped into his retirement investments and gave his son the extra $5,000 he needed to finish the first year of school.
At the end of his first year of college, the parents gave their son $27,000 for his second year, because $22,000 hadn't been enough the first year. Even though they had to take quite a bit out of their retirement account to do so. It was a major setback to their finances, but education was important to them.
That September, their son made a frantic call home, asking for more money. It seems that he had decided to purchase a car, and while he could pay his tuition, he didn't have enough for rent or books. The parents were upset that he had spent the money on a car, when he was supposed to have used it to pay for his tuition and books, but because the family valued education, they sent him an extra $10,000. They sent the money even though this took all of the money out of their retirement account. They were still young, the parents thought, and they were a family who valued education.
That December, the parents purchased a plane ticket for their son to come home and visit them, since he told them that he couldn't afford it. It meant that they had no money for gifts for their other children, but seeing their older brother for the holidays would be a treat for the younger children, and the family could see how their son was doing in school.
When he came home, the son took his father aside again, and once more asked for additional money. "I didn't take a part time job this year, and my roommates moved out so that there would be more space in the apartment for my girlfriend. I'm going to need another $10,000 to make it through the year." His father was disappointed that his son had once again squandered his tuition and rent money on luxuries, but didn't want to refuse his son; after all, their family valued education. That night, he spoke to his wife about the problem. "I guess I could ask my boss for more hours, even if it means I won't have as much time to help the younger children with their after school activities and homework" she said. It was a difficult decision, but since the family valued education, they made the sacrifices with smiles on their faces, and gave their son $10,000 from the money they were saving for his younger siblings' college expenses.
That April, they received a telegram from their son, from the Bahamas. "School is going great" it said, "but I needed to release some stress over spring break. Expenses were higher than expected, please send $3,000 so I can pay rent and buy groceries for the rest of the year." The parents were worried that their son was making such poor choices and wasting the money on frivolous things while they scrimped and saved to pay, but they valued education, so they took more money out of their other children's college savings to send to their son.
That June, the parents prepared to give their son the money for his third year of college. Based on what his costs had been the previous year, they decided that they had to give him $50,000. This meant that there would be almost no money left in the college accounts for his younger siblings, but the father was working a lot of overtime and was also hoping for a big promotion, and the mother was starting to work on Saturdays to make extra money. They hoped that they would be able to put enough away for the other children to attend colleges, and warned their other children to start applying for scholarships.
Things went pretty well that year. Their son didn't ask for money during the fall, or when he came home at Christmas. The parents were relieved that they had finally been able to give their son enough money to pay for his education - because the family valued education.
That May, the parents received a letter from the school, indicating that their son had not yet paid his tuition. The school needed $8,000. The parents cleaned out all of their savings accounts to pay for it. Then they began to get letters from a credit card company. Their son had run up a credit card debt and hadn't made a payment in months. The credit card companies needed $4,000 to pay the son's debts - mostly textbooks and groceries. When the parents asked their son why he had put his textbooks and groceries on the credit card, instead of using the money they had given him, he told them that he had used up all that money on a weekend trip to Vegas with some friends. The parents were disappointed that he had wasted his textbook and grocery money, but scraped together enough money to pay the cards, because they wanted their son to be able to stay in college - after all, their family valued education.
That June, when their son came home, he asked the parents for the money for his last year of school. "With the extra expenses I had last year, it cost me $62,000. I guess I'll need at least that much this year." he told them. "Son," his father told him, "I'm sorry, but all that we can afford to give you this year is $30,000. That will cover tuition and books, rent, food, utilities, and leave you about $12,000 for things you want to do. I hope that will be enough."
"C'mon dad, my girlfriend likes it when I take her on mini-vacations on the weekends and buy her jewelry. The lease payments on my BMW are pretty hefty, not to mention the insurance... I know you can come up with more money than that - you always told me that we value education."
"We do value education, son. I'm working 20 hours of overtime a week, and your mother works six days a week. We hardly have any time to see your brothers and sisters, let alone help them with their homework. We've already exhausted the college savings for all of the children, as well as taken all of the money out of our retirement accounts. There's just no way we can afford to give you more than $30,000 this year.
"You could take out a second mortgage on the house, couldn't you? After all dad, what's more important than education?"
-----
What is more important than education? Is it more important that the son has a nice car, or that he can buy gifts for his girlfriend?
Was there enough money in the budget to pay for the son's education - if he had only made it a priority?
-------------------
In tonight's story, the parents were played by the citizens of California, the siblings were played by their children, and the son was played by your California State Legislature.
Dealing with Pirates (sea pirates, that is)
Piracy has reared its ugly head again in recent years. Somali pirate gangs can make millions of dollars ransoming a ship that they can hijack with little risk or effort. This is quite an incentive for entrepreneurial people - even in countries where there is a viable government and economy. The root of the problem isn't poverty in Somalia, as some will tell us. The root of the problem is that piracy is a relatively low risk and high reward criminal enterprise.
What is a good solution to this problem?
Paying the pirates off hasn't helped - the high profits and low risks of this criminal enterprise have encouraged more piracy. Once again, those who have ignored the lessons of history are being taught that appeasement doesn't really work.
Naval vessels can patrol the area - and are patrolling the area. This is an expensive and often ineffective method of controlling the piracy. Pirates tend to avoid the warships, and the warships can't be everywhere. Further, since the pirates must be caught in the act, it is overkill to have a destroyer or frigate fighting against a motor launch with a few pirates aboard. Better to have naval vessels on hand to hunt down the pirate base ships once attacks are launched.
Crews could be armed. Despite the fear of guns that is common in much of the world, it would not be difficult or expensive to place a few pistols, rifles, and shotguns in an arms locker on the ship. When pirates start pursuing the vessel, the Captain could issue these weapons to his crewmen to fight off the pirates. Of course, this may require that the crew members receive training in safe handling of firearms. As a retired USAF CATM (firearms instructor), I see a business opportunity for myself. - Shipping companies can contact me with job offers.
If shipping companies are not willing to arm their crew members, there are some great ideas we can take from history. When U-Boats and bombers preyed upon merchant ships, we supplied ships with Coast Guard Armed Parties. The Coasties manned anti-aircraft and anti-sub defenses on the merchant vessels, and were available to defend against armed boarders. Placing teams of armed personnel - either USCG or contractors - on US flag vessels entering the threatened area would be a fairly low cost defense against the pirates.
Another idea from history is the Q ship. The Q ships were armed merchant ships that didn't appear to be armed. The Q ships were designed to attract attacks, and then destroy the attackers. An anti-pirate Q ship might have larger weapons, like crew served anti-ship guns or missiles, and might have sensor and communications equipment that would enable it to track the pirate attack craft back to the pirate base ship.
High seas piracy is not a normal criminal act. Along with terrorism, it is a crime that destabilizes the international scene, and needs to be treated differently than regular domestic crime. Since pirates are enemies of humanity and civilization, every measure should be taken to ensure that pirates are killed during their acts of piracy, rather than imprisoned afterwards. Pirates are not prisoners of war, nor are they common criminals. They belong to a special group that needs to be hunted down and exterminated.
What is a good solution to this problem?
Paying the pirates off hasn't helped - the high profits and low risks of this criminal enterprise have encouraged more piracy. Once again, those who have ignored the lessons of history are being taught that appeasement doesn't really work.
Naval vessels can patrol the area - and are patrolling the area. This is an expensive and often ineffective method of controlling the piracy. Pirates tend to avoid the warships, and the warships can't be everywhere. Further, since the pirates must be caught in the act, it is overkill to have a destroyer or frigate fighting against a motor launch with a few pirates aboard. Better to have naval vessels on hand to hunt down the pirate base ships once attacks are launched.
Crews could be armed. Despite the fear of guns that is common in much of the world, it would not be difficult or expensive to place a few pistols, rifles, and shotguns in an arms locker on the ship. When pirates start pursuing the vessel, the Captain could issue these weapons to his crewmen to fight off the pirates. Of course, this may require that the crew members receive training in safe handling of firearms. As a retired USAF CATM (firearms instructor), I see a business opportunity for myself. - Shipping companies can contact me with job offers.
If shipping companies are not willing to arm their crew members, there are some great ideas we can take from history. When U-Boats and bombers preyed upon merchant ships, we supplied ships with Coast Guard Armed Parties. The Coasties manned anti-aircraft and anti-sub defenses on the merchant vessels, and were available to defend against armed boarders. Placing teams of armed personnel - either USCG or contractors - on US flag vessels entering the threatened area would be a fairly low cost defense against the pirates.
Another idea from history is the Q ship. The Q ships were armed merchant ships that didn't appear to be armed. The Q ships were designed to attract attacks, and then destroy the attackers. An anti-pirate Q ship might have larger weapons, like crew served anti-ship guns or missiles, and might have sensor and communications equipment that would enable it to track the pirate attack craft back to the pirate base ship.
High seas piracy is not a normal criminal act. Along with terrorism, it is a crime that destabilizes the international scene, and needs to be treated differently than regular domestic crime. Since pirates are enemies of humanity and civilization, every measure should be taken to ensure that pirates are killed during their acts of piracy, rather than imprisoned afterwards. Pirates are not prisoners of war, nor are they common criminals. They belong to a special group that needs to be hunted down and exterminated.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Say no to budget terrorism!
As usual, our state legislature has passed a budget that shorts education - because they know that educators will mobilize and get them to add more education funds to the budget (whether or not they make cuts elsewhere to pay for them).
This is a game of political "chicken", where the legislators blackmail the people of California by threatening the education system that benefits us all (by providing a literate workforce, educated citizen/voters, etc. - not just the "Free child care" or "keeping those young hoodlums off the street" that some think of it as) , until "we pressure them" into adding more spending to the budget.
They purposely cut education spending instead of other discretionary spending knowing that public outcry will add educational funds back in, whereas the public wouldn't lift a finger to add more funds for heart transplants for death row inmates, raises for legislators and their staffs, or whatever else they want to waste our tax dollars on.
We can't afford to forget the way that the California State Legislature has sold out our teachers and our students. They must suffer the consequences of their actions.
This means that the CTA needs to give absolutely no financial support to any legislator that doesn't vote to fully fund education every year, and to let them know that we will support the people that run against them.
But until we can give all those weasels in Sacramento the pink slips they so justly deserve, let's play the game and keep teachers in classrooms, and give our kids a shot at a decent education.
This is a game of political "chicken", where the legislators blackmail the people of California by threatening the education system that benefits us all (by providing a literate workforce, educated citizen/voters, etc. - not just the "Free child care" or "keeping those young hoodlums off the street" that some think of it as) , until "we pressure them" into adding more spending to the budget.
They purposely cut education spending instead of other discretionary spending knowing that public outcry will add educational funds back in, whereas the public wouldn't lift a finger to add more funds for heart transplants for death row inmates, raises for legislators and their staffs, or whatever else they want to waste our tax dollars on.
We can't afford to forget the way that the California State Legislature has sold out our teachers and our students. They must suffer the consequences of their actions.
This means that the CTA needs to give absolutely no financial support to any legislator that doesn't vote to fully fund education every year, and to let them know that we will support the people that run against them.
But until we can give all those weasels in Sacramento the pink slips they so justly deserve, let's play the game and keep teachers in classrooms, and give our kids a shot at a decent education.
Voice of the worker?
Note: The following is an email I sent to one of my union leaders as part of a discussion about the wisdom of the California Teacher's Association supporting tax increases in the May special election. I feel that the legislature deliberately underfunded education in this year's budget, because they know that by holding teachers and students hostage, they can get the taxpayers to pay more. I feel that it is wrong to encourage and support this type of terrorism. The response I received was along the lines of "You need to do what the CTA tells you to do. All the problems stem from the Republican minority in the state legislature, and the governor's refusal to raise fees." I was repeatedly told to look at the CTA website, where they "explain" the issues (which I did - but found unsatisfactory). I was also told that I am "anti-union" for wanting the union leadership to represent me and to listen to my opinion, and that the union is a last refuge against doom. - Joe
While (our local union) is a pretty good union (the membership isn't as involved as it needs to be, and there could be some improvements, but I'm happy to be a member), the CTA seems to be way off track when it comes to representing teachers in education issues.
Why accept "bad" because the alternative might be "worse"? Why not strive for "better"?
If the union is to be my last refuge, why not have my last refuge be a fortress where I can stand tall and see the sun, rather than a cave where I can huddle in darkness?
It is not the job of the workers to do what the union leaders tell them. It is the job of the union leadership to represent the union members by doing what the members tell them. I'm sorry that you seem to have lost that basic truth.
Politically, the union is a means for the workers to exert influence over politicians who might otherwise ignore them as unimportant. You are telling me that not only should we not try to influence the politicians to do what is best for us (the workers), but that we must follow them blindly - and follow the union leadership blindly rather than ask the union leadership to represent us.
I believe in democracy, not the kind of dictatorship that you seem to be espousing here. If the politicians don't care what the people want (i.e. placing a low priority on education, and then using lack of education funding as an excuse to raise taxes), they need to be thrown out and replaced by legislators who are willing to represent the citizens.
Similarly, if union leadership isn't willing to listen to what the union members have to say, then they are not representing the workers (union members) and must be thrown out and replaced by leaders who are willing to represent the workers.
So it is very disturbing to me when I send a message to a representative of my local union stating my opinion that the state organization is engaged in activity that will be harmful to teachers in the long run (as it presents the public with the spectacle of "greedy" teachers demanding a tax increase while giving the politicians someone to hide behind), and to set/further establish a dangerous precedent (that teachers will do the heavy lifting to help the legislature - even after they've screwed us over), and am told that:
a) my opinion doesn't count.
b) I need to shut up, sit down, and do what the union leaders tell me to do.
c) that Republicans are capitalist and evil, while Democrats can do no wrong (instead of looking at individual politicians and their individual voting records regarding education) even if they are the majority in the state legislature that keeps screwing us over (I don't think that this is because that small group of Republicans outsmarts them every time. It's obvious to me that there are plenty of Democratic legislators in Sacramento who don't give a damn about education - yet we refuse to call them on it because our leaders have demonized the Republican party and everything it stands for.)
d) that I am anti-union for actually trying to utilize the union as a way to voice my opinion.
This doesn't sound like the message I should be getting from an organization that I belong to, work with, and that is supposed to represent me.
Maybe you need to do some self reflection on whether you are prepared to actually represent the union membership, or whether you are content to act as a tool of the union leadership, and repress the voices of the workers.
I think that you need to look at the CTA site, and read what it says - critically read what it says. Read what is promised, and what is specifically NOT promised. Think about what else the CTA could be doing to resolve this budget problem.
Perhaps the CTA should be challenging the education cuts in the budget as being in violation of minimum education funding laws previously passed by the voters of California (prop 98). Perhaps we could take the legislature and governor to court for breaking the law by not prioritizing education in the budget. This could force them to rewrite the budget, prioritizing education and keeping in most of the funding that was cut. Of course, we should have been doing that throughout the budget process.
Perhaps the CTA could have the current budget analyzed looking to see where the money is being spent, and look at what the legislature has prioritized. Since education is one of the key responsibilities of the states, it should be in the top three items (if not the top priority item) in terms of budget priority (the other two would be judicial and infrastructure/safety). If non-priority items are being funded at the expense of education, we should publicize the fact that education is being robbed in order to fund x. There are plenty of "sunny day", "feel good" projects that somehow manage to keep getting funded even during rainy days and storms when money is too tight to afford everything.
Perhaps we could spend our money on anti-incumbent advertising to unseat those legislators who violated the law and chose to de-prioritize education funding. This would get rid of the worst anti-education legislators, and cause others to respect/fear us (as legislators respect/fear the prison guards union) - allowing us to see more real gains in the future.
Perhaps we should back a proposal that would restore education funding this year, or even next year, instead of having a little money trickle in in 2011 (with no real guarantee that those funds won't be appropriated for something else if the overall tax revenues don't increase enough).
Perhaps we should tell the legislature that if they want to raise taxes, they need to do it by themselves, rather than asking us to put it over and take the heat for their inability to make appropriate budget cuts.
Since we're looking at a couple of bad years in education either way, we can choose to reward those who have screwed us - guaranteeing that such things will happen in the future, or we can choose to fight them - which could make people hesitate to screw us over in the future.
I know what I would choose - if I had a choice, a voice, a vote, or an option.
While (our local union) is a pretty good union (the membership isn't as involved as it needs to be, and there could be some improvements, but I'm happy to be a member), the CTA seems to be way off track when it comes to representing teachers in education issues.
Why accept "bad" because the alternative might be "worse"? Why not strive for "better"?
If the union is to be my last refuge, why not have my last refuge be a fortress where I can stand tall and see the sun, rather than a cave where I can huddle in darkness?
It is not the job of the workers to do what the union leaders tell them. It is the job of the union leadership to represent the union members by doing what the members tell them. I'm sorry that you seem to have lost that basic truth.
Politically, the union is a means for the workers to exert influence over politicians who might otherwise ignore them as unimportant. You are telling me that not only should we not try to influence the politicians to do what is best for us (the workers), but that we must follow them blindly - and follow the union leadership blindly rather than ask the union leadership to represent us.
I believe in democracy, not the kind of dictatorship that you seem to be espousing here. If the politicians don't care what the people want (i.e. placing a low priority on education, and then using lack of education funding as an excuse to raise taxes), they need to be thrown out and replaced by legislators who are willing to represent the citizens.
Similarly, if union leadership isn't willing to listen to what the union members have to say, then they are not representing the workers (union members) and must be thrown out and replaced by leaders who are willing to represent the workers.
So it is very disturbing to me when I send a message to a representative of my local union stating my opinion that the state organization is engaged in activity that will be harmful to teachers in the long run (as it presents the public with the spectacle of "greedy" teachers demanding a tax increase while giving the politicians someone to hide behind), and to set/further establish a dangerous precedent (that teachers will do the heavy lifting to help the legislature - even after they've screwed us over), and am told that:
a) my opinion doesn't count.
b) I need to shut up, sit down, and do what the union leaders tell me to do.
c) that Republicans are capitalist and evil, while Democrats can do no wrong (instead of looking at individual politicians and their individual voting records regarding education) even if they are the majority in the state legislature that keeps screwing us over (I don't think that this is because that small group of Republicans outsmarts them every time. It's obvious to me that there are plenty of Democratic legislators in Sacramento who don't give a damn about education - yet we refuse to call them on it because our leaders have demonized the Republican party and everything it stands for.)
d) that I am anti-union for actually trying to utilize the union as a way to voice my opinion.
This doesn't sound like the message I should be getting from an organization that I belong to, work with, and that is supposed to represent me.
Maybe you need to do some self reflection on whether you are prepared to actually represent the union membership, or whether you are content to act as a tool of the union leadership, and repress the voices of the workers.
I think that you need to look at the CTA site, and read what it says - critically read what it says. Read what is promised, and what is specifically NOT promised. Think about what else the CTA could be doing to resolve this budget problem.
Perhaps the CTA should be challenging the education cuts in the budget as being in violation of minimum education funding laws previously passed by the voters of California (prop 98). Perhaps we could take the legislature and governor to court for breaking the law by not prioritizing education in the budget. This could force them to rewrite the budget, prioritizing education and keeping in most of the funding that was cut. Of course, we should have been doing that throughout the budget process.
Perhaps the CTA could have the current budget analyzed looking to see where the money is being spent, and look at what the legislature has prioritized. Since education is one of the key responsibilities of the states, it should be in the top three items (if not the top priority item) in terms of budget priority (the other two would be judicial and infrastructure/safety). If non-priority items are being funded at the expense of education, we should publicize the fact that education is being robbed in order to fund x. There are plenty of "sunny day", "feel good" projects that somehow manage to keep getting funded even during rainy days and storms when money is too tight to afford everything.
Perhaps we could spend our money on anti-incumbent advertising to unseat those legislators who violated the law and chose to de-prioritize education funding. This would get rid of the worst anti-education legislators, and cause others to respect/fear us (as legislators respect/fear the prison guards union) - allowing us to see more real gains in the future.
Perhaps we should back a proposal that would restore education funding this year, or even next year, instead of having a little money trickle in in 2011 (with no real guarantee that those funds won't be appropriated for something else if the overall tax revenues don't increase enough).
Perhaps we should tell the legislature that if they want to raise taxes, they need to do it by themselves, rather than asking us to put it over and take the heat for their inability to make appropriate budget cuts.
Since we're looking at a couple of bad years in education either way, we can choose to reward those who have screwed us - guaranteeing that such things will happen in the future, or we can choose to fight them - which could make people hesitate to screw us over in the future.
I know what I would choose - if I had a choice, a voice, a vote, or an option.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Props 1a and 1b are a loss for education
I am a teacher who is against Props 1a and 1b - not because I think the schools don't need more money (they need every dollar they can get), but because I think that the money is already there if the legislature would decide to prioritize education over other pet projects and boondoggles.
The legislature screwed teachers (and students) in their latest budget, and are holding our jobs and the future of our students hostage in their demands for more tax increases. This is pure terrorism.
Now that the California Teachers Association (CTA) Issues PAC is funding ads supporting Props 1A and 1B, it is interesting to listen to the ads and what they do, and DON"T promise.
The ad I keep hearing has two people talking about how important it is to pass Props 1A and 1B so that the state government will have more money and - "when the economy improves" - some of it will be spent to alleviate some of the cuts made to education, and re-hire some of the teachers who got lay-off notices this spring.
In other words, the CTA has decided to fund advertising for propositions that DON'T GUARANTEE FULL EDUCATIONAL FUNDING. So the CTA are the lackeys of the legislators who can't pass a valid budget, and who don't care enough about education to fund it. The CTA is placing teachers fully in the line of fire for those who are angry about tax increases, and at the same time not getting a solid guarantee that the money will go to schools.
Thanks CTA, way to screw your own members over. Why won't the CTA actually represent teachers and start fighting for the legislature to prioritize education funding, rather than using teachers and students as hostages for more tax increases.
Somehow, our legislators were able to find a way to pay themselves during the months when the budget was not being passed, but they can't seem to figure out how to prioritize spending for educating the children of this state to ensure that we have trainable workers and literate voters in the future.
I am disturbed that the California state legislature believes that education is not important enough for them to prioritize it when creating a budget, but do think it's important enough to Californians that the people will vote to increase their own taxes to pay for it.
I am even more disturbed that we are allowing the legislators to use us to do their dirty work for them - to go out and give them political cover for these tax hikes - with no actual guarantees that we will be fully funded.
The legislature screwed teachers (and students) in their latest budget, and are holding our jobs and the future of our students hostage in their demands for more tax increases. This is pure terrorism.
Now that the California Teachers Association (CTA) Issues PAC is funding ads supporting Props 1A and 1B, it is interesting to listen to the ads and what they do, and DON"T promise.
The ad I keep hearing has two people talking about how important it is to pass Props 1A and 1B so that the state government will have more money and - "when the economy improves" - some of it will be spent to alleviate some of the cuts made to education, and re-hire some of the teachers who got lay-off notices this spring.
In other words, the CTA has decided to fund advertising for propositions that DON'T GUARANTEE FULL EDUCATIONAL FUNDING. So the CTA are the lackeys of the legislators who can't pass a valid budget, and who don't care enough about education to fund it. The CTA is placing teachers fully in the line of fire for those who are angry about tax increases, and at the same time not getting a solid guarantee that the money will go to schools.
Thanks CTA, way to screw your own members over. Why won't the CTA actually represent teachers and start fighting for the legislature to prioritize education funding, rather than using teachers and students as hostages for more tax increases.
Somehow, our legislators were able to find a way to pay themselves during the months when the budget was not being passed, but they can't seem to figure out how to prioritize spending for educating the children of this state to ensure that we have trainable workers and literate voters in the future.
I am disturbed that the California state legislature believes that education is not important enough for them to prioritize it when creating a budget, but do think it's important enough to Californians that the people will vote to increase their own taxes to pay for it.
I am even more disturbed that we are allowing the legislators to use us to do their dirty work for them - to go out and give them political cover for these tax hikes - with no actual guarantees that we will be fully funded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
