Is there anyone else out there who thinks all this yammering about our presidential candidates’ whereabouts during the Vietnam War is rather pointless? We’ve got people arguing over whether John Kerry was in Vietnam or Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, while others are asking where George W. Bush was, period.
I find it particularly humorous because the same arguments were made during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and W’s father. Clinton was defending his deferments and contacts with military officers in an attempt to avoid going to war, while George Sr. was fighting accusations that his WWII service might not have been as heroic as it was made out to be.
The lesson we should have learned in ’92 is that how one did or did not serve when they were eighteen or twenty years old is not going to make much difference in the way people see them as candidates.
Oh, sure, lots of people will beg to differ. Unfortunately, they are largely the people who already have their minds made up about the two. The same people who were defending Bill Clinton’s deferments are the ones asking where George W. was during Vietnam, while those who saw the senior Bush as a hero are painting John Kerry as a traitor.
In other words, how one views their service depends upon how one views their candidacy. How one views their candidacy does not depend upon how one views their service.
Personally, I don’t know where John Kerry was or what the circumstances were regarding the war wounds that he suffered while he was in Vietnam. But I do know that he was there. For that, I salute him. Anyone who serves during a time of war has earned my undying respect.
On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically qualify him to become Commander-In-Chief. Heck, I've got a cousin who served in Vietnam. He’s a great guy, a hard-working family man with a Purple Heart to show for his time in country. I’ll drink a beer with him anytime, but he is better suited for pursuits that do not require leading the free world.
As for W, well, I’d drink a beer with him, too – if he were still drinking. He was no Vietnam hero, but serving in the National Guard does not make him a coward or a slacker. And it certainly doesn’t disqualify him to be president.
The fact is that Vietnam – and the entire decade of the sixties – was a trying and traumatic time for the U.S. The rules were such that a great many people never had to serve, and those who did had to under the most difficult of circumstances. It is folly to try and judge a person today based upon their actions back then.
There are far more pressing issues facing us today than what took place nearly forty years ago. Rather than look back, we’d be better served by looking forward. What to do about Iraq, the economy, the deficit, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation and exploding healthcare costs are the things we should be discussing. But they are being drowned out by a tit-for-tat exchange that ultimately will have little bearing on how either of these men will lead this country.
Progress is all about where we’re going, not where we’ve been. But rather than peer ahead, we’ve chosen to fix our gaze squarely on the rearview mirror
9/09/2004
Red Car Syndrome
All lies and jest. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. – Paul Simon, The Boxer
While discussing the merits of a military draft, I once got into a heated discussion with a friend’s wife, who argued that women should never be subject to the draft because women don’t start wars, men do. I asked her about Margaret Thatcher, who sent the British navy to fight the Falkland’s war. Nope, men in Argentina started it. How about Golda Meir, who started the Six Day War in 1973, despite pleadings from Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon to refrain from doing so. Nope. It had to be Arab men’s fault.
Her inability to even consider evidence contrary to her opinion was a classic case of what I call Red Car Syndrome. That’s where you form an opinion, then selectively choose to consider only the evidence that proves your point. In the case of Red Car Syndrome, it’s the belief that red cars always exceed the speed limit.
Once you’ve made that assumption, then every time you watch a red car speed past, you say to yourself, “See, red cars always go fast.” The problem is that you ignore all the red cars that obey the speed limit, as well as all the brown, green and black cars that don’t.
In other words, your opinion is based not upon evidence, but upon what you want to believe. It’s the adult equivalent of covering our ears and shouting, “I can’t hear you!”
There are a few more common terms that define this behavior – tunnel vision, closed-mindedness, stereotyping. The definitive term is prejudice.
For that is what prejudice is – prejudging something or someone on preconceived notions or opinions. Our minds are made up based upon what we’ve observed in the past, upon what we’ve been told, or worst of all, what we want to believe. The problem is that it keeps us from getting to the truth. And the truth is what really matters. But we’re so preoccupied with convincing others that our opinion is right that we never take the time to make sure that it is.
9/03/2004
Two Americas? Whose Fault is That?
If the Kerry/Edwards ticket thinks it sees two Americas, they should take a look at my house. I’m sure they’d see two families – the Haves and the Have-nots. Two little people who have no money to buy anything, and two adults who – at least in our kids’ eyes – have all the money in the world.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.
I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.
As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.
I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.
The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.
That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.
That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.
Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.
Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.
Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.
My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.
The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.
9/01/2004
Prediction for 2008
Right after the Republicans took over congress in 1994, when Bill Clinton was at the depths of despair regarding his popularity, I predicted to a friend that he would win re-election in ’96. I based it solely on the roster of potential Republican candidates, not believing that any of them would be able to beat the master politician.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.
But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.
If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.
That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.
Here’s my reasoning.
First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.
I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.
But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.
Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.
So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.
8/27/2004
Treating Oil Like a 19th Century Buffalo Herd
Are we acting like the old buffalo hunters in the late nineteenth century? I once heard it said that as the bison disappeared, hunters had three options – they could find better ways to hunt the remaining buffalo, they could find ways to nurture the herd back to health, or they could find things to hunt besides buffalo. What they could not do, but sadly chose to, was sit in saloons drinking while waiting for the herds to return.
Now it looks as though we are following the hunters’ path with regard to oil reserves. It’s as though we figure we can continue to party on in our Suburbans, Expeditions and Hummers while we wait for oil supplies to build back up and prices to come back down.
It could be a long wait.
That’s because our current oil prices are not so much a result of supply problems as they are of demand. We like to think that the war in Iraq has disrupted oil production, leading to higher prices, but that’s not the case. The real culprit lies in exploding demand in developing nations, particularly China. Save for a collapse of the Chinese economy, that dynamic is only going to get worse.
So what are our options? Let’s consider the buffalo hunters.
We can look for new sources of petroleum. That seems to be the primary answer sought by the Bush administration. While they have made some cursory comments regarding alternative solutions such as hydrogen-based fuel cells, their foremost strategy is to drill more wells.
That is a short-term solution at best. The fact is that petroleum is a finite resource. What we have is what we get. It took millions of years for plants and dinosaurs to decay and become liquid oil. In little more than a century, we’ve gone a long way toward depleting that supply. It may last a few more decades or a century at best, but then what? The time to act is before it’s gone.
That leads to solution number two. We can nurture the resource. That means conservation. Despite arguments that this is no more than a touchy-feely solution with little real value, it must be our first step. Conservation buys us time. Were it not for improvements in energy efficiency over the past thirty years, we’d currently be consuming as much as forty percent more oil than we are today.
I find it strange that we have stricter controls on how much water we can flush down a toilet than on how much gas our cars can burn. That must change – water simply goes back into the environment. Oil disappears forever.
The real answer, however, lies in solution number three – finding alternative energy sources. There is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Of the options, hydrogen fuel cell technology is among the most intriguing. But we must consider all our energy options, including wind, water, solar, geothermal, and yes, nuclear.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or should I say it is on the pylon sign in front of the filling station. Those prices are rising because we are squeezing a precious, limited resource. They are not a sign of impending disaster, but of the need for aggressive out-of-the-box thinking. The time to act is now, lest we finish off the last of our oil like the delusional buffalo hunter down to his last drop of whiskey.
Now it looks as though we are following the hunters’ path with regard to oil reserves. It’s as though we figure we can continue to party on in our Suburbans, Expeditions and Hummers while we wait for oil supplies to build back up and prices to come back down.
It could be a long wait.
That’s because our current oil prices are not so much a result of supply problems as they are of demand. We like to think that the war in Iraq has disrupted oil production, leading to higher prices, but that’s not the case. The real culprit lies in exploding demand in developing nations, particularly China. Save for a collapse of the Chinese economy, that dynamic is only going to get worse.
So what are our options? Let’s consider the buffalo hunters.
We can look for new sources of petroleum. That seems to be the primary answer sought by the Bush administration. While they have made some cursory comments regarding alternative solutions such as hydrogen-based fuel cells, their foremost strategy is to drill more wells.
That is a short-term solution at best. The fact is that petroleum is a finite resource. What we have is what we get. It took millions of years for plants and dinosaurs to decay and become liquid oil. In little more than a century, we’ve gone a long way toward depleting that supply. It may last a few more decades or a century at best, but then what? The time to act is before it’s gone.
That leads to solution number two. We can nurture the resource. That means conservation. Despite arguments that this is no more than a touchy-feely solution with little real value, it must be our first step. Conservation buys us time. Were it not for improvements in energy efficiency over the past thirty years, we’d currently be consuming as much as forty percent more oil than we are today.
I find it strange that we have stricter controls on how much water we can flush down a toilet than on how much gas our cars can burn. That must change – water simply goes back into the environment. Oil disappears forever.
The real answer, however, lies in solution number three – finding alternative energy sources. There is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Of the options, hydrogen fuel cell technology is among the most intriguing. But we must consider all our energy options, including wind, water, solar, geothermal, and yes, nuclear.
The handwriting is on the wall. Or should I say it is on the pylon sign in front of the filling station. Those prices are rising because we are squeezing a precious, limited resource. They are not a sign of impending disaster, but of the need for aggressive out-of-the-box thinking. The time to act is now, lest we finish off the last of our oil like the delusional buffalo hunter down to his last drop of whiskey.
8/20/2004
Let Kids Be Kids
Growing up, there were these three solitary trees that loomed far in the distance from my house. They always seemed to be calling us – come climb our branches, sit in our shade, jump in our leaves. I can remember as a kid asking for permission to go down to the Three Trees (yes, the name was capitalized, since in my mind it was a proper noun just as much as Cincinnati or Omaha).
So, with mom’s blessing – and perhaps a sack lunch – we’d hike off across the fields that led from our house to a day of adventure.
I was reminded of those trees by two recent conversations. One was with my neighbor, who was reminiscing about the days spent fishing at local ponds when he was a kid. Like us, he and his friends would disappear for a day of seclusion, where fun was limited only by the imagination – and where there wasn’t a parent or adult in sight.
The other was with a mom worried about what our kids would do during the summer in the event we do not build a local $34 million community center.
Wow, has life really changed that much? Is the world that much smaller, that there are no adventures for kids to find on their own? Or has it become so dangerous that the only places we feel they can be safe are within our view or the confines of a controlled structure or activity?
I worry about today’s kids, whose lives seem to be planned out days, months and years in advance. I recently read of a ten year-old who played more than 100 baseball games last year. No big deal, we played that many and more every summer when I was growing up.
The difference is that we played four or five a side – sometimes even one-on-one – with no umpires, no uniforms and with scrap plywood for bases. This kid travels hundreds of miles with select teams, in the hope that someday he might get a shot at the major leagues. But is he having fun?
Because that is what childhood should be about. Fun, adventure, learning. With no coaches or umpires we had to pick teams (tossed bats and "bottle caps"), make up ground rules (a ball under the bushes is a double) and argue over hits, runs and outs. Along the way we not only learned baseball, but also leadership, compromise and conflict resolution. And we had a blast doing it.
Today, kids’ schedules are so packed with soccer practice, piano lessons and dance recitals that I fear they are missing out on developing some of those intangible skills that are just as important, if not more so, than the nuts-and-bolt talents their structured pursuits require.
I’ve always chuckled when I read how poorly U.S. students stack up academically with those from other nations. If we lag so far behind, why is it that we seem to run everything? From mass-produced automobiles to fast food, from music to the internet, we have led the way in just about every industrial, technical and cultural innovation.
I would argue that it’s because we have always valued creativity over conformity. Yet in a world where twelve year-olds now carry Day-Timers and Palm Pilots, I fear that they are going straight from cradle to cubicle.
I think we’d all be better off if they spent a little more time down at the Three Trees.
So, with mom’s blessing – and perhaps a sack lunch – we’d hike off across the fields that led from our house to a day of adventure.
I was reminded of those trees by two recent conversations. One was with my neighbor, who was reminiscing about the days spent fishing at local ponds when he was a kid. Like us, he and his friends would disappear for a day of seclusion, where fun was limited only by the imagination – and where there wasn’t a parent or adult in sight.
The other was with a mom worried about what our kids would do during the summer in the event we do not build a local $34 million community center.
Wow, has life really changed that much? Is the world that much smaller, that there are no adventures for kids to find on their own? Or has it become so dangerous that the only places we feel they can be safe are within our view or the confines of a controlled structure or activity?
I worry about today’s kids, whose lives seem to be planned out days, months and years in advance. I recently read of a ten year-old who played more than 100 baseball games last year. No big deal, we played that many and more every summer when I was growing up.
The difference is that we played four or five a side – sometimes even one-on-one – with no umpires, no uniforms and with scrap plywood for bases. This kid travels hundreds of miles with select teams, in the hope that someday he might get a shot at the major leagues. But is he having fun?
Because that is what childhood should be about. Fun, adventure, learning. With no coaches or umpires we had to pick teams (tossed bats and "bottle caps"), make up ground rules (a ball under the bushes is a double) and argue over hits, runs and outs. Along the way we not only learned baseball, but also leadership, compromise and conflict resolution. And we had a blast doing it.
Today, kids’ schedules are so packed with soccer practice, piano lessons and dance recitals that I fear they are missing out on developing some of those intangible skills that are just as important, if not more so, than the nuts-and-bolt talents their structured pursuits require.
I’ve always chuckled when I read how poorly U.S. students stack up academically with those from other nations. If we lag so far behind, why is it that we seem to run everything? From mass-produced automobiles to fast food, from music to the internet, we have led the way in just about every industrial, technical and cultural innovation.
I would argue that it’s because we have always valued creativity over conformity. Yet in a world where twelve year-olds now carry Day-Timers and Palm Pilots, I fear that they are going straight from cradle to cubicle.
I think we’d all be better off if they spent a little more time down at the Three Trees.
7/16/2004
One Step to Fix the Health Insurance Problem
What difference can one person make? A lot when it comes to health insurance. My company recently hired one person with a pre-existing health condition in the family. The change in health premiums? More than $24,000 a year. That’s a 42% increase in our annual premiums due to one health issue.
And that’s why we have nearly 44 million uninsured people in this country. Neither employers nor individuals in low-wage industries can afford the cost of insurance when a serious health issue is involved. And the way group health insurance works in the U.S. makes it almost impossible to work around it.
Take my situation, for example. Due to the nature of the work, our average wage is right around ten dollars an hour. Economics keep us from paying any more than that. Yet the one employee above requires health insurance that costs more than $11.50 an hour, which is on top of her normal wage. That alone makes the employee uneconomical. He or she will not be able to generate enough profit to cover the cost of insurance.
So I have three options (keeping in mind that I can neither legally nor ethically fire the person). I can eat the cost myself, which I cannot afford. I can pass the cost on to my employees, which they cannot afford. Or I can drop coverage altogether, in which case we’ll have twenty more families without health insurance.
If I pass the costs on to the employees, it can be expected that a number of them will drop the coverage. If we lose any more participants, we will drop below the 50% participation threshold insurers require to provide group coverage. That requirement exists so that carriers don’t find themselves covering just the sick.
But that’s precisely what happens. I already have healthy, young employees who have found individual coverage that costs far less than it does to participate in our plan. The only ones who remain are those with health issues.
One thing that would help would be the ability to join a larger group so that risk gets spread around, but the way it works now – well, it just doesn’t work.
That’s because even when part of a group – say the chamber of commerce, for example – each employer is still considered a separate group within the combine. So risk is not spread and small employers still bear the brunt of high-risk workers.
Even when groups treat all employers as one large risk pool, when high risk members join, the group’s premiums increase. Insurers then come in and cherry-pick the low risk employers with promises of lower premiums. The program eventually crumbles under oppressive premiums as only the highest risk employers remain.
So what’s needed is to find a large group that small businesses can join which will spread the risk, without fear that the larger group will bolt the program.
One such group exists – federal government employees. They have negotiated benefits administered through private insurers. It is not government health insurance. But it consists of a large, diverse group that would spread the risk far and wide. But more important, federal employees would not be able to flee the group in a way that now leaves small employers in the lurch.
Let small employers buy into that plan and they might no longer face premium increases of 42% because of one unfortunate health situation. And we might actually see a few of the 44 million uninsured finally get coverage.
And that’s why we have nearly 44 million uninsured people in this country. Neither employers nor individuals in low-wage industries can afford the cost of insurance when a serious health issue is involved. And the way group health insurance works in the U.S. makes it almost impossible to work around it.
Take my situation, for example. Due to the nature of the work, our average wage is right around ten dollars an hour. Economics keep us from paying any more than that. Yet the one employee above requires health insurance that costs more than $11.50 an hour, which is on top of her normal wage. That alone makes the employee uneconomical. He or she will not be able to generate enough profit to cover the cost of insurance.
So I have three options (keeping in mind that I can neither legally nor ethically fire the person). I can eat the cost myself, which I cannot afford. I can pass the cost on to my employees, which they cannot afford. Or I can drop coverage altogether, in which case we’ll have twenty more families without health insurance.
If I pass the costs on to the employees, it can be expected that a number of them will drop the coverage. If we lose any more participants, we will drop below the 50% participation threshold insurers require to provide group coverage. That requirement exists so that carriers don’t find themselves covering just the sick.
But that’s precisely what happens. I already have healthy, young employees who have found individual coverage that costs far less than it does to participate in our plan. The only ones who remain are those with health issues.
One thing that would help would be the ability to join a larger group so that risk gets spread around, but the way it works now – well, it just doesn’t work.
That’s because even when part of a group – say the chamber of commerce, for example – each employer is still considered a separate group within the combine. So risk is not spread and small employers still bear the brunt of high-risk workers.
Even when groups treat all employers as one large risk pool, when high risk members join, the group’s premiums increase. Insurers then come in and cherry-pick the low risk employers with promises of lower premiums. The program eventually crumbles under oppressive premiums as only the highest risk employers remain.
So what’s needed is to find a large group that small businesses can join which will spread the risk, without fear that the larger group will bolt the program.
One such group exists – federal government employees. They have negotiated benefits administered through private insurers. It is not government health insurance. But it consists of a large, diverse group that would spread the risk far and wide. But more important, federal employees would not be able to flee the group in a way that now leaves small employers in the lurch.
Let small employers buy into that plan and they might no longer face premium increases of 42% because of one unfortunate health situation. And we might actually see a few of the 44 million uninsured finally get coverage.
7/09/2004
Teaching Kids the Joy of Accomplishment
Most people are shocked to learn that I wrote my newspaper column for a year before the idea of getting paid for it even came up. But you know what? I love writing it – so much so that I would do it for free. And I did.
Everyone should be so lucky to find things to do in life that they enjoy so much that they would do them without pay. Obviously, that’s not realistic, but I am a firm believer that true success is measured by the joy and satisfaction that comes the endeavor, rather than by financial reward it brings.
This is a lesson I am trying to teach my kids – that money does not buy happiness. It’s walking a fine line trying to teach them the value of money, without making them money-obsessed. At the same time, I want them to appreciate the satisfaction that comes from a job well done, without them feeling that they should get paid for everything they do.
So how to teach them the value of money and the joy of work? This is just my two cents worth, but the bast way is to keep the two – the value of money and the joy of work – separate.
First, I do not believe in paying kids – especially young ones – for doing the things around the house that they should be doing, like cleaning their rooms, picking up toys or helping me sweep the garage. Instead, I want to reward them with thanks, a game of monkey-in-the-middle or just standing back and pointing out how good things look. I want them to feel the satisfaction that comes from a job well done.
Second, I say no. A lot. There’s not a time that we walk past a candy aisle or a toy display or a gumball machine that the kids don’t ask if they can have something. A trip through Walmart is a trip through the gates of parental hell. Can I get this? No. Can I have that? No. How about this? No.
Why not? Because it costs money, and we can’t spend it on everything you see. We need to save it for the things we really want. Now, obviously a quarter for a gumball is not going to prevent me from paying for the groceries, but they don’t need to know that.
Third, I do believe in giving them a small weekly allowance that they can spend on a small toy, or save for a while if they want to buy something bigger. Then when they ask for something, I can tell them to save their money. Nothing places a value on cash as quickly as telling them the thing they want is ten bucks, when they’ve only got six.
The time will come when they’ll realize that they can jumpstart their financial independence by doing things of value for others. Then they can get paid for working. But hopefully by then, they will have developed an appreciation for a job well done. Getting paid will be icing on the cake.
I’m no parenting guru and I do not claim to have all the answers – not by a long shot. But if I can get my kids to take satisfaction from their efforts, regardless of the financial rewards, then I’ll feel that I’ve been successful. More important, they’ll feel successful in ways that money could never buy.
Everyone should be so lucky to find things to do in life that they enjoy so much that they would do them without pay. Obviously, that’s not realistic, but I am a firm believer that true success is measured by the joy and satisfaction that comes the endeavor, rather than by financial reward it brings.
This is a lesson I am trying to teach my kids – that money does not buy happiness. It’s walking a fine line trying to teach them the value of money, without making them money-obsessed. At the same time, I want them to appreciate the satisfaction that comes from a job well done, without them feeling that they should get paid for everything they do.
So how to teach them the value of money and the joy of work? This is just my two cents worth, but the bast way is to keep the two – the value of money and the joy of work – separate.
First, I do not believe in paying kids – especially young ones – for doing the things around the house that they should be doing, like cleaning their rooms, picking up toys or helping me sweep the garage. Instead, I want to reward them with thanks, a game of monkey-in-the-middle or just standing back and pointing out how good things look. I want them to feel the satisfaction that comes from a job well done.
Second, I say no. A lot. There’s not a time that we walk past a candy aisle or a toy display or a gumball machine that the kids don’t ask if they can have something. A trip through Walmart is a trip through the gates of parental hell. Can I get this? No. Can I have that? No. How about this? No.
Why not? Because it costs money, and we can’t spend it on everything you see. We need to save it for the things we really want. Now, obviously a quarter for a gumball is not going to prevent me from paying for the groceries, but they don’t need to know that.
Third, I do believe in giving them a small weekly allowance that they can spend on a small toy, or save for a while if they want to buy something bigger. Then when they ask for something, I can tell them to save their money. Nothing places a value on cash as quickly as telling them the thing they want is ten bucks, when they’ve only got six.
The time will come when they’ll realize that they can jumpstart their financial independence by doing things of value for others. Then they can get paid for working. But hopefully by then, they will have developed an appreciation for a job well done. Getting paid will be icing on the cake.
I’m no parenting guru and I do not claim to have all the answers – not by a long shot. But if I can get my kids to take satisfaction from their efforts, regardless of the financial rewards, then I’ll feel that I’ve been successful. More important, they’ll feel successful in ways that money could never buy.
6/29/2004
The Medical-Industrial Complex: Today's New Threat
I use MSN.com as my internet home page and I’ve noticed that they seem to have quite a fixation on GERD. It seems that just about every other day, they have some link to a story about GERD – you can fight GERD, pregnancy and GERD, how to sleep with GERD.
What the heck is GERD? And why would I want to fight it and sleep with it? Is this some kind of new-age approach to marital problems?
Well, I finally clicked on one of those links and found that GERD stands for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. I think it used to be called heartburn. Apparently, it must be the primary health threat facing America, given MSN’s urgency in helping us in our war on this old ailment with the new name.
But then I noticed that every one of the articles on GERD was framed in a pretty, light purple color. A purple that is identical to the color of the little purple pill called Nexium, a product of the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It turns out that they are the primary, if not only, sponsor of the pages with these articles on GERD. And what, pray tell, is Nexium prescribed for? Can you spell G-E-R-D?
Now I remember the days when you spelled relief R-O-L-A-I-D-S. But in today’s world, why spend a buck on a pack of Rolaids, when you can spend $120 for a vial of Nexium?
The answer is both simple and complex. Simple, because we want more effective treatments for that which ails us. Complex, because the healthcare industry is all-too-eager to squeeze more and more dollars out of our pockets.
It’s common in every industry – from McDonald’s asking if we want to super-size our order, to the car dealer suggesting that we test drive the car with leather seats. But the healthcare industry is taking it to new and dangerous heights, and if we’re not careful, we’ll end up bankrupting ourselves and our economy.
It’s a new variation on Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the threat of the military-industrial complex. But instead of playing on our fears of death at the hands of the Soviets to create a military behemoth, we have the medical-industrial complex playing on our fear of death and disease in order to satisfy shareholders’ demands for greater profits.
Certainly, the profit motive has served us well in bringing new medical breakthroughs to the market. Without it, we’d have no MRI’s, no anti-AIDS treatments, no new cancer breakthroughs. But where does it stop?
There is a frightening synergy to MSN’s mix of news and commerce. Microsoft posts headlines about GERD as news items, then links them to pages paid for by Nexium. Those who suffer then seek (or is it demand) a Nexium prescription from their doctor.
I won't argue that publicly traded companies don't have a responsibility to increase shareholder value, but at some point, shareholder gains must be balanced with the public’s resources. We risk reaching a day when our economy is so centered around health care that it starves resources for other endeavors - and due to its immensity, believed too important to the economy and too influential to be reined in.
For example, Pfizer had U.S. sales of about $26 billion last year. To achieve a sales increase of ten percent this year, they would need to sell nearly ten dollars of additional product to every man, woman and child in the U.S. That’s just one company – and we have to wonder if hitting their target will be in our best interest or just theirs.
There was a time when we would treat gangrene with a shot of whiskey and a hacksaw. Today, it’s with antibiotic IV drips and microsurgery. Thank heaven for that, but if we’re not careful, we may find that whiskey is our only refuge from the financial pain.
What the heck is GERD? And why would I want to fight it and sleep with it? Is this some kind of new-age approach to marital problems?
Well, I finally clicked on one of those links and found that GERD stands for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. I think it used to be called heartburn. Apparently, it must be the primary health threat facing America, given MSN’s urgency in helping us in our war on this old ailment with the new name.
But then I noticed that every one of the articles on GERD was framed in a pretty, light purple color. A purple that is identical to the color of the little purple pill called Nexium, a product of the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It turns out that they are the primary, if not only, sponsor of the pages with these articles on GERD. And what, pray tell, is Nexium prescribed for? Can you spell G-E-R-D?
Now I remember the days when you spelled relief R-O-L-A-I-D-S. But in today’s world, why spend a buck on a pack of Rolaids, when you can spend $120 for a vial of Nexium?
The answer is both simple and complex. Simple, because we want more effective treatments for that which ails us. Complex, because the healthcare industry is all-too-eager to squeeze more and more dollars out of our pockets.
It’s common in every industry – from McDonald’s asking if we want to super-size our order, to the car dealer suggesting that we test drive the car with leather seats. But the healthcare industry is taking it to new and dangerous heights, and if we’re not careful, we’ll end up bankrupting ourselves and our economy.
It’s a new variation on Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the threat of the military-industrial complex. But instead of playing on our fears of death at the hands of the Soviets to create a military behemoth, we have the medical-industrial complex playing on our fear of death and disease in order to satisfy shareholders’ demands for greater profits.
Certainly, the profit motive has served us well in bringing new medical breakthroughs to the market. Without it, we’d have no MRI’s, no anti-AIDS treatments, no new cancer breakthroughs. But where does it stop?
There is a frightening synergy to MSN’s mix of news and commerce. Microsoft posts headlines about GERD as news items, then links them to pages paid for by Nexium. Those who suffer then seek (or is it demand) a Nexium prescription from their doctor.
I won't argue that publicly traded companies don't have a responsibility to increase shareholder value, but at some point, shareholder gains must be balanced with the public’s resources. We risk reaching a day when our economy is so centered around health care that it starves resources for other endeavors - and due to its immensity, believed too important to the economy and too influential to be reined in.
For example, Pfizer had U.S. sales of about $26 billion last year. To achieve a sales increase of ten percent this year, they would need to sell nearly ten dollars of additional product to every man, woman and child in the U.S. That’s just one company – and we have to wonder if hitting their target will be in our best interest or just theirs.
There was a time when we would treat gangrene with a shot of whiskey and a hacksaw. Today, it’s with antibiotic IV drips and microsurgery. Thank heaven for that, but if we’re not careful, we may find that whiskey is our only refuge from the financial pain.
6/25/2004
Opposite Approaches to Crime and Violence
Paul’s note: The subject is a local Cincinnati issue, but with global implications.
Ten years ago I had an opportunity to expand my business when a competitor went up for sale on Second Street in Hamilton, Ohio. It was a perfect match, but the deal fell apart when I asked the owner his hours of operation. He told me they stayed open until 7:30 p.m. during the summer, but closed at 5:30 during the winter. His explanation was that it wasn’t safe to leave after dark.
Now I’m in business to earn a living and provide for my family. Money is nice, but it’s not so important that I’m willing to risk my safety for it. So I passed on the opportunity. Less than a year later the business I was looking at shut down, taking all the jobs they offered with it.
There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to provide jobs for troubled urban areas. Provide a safe environment and the jobs will come.
It’s always been a chicken-and-egg debate. One side argues that crime flourishes because there are no jobs, while the other says that jobs are scarce because crime scares them away.
Well, it appears that two Cincinnati politicians want to find out which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Alicia Reece, the young vice mayor, coordinated a "Day Of Peace" this past Father’s Day. Ministers and community leaders spoke of the need for individuals to each do their part to put an end to the violence that has swept the city. Business owners, including Ms. Reece’s father, preached a message of hope by speaking to city youth about the power to become successful entrepreneurs and the opportunities available to anyone.
Normally I am not a big fan of symbolic rallies, but in this case the message being sent is precisely what Cincinnati’s young people need to hear – namely, that the answer to violence lies within themselves. If we can transform the attitude from one where guns mean power to one where education and responsibility mean power, we’ll see crime drop and jobs flow back into the city.
But while this was going on, State Representative Tyrone Yates was warning the Ohio legislature that unless the state provided $4 million for a summer jobs program, we could expect violence and bloodshed in the streets of Cincinnati. Now, he wasn't calling for violence, but he sends the message that if the state doesn't pony up, we shouldn't be surprised when the street erupts. Sadly, his warning could lead to precisely the type of violence that sends businesses and jobs packing. He's not marshalling the forces, but there are certainly those who will take it as a license to disrupt. And if the street does erupt, the groundwork has been laid to blame the disturbance not on the perpetrators, but on society.
It is ironic that while Alicia Reece’s effort was aimed at curbing violence, its end result will be more jobs and opportunities. Meanwhile, Tyrone Yates effort to create jobs is likely to have the opposite effect as violence is excused and jobs become more scarce.
Worse, Tyrone Yates perpetuates the myth that things can’t get better unless someone else does something about it. Alicia Reece is saying that the answer is lying there right inside each of us. One says we can’t do it ourselves, the other says yes we can. I’ll take can over can’t any day.
Ten years ago I had an opportunity to expand my business when a competitor went up for sale on Second Street in Hamilton, Ohio. It was a perfect match, but the deal fell apart when I asked the owner his hours of operation. He told me they stayed open until 7:30 p.m. during the summer, but closed at 5:30 during the winter. His explanation was that it wasn’t safe to leave after dark.
Now I’m in business to earn a living and provide for my family. Money is nice, but it’s not so important that I’m willing to risk my safety for it. So I passed on the opportunity. Less than a year later the business I was looking at shut down, taking all the jobs they offered with it.
There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to provide jobs for troubled urban areas. Provide a safe environment and the jobs will come.
It’s always been a chicken-and-egg debate. One side argues that crime flourishes because there are no jobs, while the other says that jobs are scarce because crime scares them away.
Well, it appears that two Cincinnati politicians want to find out which is the chicken and which is the egg.
Alicia Reece, the young vice mayor, coordinated a "Day Of Peace" this past Father’s Day. Ministers and community leaders spoke of the need for individuals to each do their part to put an end to the violence that has swept the city. Business owners, including Ms. Reece’s father, preached a message of hope by speaking to city youth about the power to become successful entrepreneurs and the opportunities available to anyone.
Normally I am not a big fan of symbolic rallies, but in this case the message being sent is precisely what Cincinnati’s young people need to hear – namely, that the answer to violence lies within themselves. If we can transform the attitude from one where guns mean power to one where education and responsibility mean power, we’ll see crime drop and jobs flow back into the city.
But while this was going on, State Representative Tyrone Yates was warning the Ohio legislature that unless the state provided $4 million for a summer jobs program, we could expect violence and bloodshed in the streets of Cincinnati. Now, he wasn't calling for violence, but he sends the message that if the state doesn't pony up, we shouldn't be surprised when the street erupts. Sadly, his warning could lead to precisely the type of violence that sends businesses and jobs packing. He's not marshalling the forces, but there are certainly those who will take it as a license to disrupt. And if the street does erupt, the groundwork has been laid to blame the disturbance not on the perpetrators, but on society.
It is ironic that while Alicia Reece’s effort was aimed at curbing violence, its end result will be more jobs and opportunities. Meanwhile, Tyrone Yates effort to create jobs is likely to have the opposite effect as violence is excused and jobs become more scarce.
Worse, Tyrone Yates perpetuates the myth that things can’t get better unless someone else does something about it. Alicia Reece is saying that the answer is lying there right inside each of us. One says we can’t do it ourselves, the other says yes we can. I’ll take can over can’t any day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)