A Conservative Argument for Single-Payer Health Care

Might a conservative argument exist in favor of a single-payer health insurance system? Yes, it’s a stretch, but our system is clearly failing many businesses and individuals, and taking such a sweeping reform off the table leaves us merely tweaking around the edges. The result is an ever more costly and complex problem that will only worsen as our population ages. A single-payer system might be the greatest boondoggle in the storied history of government boondoggle-ry, but the issue is too critical to too many not to consider every option.

So why might conservatives support a single payer system? For one, health costs are crippling our global competitiveness. Domestic automakers spend more on health insurance than they do for steel. Disputes over coverage have led to costly strikes and work stoppages in numerous industries. And finally, the cost of caring for the uninsured is built into healthcare prices, which are passed on to business in the form of higher premiums.

The problem is even worse for small business, the conservatives’ darling of economic growth. With limited ability to pool risk – and insurance companies cherry-picking low risk firms away from groups when small businesses do unite to form larger risk pools – a single unhealthy employee or family member can drive premiums up by tens of thousands of dollars (My premiums once increased $24,000/year thanks to the condition of one employee’s spouse). Furthermore, the fear of going without health insurance is one of the risks that prevent people from pursuing businesses of their own, driving yet another stake through America’s entrepreneurial heart.

One reason conservatives rightfully endorse free markets is that they are extremely adept at wringing out bureaucracy and inefficiency. But our current system does neither. Instead, it adds redundant sales and underwriting overhead, confusing billing practices that increase administrative costs for doctors and hospitals, and absorbs a not insignificant portion of our healthcare dollars in profits and executive salaries. Not that those are bad things, but when healthcare dollars are at a premium, we should be looking to maximize our bang for the buck – an elementary conservative tenet.

Philosophically, even limited government advocates such as yours truly would agree that some needs are so vital that a degree of government inefficiency is tolerable in exchange for universal availability. Highways, schools and mail service come to mind. Granted, none of these are perfect, but if left to free enterprise, we’d surely see large gaps in service, much like we see today with health insurance.

Finally, no one is safe from the expense of unforeseen medical bills. A 2005 Harvard University study showed that half of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills, though three of four filers had health insurance. We’re all at risk.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue, but a human one. I’d be the first to argue that healthcare is not a right, but I’m far less prepared to argue it’s not a responsibility – one that we owe to ourselves and each other. Let’s not dismiss any solution.

Burning Flags and Flying Bullets

Did anyone else notice the irony in the reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Washington, D.C.’s 32-year-old gun ban? George W. Bush, John McCain and Orrin Hatch, among others, lauded the Court’s decision as a landmark victory for a basic American right. Nothing surprising in that. But these same people have spent nearly twenty years decrying and seeking to overturn another landmark decision upholding a basic American right – the right to free speech.

The court’s gun ruling came nearly nineteen years to the day after it ruled that flag-desecration was protected speech under the First Amendment. That earlier ruling did not evoke the howls of joy we’ve seen these past few days. Instead, it led to numerous attempts to legally and legislatively bypass a decision some saw as a trampling of our sensibilities. (In another irony, the court seems to like to announce these decisions just prior to the 4th of July, where we can reflect on our newly-affirmed liberty by flying flags and sending untold tons of flaming gunpowder screaming into the sky, but I digress).

What I’d like to know is why the fear of burning flags, but not flying bullets? Clearly, the statistics since the court’s 1989 flag ruling paint a pretty stark picture. U.S. gun-related deaths: 567,020 (CDC numbers through 2005). Flag burning-related deaths: 0. To put those numbers into perspective, that’s about 138 private citizens killed for every U.S. soldier killed thus far in Iraq. In fact, it’s almost 150,000 more than we lost in all of WWII. Whatever one's view on guns, it's hard to argue that they don't pose a more immediate threat to one's personal safety than a burning flag.

I’d like to think the dichotomy of opinion arises from an understanding that the power of ideas, however repulsive, is greater than the power of brute force and therefore, more in need of suppression. Unfortunately, I think it’s just the opposite. The argument in favor of permitting undesirable speech requires an intellectually nuanced consideration that the argument in favor of guns does not. It’s a lot easier to understand the power of a gun.

That lack of nuance can manifest itself in self-destructive ways. It’s been said that when your only tool is a hammer, you see every problem as a nail. Likewise, when your only weapon is a gun, every adversary becomes a target. We see it on the streets of our cities and in the halls of power. Instead of turning to violence only as a last resort, we seek the preemptive strike. Kids are shot down because they make the mistake of riding their bike into the wrong neighborhood. Bombs are launched in order to “get them before they get us” – even when we’re not quite sure they’re really trying to get us.

I’ve always subscribed to the adage that the pen is mightier than the sword, which is why the pen has always been my weapon of choice. Unfortunately, it appears the sword is not only easier to use, but easier to protect.

When Yes Means No

Whatever happened to common sense? Michael McKinney, a former teacher at Arlington Heights Academy outside of Cincinnati, recently pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition for having a sexual relationship with a student last year. Under the plea agreement, he faces up to twelve months in jail and will be required to register as a sex offender for the next fifteen years. Under normal circumstances, I’d say he deserves all he gets. But these aren’t normal circumstances, and to be quite honest, I’m not sure where to begin.

First and foremost, this was not a case of having an affair with a fifteen, sixteen or even seventeen year-old student. The woman was eighteen, old enough to enlist in the armed forces and serve in Iraq if she so chose. But apparently not old enough to choose to be intimate with a fellow adult. Furthermore, she no longer attended the school, having begun classes at Cincinnati State University after accumulating enough credits to graduate from high school. She was only classified as a student because the rest of her class had not yet graduated and therefore, her name remained on the school enrollment – unbeknownst to both parties. Nor had she ever been a student in one of McKinney’s classes. Finally, the woman claimed the affair was consensual and had no desire to see McKinney prosecuted.

So what we have is a young man (McKinney was twenty-five at the time) having a relationship with an adult college student. Had the woman attended any high school other than Arlington Heights, there would be no crime. But because she once attended the same school where McKinney taught, he now faces the future as a convicted felon and sex offender.

Now, the first question that comes to mind is what purpose the sex offender registry is meant to serve. As the father of a pre-teen girl, I have every incentive to make sure my daughter is safe from the creeps who prey on women against their wishes and children under any circumstance. But when the list becomes populated with people such as McKinney it risks becoming as pointless and disregarded as the warnings that tell us our coffee is hot.

The second question is what this case says about our perception of women. Are we not saying that an adult woman is incapable of making an informed decision regarding the relationships she may have? It seems reminiscent of the kept woman culture of days gone by, where women were thought weak and in need of protection from their own impulses.

Katie Pridemore, the assistant prosecutor pursuing the case, argued that we must keep an eye on anyone who preys on those in a subordinate position. That is a broad and dangerous definition, especially in light of this case. Perhaps what we really need is protection from overzealous prosecutors who prey on headline-grabbing cases, with no regard for the lives they damage in the process.

The Definition of Success

I recently had an opportunity to consider the meaning of success when my dad came down from Michigan to watch my son play a basketball game at his elementary school. When I told him I hoped he’d get a chance to meet George Losh, the teacher responsible for the intramural program, he immediately wondered if George was related to Michael Losh, who my dad knew from his days at GM.

It turns out they are brothers. J. Michael Losh has a profile on Forbes.com that includes the following:

Chief Financial Officer of Cardinal Health, July 2004 to May 2005; Chairman of Metaldyne Corporation, October 2000 to April 2002; Chief Financial Officer of General Motors Corporation, 1994 to August 2000; director of AMB Property Corporation, Aon, H.B. Fuller Company, Masco Corp. and TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.

George Losh has no such Forbes profile, but if he did, it would read like this:

Teacher, Phys Ed., Union Elementary, 1973-2008.

If one were to judge success solely on the basis of resume, it would appear to be no contest. One has held senior executive positions at some of the world’s largest corporations. The other spent an entire career in a single gym at one of the state’s oldest schools (ninety-two years old and counting). Thanks to our unfortunate tendency to measure success in dollars and cents, for many the comparison would end there.

But that would do all involved – George, Michael and ourselves – a disservice. Because success should not be measured by the dollars we pocket, but the lives we touch. And by that measure, George Losh has enjoyed the type of success to which we should all aspire. His after-hours basketball, volleyball and gymnastics programs have attracted hundreds of children each year (some years saw up to 200 kids – more than 1 in 3 students – participate in gymnastics alone). My conservative calculation estimates that as many as 3,500 children left Union as better athletes and better people because of the countless hours George dedicated to his calling.

Now it has come to an end. Wednesday, June 4, marked George’s last day at Union. Reflecting on his career, he is proud of the good athletes he helped make better. But he positively lights up when it comes to those kids who arrived scared and unsure, but left excited and confident. Just as he lights up when talking of his brother – not about Michael’s money or power, but of his humility and unassailable integrity.

I can hear a basketball bouncing as I write this. That would be my daughter working on free throws and layups. She would not be out there were it not for George Losh. At one time, she preferred only sedentary pursuits like reading, writing, arts and crafts. That she wants to play ball is a measure of George’s success as a teacher. And if someday, someone speaks of her integrity the way George speaks of his brother’s, I will consider that a measure of hers as a person.

Time To Re-Think Nuclear

So our kids’ old babysitter stopped by for a visit while home on vacation and like most folks, we talked about her new job, her apartment, the thermal characteristics of nuclear fuel blends – you know, the same old, same old.

Ok, maybe that last topic isn’t so run-of-the-mill, but since she’s a recent Ph.D. researching nuclear fuels for the Department of Energy, it was only natural that we’d spend some time talking about nuclear energy. In the process, she confirmed some things I already knew and opened my eyes to a few I didn’t.

For example, I was aware the U.S. gets about twenty percent of its electricity from nuclear power, while in France it’s about seventy percent. That’s a huge difference, and one I’ll discuss in a moment. But I wasn’t aware the two countries have far different approaches to handling waste. Whereas we use the fuel once, then must dispose of a reactor core’s volume of spent fuel, France reprocesses its fuel, leaving waste about the size of a hockey puck.

Well, that sent me on a journey to learn more, which confirmed a second fact I already knew: I am no nuclear scientist. After wading through scientific papers on uranium isotopes, half-lives and alpha particles, I came to the conclusion that the answer is not quite so simple (imagine that – nuclear physics not simple).

Still, here’s what I learned. The U.S. has opposed fuel reprocessing because it leaves waste that could be used for nuclear weapons if it fell into the wrong hands, a reasonable concern. But new technologies (e.g. fast neutron fission) could greatly reduce the volume of waste and leave it of little value to terrorists.

So what would this mean for you and me? Consider that at France’s utilization rate we could eliminate all coal-fired plants, thus eliminating thirty-six percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Or we could eliminate half the coal and all natural gas-fired plants, leaving natural gas available for transportation and thereby reducing our need for imported oil.

Such a scenario is not that far-fetched. Not only does the U.S. have vast reserves of natural gas, the technology to use it in vehicles already exists. In fact, Honda’s natural gas vehicle recently won an award as the nation’s greenest car. Furthermore, we can tap into the infrastructure that brings NG to our homes and businesses. Imagine refueling in your own garage. We could help the environment while sticking it to OPEC and Big Oil.

No nuclear energy plants have been built in the U.S. since the scare raised by Three Mile Island and the simultaneous release of The China Syndrome (which included an eerily coincidental line that an accident could wipe out an area the size of Pennsylvania). But more people have died mining coal in the past year than have died in the entire history of the U.S. nuclear power industry. With an uncertain future for both oil supplies and our climate, it appears time we shake our fears.

Talking Race, Part II

Shortly after I moved out of my fraternity, our house became embroiled in a campus-wide racial uproar over an issue that was inflamed by a newspaper account that began “According to an unverified rumor…”

Unverified rumors are hardly the foundation upon which solid journalism is built, but no matter, the damage was done. We immediately became persona non grata on campus, the targets of verbal assaults, vandalism and physical threats from blacks and whites alike. The university took up the cause and ordered we undergo what today would be called diversity training, sending a series of African-American speakers to enlighten us. The first few did little more than point fingers and tell us how we represented all that was wrong with white America. Little enlightenment took place.

But the final speaker brought about an epiphany. Rather than rant, he asked three simple questions. Did we feel we were being treated unfairly? Yes. Did we feel people were saying things about us that weren’t true? Yes! And finally, the coup de grace – did we feel we were being prejudged? There was a collective gasp among the sixty-five or so young, white men gathered in that room.

Suddenly, if only in the smallest of ways, we understood what blacks must endure on a daily basis. How it feels when someone you don’t know shouts an epithet in your direction. When people eye you suspiciously for no apparent reason. How you begin to see malevolent intentions in even innocent gestures. It can start to make one wary, angry and more.

What this gentleman did so brilliantly was get us to understand his perspective by showing he understood ours. Rather than presume us guilty of racism, he allowed for the possibility that we weren’t, which in turn got us to lower our defenses and open our minds to how racism can manifest itself. That’s something too often missing on both sides of our discussion about race – an attempt at mutual understanding. Instead, there’s a tendency to stand on our respective soapboxes with fingers wagging and minds already made up. Ironically, that’s the definition of prejudice – deciding before the fact.

Whites tend to look at all the progress - anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, blacks serving in the upper-echelons of government and business - and thus want to believe racism is a thing of the past. Blacks, on the other hand, see the results of the pernicious, systematic racism of the past and thus tend to see racism today in places where it doesn’t exist. The truth is that both sides are often mistaken. Racism exists more than most whites care to admit, but not as much as some blacks might believe.

If both sides can allow for the possibility that things are neither as rosy nor bleak as we might think, we may finally reach that middle ground where mutual understanding takes place. Then, the collective gasp will likely come not from sixty-five young men, but from all of us. That day cannot come too soon.

Payday Lending - The Best of Intentions, The Worst of Outcomes

Imagine a working-class couple with marginal credit living paycheck to paycheck. They can barely afford to make the minimum payment on a $1,500 credit card balance left over from an auto repair bill. At 18 percent, that debt will cost them $3,365 over sixteen years.

But then the husband is injured and can’t work for several weeks, meaning they’ll have to make do on the wife’s income. When it comes time to make the next credit card payment they haven’t got enough cash in their checking account to cover the amount due – and won’t until the following Friday’s paycheck. Which means they have a couple of options.

They can send the check, hoping it doesn’t clear until the funds are deposited. This would be the “wishful thinking” approach. If it works, all is fine. But if it doesn’t, they’ll get dinged for $29 by their bank, another $29 by the credit card company and likely see their credit card interest rate soar to 24.99 percent, meaning it will now take 33 years and $7,500 – or $4,100 more than before – to pay off their balance.

Of course, they can take the “head-in-the-sand” approach, withholding payment until they have the funds, in which case they’ll save the bounced check fee but suffer all the other expenses, including a damaged credit score.

Or, they can pay fifteen dollars for a $100 payday loan, make the credit card payment, then repay the loan when the next check comes in.

Now some might wonder why not ask family or friends for the cash, but for many, life is not that simple. Truth is, people in such situations are often surrounded by others who suffer similar financial difficulties and thus haven’t got money to lend. Or they feel embarrassed asking for cash, and therefore feel more comfortable taking it from strangers who ask few questions.

Unfortunately, because some fall into a payday lending trap, we want to limit that option for everyone, which is exactly what will happen if Ohio’s pending payday lending reform makes such lending unprofitable. The result will likely be even greater debt, worse credit scores and more frequent bankruptcy. In fact, a study by the New York Federal Reserve has shown that to be precisely what has happened in states where payday lending has been curtailed. And if you consider the all-too-familiar scenario outlined above, it becomes clear just how that happens.

I once owned a small business where employees regularly requested advances on their paychecks because they had rent, utility or car payments due. And by due, I mean “they’re turning my lights off tonight” due. When I asked other business owners how they handled such requests, they said they didn't. Which means their folks had to rely on faceless payday lenders. The pending reform will take that option away, effectively turning out their lights. That seems a strange way to show how much we care, but that’s what happens when we don’t consider all the ramifications of our good intentions.

When Fairness Trumps Common Sense

Democrats and Republicans had different takes when Congress passed legislation last September to reduce federal subsidies of private student loans. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy claimed, “The reality is that our bill restores the balance to this grossly unfair student loan system by directing funds to the students, not to the banks.”

House Republican John Boehner disagreed, arguing the cuts would “cripple the private sector loan program.”

So who was right? Well, last week the New York Times ran a story about the difficulty high school seniors face in trying to secure loans for their upcoming freshman year. Which should come as no surprise, considering that more than fifty banks, including the nation’s largest private student lender, Bank of America, have pulled out of the market because subsidy cuts have made such lending unprofitable.

It’s reminiscent of what happened when Congress decided to place a luxury tax on the purchase of yachts back in the early nineties. The attempt to get the wealthy to pay their “fair share” backfired when wealthy folks chose not to buy such boats, resulting in large job losses for the working-class Americans who built them.

This is what we can expect when fairness replaces common sense as the operative value in crafting policy. Yet fairness drives proposals this election season on everything from tax policy and energy prices to free trade (never mind that the original North American free trade agreement – the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution – helped make us the most prosperous nation on earth).

Truth is, the profit motive is a powerful tool in bringing goods and services to market. Punishing those who succeed at bringing us those goods and services in the name of fairness may make us feel better in a spiteful sort of way, but it only serves to hurt us all.

Talking Race, Part I

I’ve started this piece about a dozen times in a dozen different ways, but have come to the conclusion that 500 words are not enough to make my point without coming across as some kind of Neanderthal. So instead, I’ll break it into pieces and start with a story I’ve told countless times, just to point out why it’s been so difficult.

It’s a little slice-of-life tale I tell whenever I want to demonstrate how unprepared I was for Houston’s heat, humidity and traffic when I moved there in 1983. If you’ve been there, you know that “ninety-five” refers to both the temperature and the humidity. You also know it’s not unusual to wait three or four cycles through a traffic signal to get through an intersection. So coming home from work one day, while sweating though the third red light in my non-air conditioned, Michigan-plated Toyota, I hear someone shout, “I see you didn’t know what to expect either!” I look over and see this big guy in the same boat as me – tiny, blue, non-air conditioned, Illinois-plated Plymouth Horizon, sweating in his white shirt and tie. We two displaced Northerners just looked at each other and laughed at the joke fate had played on us.

But there’s one detail I’ve left out that I’ve often struggled with - whether I should point out that the other driver was black. I always mention the color of his car and the color of his shirt. Why not the color of his skin? Mentioning his skin color isn’t an editorial, it’s just a fact, just one more detail to help paint the scene. Would I hesitate to say it was a freckle-faced kid, a big farm boy, an attractive blonde? Probably not.

But I hesitate to point out skin color for fear of appearing too aware, too concerned about such a detail in a racially sensitive world. Perhaps I’m afraid of sounding as though I felt his skin color mattered. But the truth is I feel I should be able to mention it precisely because it doesn’t matter.

Which is why I found the column I intended to write so difficult. I want to talk about race relations in America, but how to do so openly and honestly when I’m afraid to mention race under even the most innocuous of circumstances. And how can we, as a nation, have the dialog so many say we need to have when we’re afraid to ruffle feathers in the slightest, or when feathers are ruffled so easily?

Well, we’ve got to start. And people of goodwill on all sides must be willing to share thoughts, hopes, fears and concerns without fear of reprisal. Perhaps if we understand that the dialog is undertaken with good intentions, we can get somewhere. Of course, we know where the road paved with good intentions often leads. So be it. I’m ready to take my first tentative steps.

Let's Lighten Up On Young Athletes

I once calculated that my daughter fell about once a minute when she was learning to walk. Step, step, kerplunk. Using advanced math, I figured she was falling sixty times an hour, or about 720 times during her twelve waking hours each day. Sometimes she’d look at us with a proud gleam in her eye that asked, “How am I doing?” And like every other parent in the known universe, we’d reassure her that she was doing great. Eventually she stopped falling.

But I’ve often wondered if we could have sped up the process by being a little harder on her: “Come on, you know how to walk! We’ve shown you a thousand times! Just get up you crybaby! Billy can walk, why can’t you!?!”

Alright, maybe not such a good idea. Not only would we be poster children for world’s worst parents, but she’d have probably developed some strange aversion to walking and come to despise my wife and me.

Which is why I wonder why it is that the latter approach – the yell and berate approach – is so often the one we choose when it comes to youth sports. I’m not talking about the tough coach with high expectations. I’m talking about the tyrants. The ones who offer not encouragement and instruction but insult and embarrassment. And when coach and parent are one and the same, the result can be downright painful for child and onlookers alike.

In just this past month I’ve witnessed dads yelling at sons, moms yelling at sons, dads yelling at moms, sons yelling at dads (should we be surprised?), parents calling their kids names (including the aforementioned "crybaby") and even watched a dad turn his back on his son for the unforgivable sin of striking out.

What’s sad is that these kids turn to their parents for feedback just like my daughter did when she was learning to walk, but instead of a look that says “tell me how proud you are of me” or “tell me it’s alright,” it’s one that asks “have I let you down again?” That’s a horrible burden for a kid of eight, nine or ten to carry, believing their worth in the eyes of their parents is determined by how well they shoot a free throw or field a groundball. It’s enough to make one cry.

And in fact, it does. Over this same period I’ve seen kids cry, hyperventilate and vomit on the field of play because of the pressure we put them under. And for what? So we can brag about them to our friends? So they can be stars in high school, college or beyond?

The irony is that the best way for a kid to improve – and at this age there’s plenty of time to improve – is to love playing the game. Otherwise, it’s a chore and kids despise chores. Not only will they never realize their full potential, they’re likely to come to despise something else. I’ll let you guess who that might be.