Health Insurance Choice

Surely one of the biggest smokescreens in the current health insurance debate is that of consumer choice. Much is made of the choice of consumers as to the coverage plan they wish to purchase while the fact of the matter is that very few people actually have any choice at all! If you are fortunate enough to work for a large company or you can afford to buy your policy as an individual then you may have some choices available to you. Given that many insurance companies had virtual monopolies within given states, little real choice exists for those in those states. For the majority who work for small businesses that can afford insurance for their employees, the choice is what ever plan the employer can get the cheapest. That usually leaves the employee with an option of one plan or nothing. Some choice that is.

In order to control premium costs many benefits are being reduced or eliminated. Is this also not a reduction in choice?

The fact is that choice is only a political argument for the majority of people. No real choice exists!

Economic Winter

I'm sitting at the computer looking out the window at the falling snow. Two things come to mind. First, the snow is beautiful to see falling and on the ground. Undisturbed scenes of winter are beautiful but at the same time I'm ready for winter to end. I need warmth and the hope of spring.

Second, I'm reminded of the economic situation. It still looks and feels like winter and we all want it to be over. Is an economic spring time coming soon? I hope so. I'm starting to see more job postings and I feel good that I've been able to apply for a half dozen of them over the past few days. Let's hope I get a reply or two soon.

Michigan is not known for having particularly short winters but this economic winter does not seem to have an end. Many seem to think that the end is in sight but I'm not convinced yet. I may be convinced once I find a job but maybe those who see the end are a bit blinded because they have a job.

Going back to school may help me see the end as well but I really want the job first. I have no wish go into debt at my age and making this winter last into my retirement. Financing more education could do that. I have no wish to dig out from any more debt than I do shovel the piles of snow in front of me.

Spring will be here in a couple of months as far as my view out the window is concerned but when will it arrive for the people of this state and for me?

Broken Government?

I've heard the questions asking if the government is broken. Is that really the right question? I don't believe that the government is broken, rather the people elected to run it are. Often I hear how complicated issues are and I don't really believe it. Squabbling politicians act more like a bunch of children that can't play together in the same sand box more than adults having a civil conversation or debate. More time and energy are spent fighting over ideology than over real issues. None of them have the courage and fortitude to do the right thing for the people. Is it not better to be voted out for doing what is necessary than bowing down to political expediency? I have heard of members of congress who will vote against their own, or their own party's measures, simply because there are not enough votes to ensure passage. That is illogical and cowardly. If all members voted using such logic nothing would ever get passed.

I fully understand differences within a given party. Everyone will not agree on every issue. There is a time and a place to air these differences and in public and the media are not the places. Caucus is the appropriate place for these discussions. Public party splits are not good for anyone. Besides the bad PR the only thing this serves to do is confuse the public and erode support. The Democrats are especially guilty of this. You cannot dig at the foundation of your own house for long before it falls. Perhaps the Canadian system has something to teach its southern neighbor. Discuss the issues in caucus, and with the people represented the make a unified policy and stick with it. Present a unified face to the people and demonstrate real leadership.

Congressional leaders have ample opportunity to discuss and formulate policy with the President. There is no excuse for the leaders of the governing party to differ publicly with the President on major policy issues. In order to be effective leaders, those who hold the positions of authority must show unity in their goals and in their actions. These qualities are solely lacking in the present governing party leadership.

Ideally I think a real third party would help revitalize this wounded system, but I don't see that happening in a so culturally entrenched in a two party philosophy. Believe me, politics is no science and never will be. The term should be political philosophy. Science is about facts. There are very few facts in politics and those that there are are subject to unendingly blurry and interpretation based on theoretical ideologies none of which can stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

Pure unrestrained capitalism is proven to be self destructive. The few greedy will bring the system crashing down every time. If the great depression and this current recession don't prove the point, I don't know what does. On the contrary, pure socialism is as equally unsuccessful. The former USSR is the testament to this as well. We need restraints on both ends of the spectrum in order to maintain a successful balance that is fair for all. There is a real middle ground where all can thrive. If our leaders can get past their extreme ideologies a real middle ground can be found where all can live in prosperity and justice.

No Worker Left Behind

For as many success stories as Michigan's "No Worker Left Behind" program has to it's credit the program has enormous structural problems for the workers it's intended to help.

To begin with, the responsibility to administer the program locally has been given to the local school districts through Michigan Works. As a result there is no consistency from one district to another. One district may still have money available while another does not. The quality of the personnel running the program is inconsistent at best. Some follow through with their clients and others do not. Once a client begins the application process in one district they have to start from scratch again if they want to go to another district office. There is no mechanism to transfer from district to district.

Another problem for me is the invasiveness of the program. They require detailed personal financial information that I am not comfortable disclosing. I don't feel that an individual should have to provide detailed banking statements to any government agency without a warrant or other similar legal instrument. This is a great affront to me and I view it as a violation of my rights to privacy.

Until you attend the orientation, which you may have to wait six months to get an appointment for, you may not realize that the program is a second payer program. You have to apply for a Pell grant first. Only after that application goes through will they pay the balance of tuition up to $5000 per year for two years.

The system is so bureaucratic and poorly organized that it could take months to get through it. By that time you may well have exhausted your unemployment benefits.

Additionally, the community colleges do not have the programs in place yet to train people for the new jobs or if they do, they do not have sufficient seats to meet the demand. More opportunities would be available if the training was available at accredited online institutions but this type of education is not available within the program.

All of these deficiencies can be addressed but only if there is the political understanding of the situation and the willpower to do something about it.

State and City Budgets

Most states and cities are dealing with large budget deficits and can't find any more places to make cuts. I realize my idea would require legislative action and perhaps constitutional change but it is what it is.

My question is, do we really need to fund two elections each year? The burden of these costs is on the state and city governments, IE you and I. How much could these governments save if odd year elections were eliminated? How much more could be saved if everyone changed to a caucus system for nominations instead of a publicly funded primary election? This is the only country I am aware of with such a system where there is a constant election cycle for one thing or another.

If we really want to shrink the cost of government isn't this a good place to start?

I also have problems with the concept of an elected official running an election. The city clerk where I live is one of the few who is a civil employee, not elected to the position. It seems to me that having an elected official running an election that they themselves are running in could be viewed as a huge conflict of interest and an open door to corruption.