Is there anything I can add to the health care debate that has not already been covered over and over? Not really, though I can without a doubt state that I am completely against it.

The one thing I would like to see more debate on though is the concept of being self-insured. In many cases, including my own, being self-insured would be a better and cheaper option than the plan I have now. For one, it would allow me to completely manage my own care as opposed to having to beg for permission to do anything, including exploring different options for treatment. In most cases now the insurance company turns down various treatments in favor of more cost efficient treatments they decided are right for me, even if in total opposition to my doctor's advice and desires. Those who make these decisions are adminitrators, not trained medical professionals.

I actually have a government run plan as I work for a government entity. I am forced to pay for this policy, and it is not exactly what I would call affordable! In addition, more often than not, they approve referrals to specialists, then deny payment after the fact leaving me with huge piles of medical bills that I must find ways to pay for over and above the premiums.

I am actually in decent shape for a man my age. I am not overweight and in decent physical shape. I do have degenerative arthritis and type 2 diabetes which leaves me unisurable in most cases. Add in the fact that my wife is a eight year breast cancer survivor and we are left completely out in the cold.

Last year my total medical expenses, (premium payments, co-pays and uninsured or denied coverage expenses,) exceeded $12,000.00. This is a huge chunk, especially when you make as little as I do. Crunching the numbers shows me that if I were self-insured, my medical expenses, including a catastrophic health care policy, would not have exceeded my current premium payments, thus saving me over three grand! If you add in what my employer pays toward my policy, (meaning what they contribute now would continue to be contributed,) it would have reduced my expenses another $4500.00! That $7500.00 would have been a huge benefit to me during the last year. It would mean the difference between just eking by each payday and actually allowing me to eat out once in a while, upgrade our vehicles, or even buy that big screen TV! More realistically, it would mean we could invest more toward our retirement, which right now looks pretty bleak.

So why is it now illegal for me to be self-insured? Should this not be an available option for all free Americans?

Should There Be More Stringent Qualifications For Office?

This last Presidential election has brought about many interesting questions, including one that has been asked in many ways, “Who is qualified for office, and what should those qualifications be?” The questions continue to be asked as the whole nation appears to be in debate over the qualification of Caroline Kennedy to serve in the Senate as a replacement for Hillary Clinton.
The Constitution itself only has minimal qualifications listed for any national office. For President:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

As for qualification to serve in Congress:

“No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.”

Critics of both President Elect Obama and potential Senate appointee Kennedy have argued that neither has the experience for the office they aspire to. However, as evidenced by the Constitution, there are no experience requirements for either position. States do not make any additional requirements to serve in national offices, but the voters do, and these requirements have a huge range.

For those seeking national office, or a higher office in the event the candidate is already serving in some legislative capacity, or has been in an office previously, it is relatively easy for one to discover and review the candidate’s history. Depending on the ideology of the voter, this record will either qualify or disqualify the candidate.

But voters can never really be put into a box. You can never depend on them to vote certain ways. While most have certain qualifications in mind for their candidate, they often rationalize points to legitimize their selection. There will always be those who vote according to party once the primaries are over and the final selection is on us. Others are pretty much one issue voters. The primary issues for these voters tend to be abortion, war or immigration… more specifically, illegal immigration.

This last Presidential election brought about a couple new categories for one issue voters, race and gender. Many voters cast their ballot for either Obama or Hillary because of these. This is only wrong if you are among those who do not believe race or gender is or should be a qualification to hold office. To those whom this matters, it is right and they will argue all day long about why it is important, why it matters.

Obama’s resume, while rather thin, did not matter to those who voted for him, but experience did matter when it came to the Republican nominee for Vice-President. Obama supporters stated that Sara Palin’s short time in the Alaskan Governor’s office was not long enough to qualify her to back up John McCain while Palin supporters pointed out that she had more experience than did Obama who was seeking the higher office.

Some have argued that we should revamp the Constitutional requirements for public office to outline minimal qualifications for candidates for various offices. There is some merit to this, and it would surly distract the legislators for quite a while as they debate what those qualifications should be, but I would make the argument against this. The debate has already been heard at least once, when our founding fathers were setting the requirements in the first place. I have come to the same conclusions.

The voters are the ones who need to make the decision as to who will represent them. One voter’s requirements are not the same as another’s. In fact, if you polled 1000 voters as to what their requirements for office might be, I would be willing to bet you get almost a thousand different answers. In other words, you will never get the voters to agree to a short list of minimum qualifications, and since they are the ultimate authority as to who serves in most cases, any laws limiting the voter’s choice of candidate would undermine the very freedoms this country is founded on and would be unconstitutional.

What If They Built A Car… And No One Bought It?

Who has not heard about the heads of the big three US auto companies going to Washington begging for money to continue their unprofitable ways? Few I doubt, even if they have not paid a lot of attention to it. One common reaction to this and all the monies Washington is forking over is that it is making people’s heads swim with the astronomical numbers being tossed around. It is difficult at best to imagine these numbers while looking at your own pay checks.
The one thing that connects most people to the concept of bailing out these companies is jobs. The economic situation has made about everyone to think about their own job security, which in turn makes most sympathetic to the plight of the auto workers who, as we are told, are wondering if they will even have a job by Christmas.

Yet something tends to stick in our collective claws. Something is not right about this whole mess. We know this even if we cannot put our fingers on it. One aspect only a few are talking about is the idea of the government taking over, or at least making production and design decisions for these companies as a condition for the loans. Many are actually afraid to really address the idea of the Government running private companies, but more and more are starting to question if it is a good idea to have the Government mandate what we will be driving. Picking out the car we are seen in every day is something most American’s take a lot of pride in. For most, it is something we put a lot of effort in as we peruse the ads and lots for the car that suits us best according to what we can afford.

Tastes in cars still vary considerably as they always have. Some still love the power and agility they fell in love with as they slipped behind the wheel of a foreign sports car. Mustang, Charger, Corvette, Trans Am, Camero, AMX, Mopar, hemi, Hurst…, these names and terms still excite many who thrilled at the loud rumble of the huge engines and the adrenaline rush they got as they were pressed back into their seats when the wheels started spinning and you flew out of the intersection like a dragster.

Still others loved the feel of the large comfortable vehicles. They felt safe surrounded by all the room such cars as the LTD, Impala, or even the upscale Lincolns and Caddy’s offered. As the SUV frenzy took over people fell in love with the large, roomy and powerful vehicles. They got a real sense of power and prestige as they shopped for larger and more powerful vehicles such as the Suburban, Excursion, or even a Hummer.

And of course American’s have always loved our pickup trucks. These great utility vehicles are the staple of the working man, and as they were designed with larger cabs and more luxurious interiors, more people chose them for everyday transportation.

Then the gas prices spiked and drivers were forced to make some serious compromises. I remember interviewing a gentleman by the name of Dave Blankly who was trying to convince himself he could be just as happy in the Saturn Vue he traded in his Explorer for. The excitement he usually felt when purchasing a new vehicle just wasn’t there, especially as he lamented the loss on his trade, the room and power he lost. While he did like the style of the smaller crossover, as well as the significant increase in gas mileage, he knew his argument that he could feel good about doing his part to save the environment was shallow at best. Dave is not really an environmentalist, but the entire PR surrounding global warming did influence him even as he questioned the whole concept.

I looked Dave up again to ask how he is getting along with his Saturn. He stated that he has gotten used to it but he also said he will never get rid of his classic Roadrunner he keeps in his garage even if he cannot fill the tank.

Dave and others spoke about the state of the auto companies and the proposed designs for new vehicles over coffee the other day. They do not like what they are seeing and hearing. Sure, there is a market for small hybrids, but these are not the mainstream buyers.

While most in the coffee shop nodded in agreement, a guy named Bob stated, “You know, we are Americans. We are a varied people and we all have different tastes. The American car market has always been unique, producing vehicles that others around the world wanted, even as they drove their little Bugs and Renaults around. Heck, the number one selling vehicle in China right now is a Buick! We don’t want what Washington wants us to have. We have the freedom to choose, and now they are taking away those choices by mandate! I won’t buy one. I will rebuild my truck a hundred times before I am forced into one of the new concept cars!”

Can the American auto industry survive if they do not produce vehicles the American consumer wants to drive?

Bailout Reform

Many of us are upset about the economic crisis, especially as we watch the fiasco known as the bailout. Just the other day we were told that instead of buying up all the bad mortgages that are directly responsible for much of the mess we find ourselves in, the Government is now buying banks and other companies.

We saw that AIG, the insurance giant, came to the well once again, all the while providing massive luxury meetings and huge bonuses to company executives, all with the taxpayer funded bailout monies. None of this sits well with the taxpayers.

I was against the idea of the bailout from the start, as many others were and are. However, our Government is bound and determined to keep on spending in hopes something positive will happen. In this light, and simply for the sake of argument, (not that I am actually pushing the idea,) I offer a different pathway for bailout monies.

A brief bit of searching turned up numbers showing there are approximately some 50 million mortgages. Most of these are solvent, being paid on time, but those that are either behind or in default are undermining the entire financial industry. The reasons for the defaults are many, including massive fraud, irresponsible borrowing, etc…, but this is a point for another day.
What if we gave the money directly to the mortgage holders? What might be the consequences? What would be the cost? Will it work? (Note: I am not breaking down the various types of loans or taking into consideration fraudulent loans. This is merely an exercise for the sake of argument.)

From the few figures I have found, the average outstanding balance of mortgages is somewhere in the neighborhood of around $145,000.00. If, for instance, the government gives out half of that money with the requirement the monies be spend paying down the principle and restructuring notes that were written at unfavorable terms. The cost would be about $362.5 billion. Now we put on the rose colored glasses to analyze the potential results!

The financial institutions that hold the loans would be flush with cash. These monies would be required to be the source of new loans, responsible loans to people who can pay them back. They would also be required to pay a small percent of the profits to the Government, (on not only the original monies but future profits resulting from the monies the institutions collected as a result of the new loans,) to pay the debts the taxpayers are now holding as a result of the bailouts.
Most mortgages should now be caught up and affordable. The homes would now have positive equity. Home values should actually rise adding even more equity. People would also have a larger percentage of their incomes available for other spending which has largely been curtailed as a result of this whole mess. With more spending comes economic growth as retailers need to by more product, manufacturers need to produce more goods, including the auto manufacturers which should help to negate the need for the Government to bail them out, more people are employed to produce all these goods which gives rise to more income and more spending. With all of this we should also see more home purchases. As home inventories decline, home building should once again increase, but hopefully at a more moderate pace.
Sales taxes would be up as would real estate tax revenues which will help the states, counties and cities.

If all this were coupled with reforms in Government, (especially in earmarks and institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,) and a positive national energy plan, we could go a long way in restoring the economic quagmire we are now entangled in.
If the problem starts with the consumer overspending, especially on mortgages, would it not make some sense to start fixing the problem on this end? Does this make any less sense than what we are doing now?