Conservatives hate socialism. We know this is true because they tell us how evil socialism really is every chance they get. According to many conservatives, socialist public policies are to blame for everything from the destruction of the American family (think welfare) to the crumbling of American manufacturing (think labor unions) to the financial straits of the American government (think Social Security, Medicare, and any non-defense related government spending). If there is a problem in America, odds are that some socialist policy is behind it, or so a conservative might assert.

Many conservatives insist that socialism will destroy America, that Democrats are really just socialists at heart, and therefore that Democrats destroy America. Even more, they confuse socialism and communism, and insist that Democrats are just communists bent on destroying the wonders of American capitalism by taking “our money” and giving it to the “worthless, lazy slobs” who are too stupid to grab a real chunk of the “American dream.” Conservatives are loathe to approve public policies that spend taxpayer money on healthcare or childcare or food assistance or anything that diverts tax money away from corporations and towards the citizens.

For conservatives, the notion of Capitalist Socialism is an oxymoron, an impossibility, an evil force of perveted economics. Unless you’re talking about the kind of socialism whereby the public has to bail out private corporations who have managed their affairs so badly that their collapse might have widespread economic implications. In that case, socialism is not only okay, it’s the only way to go.

The general public actually embraces some forms of Capitalist Socialism, like the ever popular Social Security program. Truth be told, most of our “public” institutions are funded through a form of socialism. When our taxes are spent on hospitals or schools or police departments, this is a form of socialism. We all pay for the services that we all receive. Our system of capitalism depends upon socialism in this form, as does any democratic country and government. But the conservatives ignore the fact of this kind of socialism because it provides them with billions of dollars to dispense annually, and they like to give our tax money to fat cat corporations by way of no-bid contracts or public bail-outs.

It is a hypocrisy that is lost on most people though, because of the demonized reputation the word “socialism” has gotten at the hands of the conservative political machine. Ask your average citizen how they feel about socialism and you’ll probably get an earful of criticism. But try to explain that we already live under a form of socialism and you’ll be speaking to deaf ears. We can’t be socialist! We’re a damn democracy, and we’re capitalists to boot.

Uh, yeah. Right.

I’m not against socialist programs per se. Our social safety net programs have helped millions of Americans over the years to avoid abject poverty. And to be fair, many of our socialist programs have not lived up to their potential, although I would insist that any failures lie at the hands of greedy politicians and political special interest groups more than in the design of the programs themselves. Social Security, one of the biggest socialist programs we have (in terms of overall cost) is nearing insolvency as much because of politicians raiding the fund as the rising population of retirees. But when it comes to corporate bail-outs where the failure lies in lax oversight or outright fraud, I have to say I’m not all that keen on corporate socialism. Especially when those individuals at the top of the corporate heap, who laugh all the way to their off-shore banks, are never held responsible in any meaningful way for their corrupt practices that result in massive financial loss to average working folks and end up costing us all when the government steps in to bail them out.

The current financial crisis in the mortgage industry is a direct result of the Bush administration’s laissez-faire attitude towards financial regulation and oversight. You’d have thought that the Enron collapse (and other corporate meltdowns over the last 7 years) would have opened the publics eyes, and maybe it did for a few minutes. But put a sweet, juicy apple in front of a horse and he may well forget that the last apple you  gave him was really just a piece of rotton fruit. When Bush proclaimed his desire to create “The Ownership Society” he was handing us an apple. It did taste pretty good for a few chews, but as we reach the core, we can see how rotton it really was. And the taste seems to be lingering far longer than it ever should.

By creating an atmosphere of lax enforcement and by stripping away funding for regulation and any sort of oversight, the mortgage industry called open season on America. They played fast and furious to get anyone into a home regardless of the financial realities such moves required. They got paid when the made the loan, then they sold the loan and got paid again. They didn’t give a crap about the people at the end of the trail though, those who would ultimately be left holding worthless loan notes because the original borrower would never be able to pay the full rates when the juicy apple revealed itself to be rotton.

And by and large, as the banking system is brought to its knees by its own greed, none of those folks who fueled the boom will be held responsible. Much like the German Army of the 19030’s and 1940’s, these fine folks were just following orders. They didn’t make the rules after all. Why should they be held responsible?

Socialism has some good qualities- like the collective payments for public institutions and infrastructure or social safety nets that promote work while offering a hand in hard times. But socialism also has an evil side, just like the conservatives tell us it does. It’s called corporate socialism. Isn’t it funny how it’s the only aspect of socialism that the conservatives really seem to love?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Proving once again to have their collective finger on the pulse of what really matters, the federal government has begun dispensing $40 coupons to households in the effort to make sure that no American will go without their precious television shows. All told, up to $1.5 BILLION has been set aside to protect the interests of electronics manufacturers, broadcasting networks, and pretty much anyone who has a commercial to run on television.

For years, the public has been told about the upcoming conversion to digital transmission for television signals. Of course, this is a topic that is about as interesting to the average person as the molecular make-up of peanut-butter (which may account for the fact that 51% of people still have no idea that this is coming.) In fact, the switch is coming soon- February 18, 2009 to be exact. On that day, any person who does not own a digital telelvision set and still gets their television signal “over-the-air” with an antenna will suddenly be greeted with static and snow when they turn on their set. Imagine the horror! Imagine the fear! Imagine the mass panic! What the f%#k happened to our TV???

Fortunately, Congress in its infinite wisdom, foresaw such a widespread panic in the making and has worked ahead of the curve to provide a solution. Because of this coupon give-away program, there should be no reason for any American to lose even a second of life-giving television viewing when the switch is made.

For the record, I work in the television industry. Television literally pays my bills, so of course I am happy in a sense that so many people prefer to sit for hours in front of their sets instead of doing other things. So for my own personal reasons, making sure that everyone can get a TV signal is a good thing. But to spend $1.5 BILLION of federal tax money to make sure that people don’t lose their signal? Give me a freaking break! This is beyond ludicrous, it’s obscene.

America has many more pressing problems that could be helped with a billion and a half dollars. Dilapidated schools. Hospital shortages. Food pantry closures. Making sure our veterans don’t get screwed every time they turn around. I could go on and on and on. The last thing we need to be throwing money at is television converter boxes.

Let’s face reality here. Americans are already so addicted to television that they will go out and buy the damn boxes themselves. Even the people who can’t really afford to. The anecdotal proof is in the pudding- I can’t tell you how many times my wife or I have been to the grocery store and seen a family ahead of us splilt their purchases into two piles: one pile of food that they pay for with food stamps, and one pile of dvd’s and video games and beer that they pay for with cash. Or how about the fact that most people consider someone who lives without television to be really wierd? In the land of the free and the home of the brave, even the poorest houses have at least one television. So when the government starts throwing out money to “help people keep their television’s working” I want to wretch. Because this is a program that is unnecessary, wasteful, and offensive in a time where dollars are short and there are many things more important to fund.

Of course, politicians need television, and they need people to get television signals, so this is as much self-preservation for them as it is a nod to their contributors and a give-away to the public. But hey- who am I to rage? When it’s all said and done, the Great Television Coupon Give-Away of 2008 may well end up being the most popular thing that the 2006 Democratic Congressional winners can produce. After all, if there’s one thing every American would probably agree on it’s that life without television is just, well, un-American.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Across the country, food pantries are running out of stock. Donations are dwindling, in part because families can’t afford to donate as much or as often, but also because manufacturers have focused on better, cost-cutting production methods, leaving less overstock for donations. And the third factor at play is the federal government, whose practice of buying food from farmers (read subsidies here) to stabilize prices has decreased over the last few years as farm prices have stayed stable. Less government buying means less goverment donations. USDA donations to food pantries has declined 70% over the last three years.

Just as the lack of water in the southwest is a harbinger of tough times ahead, so too is the decrease in available food for the needy at a time when the number of needy is on the rise. In years past, my family has always participated in food drives from the post office. We’ve donated money to local food banks around the holidays. We’ve tried to do our small part. This year though, we’re going to have to cut back on our giving. We’ll still be giving, but not as much and not as often. We’re not going hungry, but we need to tighten our belts like everyone else. And I suspect that this scenario is being repeated in millions of homes across the country. People who used to give a lot are cutting back. People who used to give a little aren’t giving at all. People who couldn’t afford to give before may now be the people standing in line.

With Thanksgiving just a few days away, remember to actually be thankful if you have enough to eat. Fact is, most American families are just one major medical problem away from standing in line at the food pantry. Fact is that many American families are now cutting food budgets to pay for gas so they can get to and from work, and the grocery store. As fuel and food prices continue to increase, many more may join the line.

And yet in Bizarroland, aka Bush’s America, the president today praised the economy as he pardoned two turkeys in the Rose garden. Here are a few of his comments:

“This Thanksgiving, we are grateful for a harvest big enough to feed us all
— and millions more.”

“We’re grateful for working Americans who have given us the longest
period of uninterrupted job creation on record and a prosperity that lifts our
citizens. “

These comments, sprinkled into a speech about pardoning turkeys, show America just how out of touch their president really is. Bush may have spared the lives of two turkeys today, but he obviously doesn’t have a clue about the lives of actual people, and I don’t think he really cares.

Tobacco taxation, in its msot current incarnation, is touted as a way to reduce the smoking of tobacco by increasing the price of the product. The theory (and it has been proven to a small extent among some smoking populations) is that if the price of tobacco increases fewer people will smoke, or at least those who smoke will smoke less. In this case, tobacco taxation is being used as a tool to change behavior. But you should ask yourself if the government really wants to have fewer smokers around. I submit that they do not, and the constant attempts to increase tobacco taxes to pay for any myriad of government projects should bear out my stance.

For instance, in the case of SCHIP, the federal government decides that in order to fund the program they need to increase tobacco taxes. Yet, under the behavioral modification theory, the fact that they plan to increase taxes on tobacco should lead to fewer packs of cigarettes being sold, meaning that there would be less tax money to fund SCHIP. In that case, where does the remainder come from? In fact, the government hopes that raising tobacco taxes will not affect most smokers, who are in fact addicted to the substance, and they will just keep smoking and paying the taxes. They know this is what will happen, and they count on smokers keeping right on smoking. They WANT smokers to keep smoking.

But SCHIP isn’t the only thing dependent on tobacco taxation. Aside from health related programs (that are dependent primarily, if not solely, on tobacco taxes) governments use tobacco taxes to swell their general funds accounts, thereby using tobacco money for projects unrelated to health care. When the states sued the tobacco companies and settled for multiple billions of dolalrs, they said that those funds were to be dedicated to health care costs for smoking related diseases. But state governments have repeatedly raided those “windfall funds” and used them for anything from roads to environmenta l impact studies to school building projects and so on. And they rely on smokers to keep those dollars rolling in.

It’s bad enough that tobacco taxation is a regressive tax policy, that is, one that targets those with less overall income disproportio nately. But what makes tobacco taxation policies worse, to me, is the fact that it is a hypocritical policy based on saying one thing while depending on the other. Governments claim to want less smoking, but then they turn around and base programs and policies on a dependence to tobacco taxes.

How does this even make sense? It doesn’t, and everyone knows it doesn’t.

And when you consider the fact that government rules and regulations are constantly limiting the places where people can smoke, you have to wonder where all these smokers are going to go to continue to light up so that the governments can continue to collect the taxes that they rely on.

Smoking is a bad health choice. That much has been proven pretty conclusively . But instead of trying to ban smoking (as the government does with much less harmful drugs like marijuana) the government takes a two-faced approach- don’t smoke, but if you do, smoke over there in the street; and please smoke because we want your money to pay for these programs.

One wonders if the government really even cares about the programs they seek to fund with tobacco taxes. If they were indeed intent on taxing tobacco out of existence, they’d surely not tie that revenue to programs that enjoy wide support, like children’s health insurance. Unless they want the program to die a slow, smoker-like death.

How can anyone support the current dichotomy of tobacco taxation? It is a policy riddled with contradictio n and hypocrisy. I think legislators simply have too much smoke in their eyes to see the absurdity of their actions. Maybe we should apply a tax to bad governance instead.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In the President’s own message (accompanying the official budget), Bush says, “This Budget reflects our highest priorities while reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget by 2012. I am confident that this approach will help make our country more secure and more prosperous.”

We can only surmise then that for Bush, helping the richest .2% get even richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor is our highest priority. And his deficit reduction plan is ludicrous to expect so long as he keeps funding wars off the books and through ’emergency spending.’ The only people who will gecome “more secure and prosperous” are the corporate oligarchs to whom he owes his political legacy.

Bush wants to permanently extend the repeal of the Estate Tax he pushed through in 2003, an act that would reduce the federal kitty by over $440 billion in the next decade. (Of course, in politics nothing is ‘permanent’ but a decade of tax free hand-me-downs is the next best thing.) Longer term projections show that a permanent repeal would cost the Treasury up to $1 trillion by 2021.

So what cuts does Bush propose to offset these tax losses- money not being paid by the richest of the rich? Who are the winners and who are the losers in the Bush Budget? A little compare and contrast helps illustrate the picture for us( these figures are projected over the next decade):

The Walton family (owners of the world’s largest retailer) would receive an estate tax break of $32.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts Medicaid by $28 billion over the same 10 year span.

Winner: Walton Family
Loser: Every American family who has medical co-pays or buys prescriptions. (And this will be on top of the 10-year, $28.3 billion cuts to Medicaid passed by the Republican Congress last year.)

The heirs to the Mars Candy Bar fortune would receive a tax break of about $11.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts over $3 billion from the VA budget over the next five years.

Winner: Mars candy heirs
Loser: Every wounded veteran alive today.
The Cox family, heirs to the Cox Cable fortune will gain $9.7 billion by the permanent repeal of the estate tax.

The Bush budget cuts $1.5 billion from education. I guess the rhetoric about No Child Left Behind is just that- rhetoric.

Winner: Cox family
Loser: Kids and local school districts who are buried under an avalanche of federal mandates that continue to be underfunded.

The Nordstrom family rakes in over $825 million with the tax break.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate one of the country’s most successful anti-poverty programs, the Community Services Block Grant program. The ‘savings’ amounts to $630 million. The fact that this program provides dervices and aid to over 15 million of the lowest income people in the country is apparently not part of the compassionate conservatism practiced by Bush.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 15 million of the poorest Americans

The Ernest Gallo family (makers of cheaep wine) can expect to pass down an extra $468 million dollars from tax breaks.
The Bush budget wants to cut $420 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that quaint little federal safety net that keeps 5.4 million senior citizens and low-income families from freezing in the winter time.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 5.4 million needy seniors and families.

Former Exxon Mobile CEO Lee Raymond and his family will keep a larger portion of that ludicrous retirement package, saving $164 million due to the permanent repeal of the estate tax.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This is a program that provides food for poor seniors, and low-income children and mothers. The price tag is…$164 million.

Winner: Raymond family.
Loser: The poor, the hungry, the huddled masses.

And these are just some examples to think about. Bush wants to give as much money back to the wealthiest of all Americans and balance those loses on the rest of us, including all those military men and women he keeps saying he supports. That is absolutely disgusting.
It is up to Congress to put a stop to this massive wealth transfer scheme. It’s been going on too long under Bush already. We know what Bush’s priorities are, and they have nothing to do with the welfare of American citizens. Not even the wake-up call in November can open his eyes. And forget about opening his heart. Bush hasn’t got one.

When I was a young kid growing up in a single parent household, I would often have to ask before I randomly grabbed a snack from the kitchen cupboard. Mom was on a really tight budget in those days, and the weekly allotment of food had to last until the next paycheck. Of course, I never went hungry and didn’t even know how close to the edge we sometimes were. I guess I should consider myself lucky.

According to a newly released report by the American charity network, America’s Second Harvest, the number of Americans going hungry has increased 9% since 2001. Last year, more than 25 million American citizens turned to food banks, soup kitchens and shelters for meals. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that 36% of those people came from households that had at least one person holding down a job. What’s more, 35% already were receiving food stamps too.

But wait, you say…of course there were more people getting help. 2005 had two major disasters in Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Well hold your tongue. The surveys were actually done BEFORE the hurricanes hit. After the hurricanes, demand for help TRIPLED in the Gulf States.

In addition to this report, the federal government releases its own reports. Their findings? The USDA report released last year said 13.5 million American households, or nearly 12%, had difficulty providing enough food for their families in 2004. That number was 11% higher than in 2003.

Sounds like the economic benefits of the Bush agenda are working marvels, just like he says.

More Great Economic News

Following the reports about the increase in hunger in America, the Federal Reserve issued a report yesterday noting that after adjusting for inflation, the median income for American families suffered a setback, decreasing 2.3% between 2001 and 2004. But despite the hemming and hawing from corporate America, overall, businesses aren’t doing nearly as bad their employees:

“What’s troubling about the economic recovery that we’ve been in is that all of the traditional indicators of employment, household income and poverty levels are lagging behind prior expansions,” said Jean Ross, director of the California Budget Project, an economic think tank in Sacramento.

“The only indicator that is doing better than in prior expansions is corporate profits, which indicates that businesses aren’t passing on what they are gaining to their workers,” she said.

Other economic indicators like net worth have risen, albeit very grudgingly, moving up only 1.5%- the weakest measured gain in a decade. By contrast, between 1995 and 1998 that increase was 12.3% and between 1998-2001 the increase was 17.3%. But those were years Clinton was in office, so while Bush II’s supporters like to give him credit for today’s economy, they say that the good times in the 90’s were inherited by Clinton from the Reagan/Bush I years. And now, of course, any bad news during Bush II’s term are remnants of Clinton’s economic policies. Nothing like having your cake and eating it too, I guess.

Oh yes, the net unemployment rate from early 2001 to August 2003 was negative- 2.7 million fewer working Americans. Damn that Clinton!

In today’s social and political atmosphere, the word tolerance has achieved fad status, becoming an element of Political Correctness, losing all real meaning as it has morphed into an acceptance of all things good or bad, it is used to excuse behavior that previously may have been considered unacceptable, or, at the other extreme, to condemn without pause any idea or action with the potential to offend but not necessarily harm. Our social shift away from personal accountability, social responsibility, and our trend towards ever-restrictive social and legal policies stem, in part, from our misapplication of the concept of tolerance. Simply speaking, tolerance is the respect we hold for the freedom of others to be as they see fit, regardless of our own personal choices or feelings, so long as that freedom does not impinge on those of others. Tolerance has nothing to do with liking other people, nor is it about agreeing with another’s point of view. Tolerance doesn’t require you to be friends and join hands and sing songs together. The key to tolerance is respect.

What many people fail to grasp is that tolerance is a circular concept, one that must exist as a whole or not at all. What I mean by this is that in order for a diverse society, or various societies, to interact peacefully, it is necessary for the different parts to each accept one another. Whether defined along racial lines, religious doctrines, sexual preferences, or other less obvious classifications, once one group loses their tolerance towards another, the stage is set for distrustfulness, rivalry, and sometimes violence. And when the circle is broken and respect becomes scarce, freedom and self-rule are in jeopardy.

Individual tolerance capabilities are often a mimicked behavior. From our ability to withstand annoying personality characteristics of friends and family to larger forms of tolerance like racial coexistence and religious harmony, our ability to tolerate different ideas and actions frequently mirror those of our parents and communities. That is not to say that we don’t come to develop our own tolerances as we age, but the patterns are imprinted on us early. It is in our childhood years that most of our prejudices are born and nurtured, and as we age, we shape our experiences with different people around our intolerances instead of letting our experiences shape our views. It may be an unconscious conditioning reflex, but it is one we can learn to overcome. Still most people, on an individual level, tend to develop fairly tolerant demeanors towards differences in people, as is necessary unless one enjoys a strife-filled existence. For despite our internal dislikes, we are also taught that tolerance and peaceful coexistence sometimes requires us to suppress our own desires for the sake of getting along. And if we find ourselves in an intolerable situation, we are taught that it is better to leave than to provoke a conflict. It could be said that one’s level of tolerance is an indicator of one’s maturity.

Social tolerance, while also indicative of a society’s maturity, is a somewhat different animal. Unlike individual tolerance abilities, social tolerance is sometimes referred to as mob mentality because of its tendency to amplify the suppressed dislikes of individuals and transform them into legislation. Social tolerance is a reflection not so much of the combined tolerances of its individual parts, but of the focused intolerances of many different groups. The fewer of these group prejudices there are, the more cohesive a society becomes. Social tolerance also plays a large role in creating personal responsibility by developing behavioral expectations that are reinforced by the community through their laws and interactions with each other.

But having a great capacity for tolerance does not mean that all behaviors are acceptable, or that all ideas should be tolerated. Indeed, much like morality and the law, the parameters for tolerable behavior are necessarily wide, since individual beliefs vary so greatly, but they must still contain defined boundaries of propriety. The question then becomes, “Who gets to decide what is or is not tolerable?”

In reality, the choices are not that difficult to make if we focus on what is intolerable. An intolerable act would necessarily be one that causes harm and/or destruction to a person or their property; acts like murder or rape or theft or vandalism. Indeed, we have already expressed our intolerance to these kinds of acts through legislation. Intolerant ideas already include racism or bigotry, despotism, and megalomania, to name a few. And character traits like laziness and deceitfulness, and hypocrisy are often among those viewed with little tolerance, since they foretell a kind of intolerance of their own. We have no duty to respect or tolerate irrational hatred, true criminality (the kind that harms others), slavery or subjugation, people who take but never contribute, or any other idea or action that interferes with another’s right to freedom or social peace. At the same time, we must recognize that race, religion, sexual preference, and other more petty prejudices are not valid expressions of intolerance in and of themselves.

A peaceful society must find a balance between that which it will tolerate and that which it will not. For the success of any free community, whether it is a village or a nation, depends on its tolerances. Too little tolerance of different ideas and actions will result in an autonomous culture, neither progressing our maturing, nor learning about the rest of humanity, while too much will result in a fractured and immobile legislative process. Too much tolerance of abhorrent behavior leads to chaos, fear, and restrictions, while increased intolerance of terrible acts could provide a helpful attitude shift that may eventually lead to fewer occurrences.

American culture is in a strange place in the evolution of its tolerance capabilities. We promote an ideal of freedom, which demands a high level of social tolerance for diverse races, religions, and so on. Yet we enact legislation that aims to discriminate against certain elements of society. We promote the rule of law as acceptable social behavior. Yet we turn a blind eye to those who openly flaunt our laws in our own land and give a wink and a nod to the governments around the world who use corruption to control their citizens. We export the ideals of democracy, freedom, and self-determination around the world. Yet we openly assist regimes that resist all of these ideals. We pretend to respect all religions. Yet we entertain delusions of superiority over anyone whose god concepts differ from our own, until we convince ourselves that our friends and neighbors may actually be our spiritual (and to some people, mortal) enemies. We rally around the streets decrying the violence in the world. Yet we consistently make excuses for the criminal behavior among us. I could go on but you begin to see the pattern.

True tolerance is essential for the progression of society. Tolerance for that which shows the most creative, most ingenious, most inspirational, and most reasonable aspects of humanity should be nurtured and shared, to further to abilities of humanity, to allow us to succeed together as a species. Intolerance for the most vile, most selfish, least productive,
and least defensible actions and ideas should also be espoused, to help end these barriers to cooperation and prosperity. One requires the will, education, and dedication of the individual. The other requires the will, strength, and consistency of society. In both cases, the ultimate choice belongs to each and every one of us. Through our actions and our words, through our tolerance, we can make the world a better place by standing together for freedom and against irrational intolerance

It’s easy enough for them to do too. Ours is a multi-ethnic, multi-belief system, melting pot kind of place filled with people from all over the world, each bringing with them a different set of dreams and beliefs as they seek their own liberty. With no single national culture, finding divisive issues to exploit becomes as easy as taking candy from a baby. It’s an effective ploy that detracts us from keeping our eye on the ball, so to speak. While some politicians busily grandstand the newest cause du jour, the rest of our leaders are just as busily spending our hard earned tax dollars on things that further consolidate power for themselves and their benefactors, leaving the public holding an empty bag or looking at a broken program.

But freedom and liberty cannot exist without a measure of responsibility. And it is this very lack of responsibility, on an individual level and on a societal level too, that makes possible the very divisiveness our politicians exploit. In our “anything goes,” “what about me?” society, we seem to have forgotten that a lack responsible stewardship of our freedoms opens the door for government to restrict more of our freedoms in the name of preserving freedom for us all. It is this kind of upside-down reasoning that fits perfectly with our own upside-down thinking that allows us to take our freedom for granted.

Many of our political topics, the so-called “divisive issues” that seek to separate our country and paralyze meaningful, effective legislation, are things that have no place in politics anyway, but instead belong to a different part of life, a more private part of life, the part of life that makes us who we are. And despite the attempts at division, if taken in a non-political context, many of these issues require little more than Common Sense and compromise. Things like advocating tolerance towards religious beliefs or sex. Things like child rearing, teaching responsibility and work ethic. Things like race relations and entertainment. These are the some of the things that define who we are. These are not things that necessarily require legislation, but that doesn’t stop a politician from trying.

Politics should be about making sure the public is safe. Politics should be about foreign relations. Politics should be about maintaining infrastructure or social programs or the effective use of taxes. Politics should be about keeping the playing field as level as possible. But politics has no real claim to family values or public entertainment or philanthropy, other than to encourage people to find common acceptable standards while tolerating those that are not in the mainstream, but also not illegal. Once a political system begins to legislate or manipulate the daily functions and beliefs of the individual and society, freedom goes out the window, replaced by a kind of opiatic melancholy and eventual apathy.

The way to prevent this from happening is to take back the non-political issues from the politicians and resolve social conflict without the need for legislation, because with every new law put on the books, we are losing our ability to determine our own path.

In the next several essays I will begin to explore some of these dividing points that are often exploited by power hungry politicos, and look for ways to relieve the tension that exists in the citizens without having to resort to legal maneuvering. In each case, resolution will require both a changed outlook among the American people and an increased willingness to stand up for themselves. I look forward to conversations with you concerning social tolerance, the victim mentality, “family values” and parenting responsibilities, the media and entertainment industry, philanthropy, trust, and religion.

First, we need to have a more clear vision of what a reasonably healthy person’s annual medical costs may be. Simply a random ordinary citizen, with one medical physical a year, two dental cleanings a year, and one vision check a year, even at $200 per visit, the annual bill is around $800. Let’s throw in a few random blood tests, two cavity fillings, a pair of glasses and a pair of contacts- roughly $700. Finally, we’ll add various medicines, both over-the-counter and prescription drugs at $200. Annual total is $1700, or $142 per month. Now honestly, most people go years without cavities or blood tests, or even eye doctor visits and physicals. Their annual costs could be much lower, assuming that no catastrophes occur. (These dollar figures are estimates and for illustrative purposes only. Actual costs may in fact be much higher due to rampant greed within and without the industry.)

The simplest solution is a national health tax; the collected funds being deposited into a publicly administered and managed account, and disbursed according to well defined guidelines. The tax itself could be collected in several ways, to better ensure that all citizens are contributing to the fund according to their financial ability. To start, every legally employed citizen would deposit in to the system a percentage of their earnings, deducted from their regular paychecks, pre-tax. The formula for determining the percentage each person pays could be derived in several ways: basing it on an average annual medical cost of a healthy person at their age; by dividing the total population by the total national health care bill to arrive at a per capita figure; using the percentages from either of the former equations and developing a sliding percentage scale further based on actual income. And we’d need to figure in the costs for children and retiree coverage, since they are not in the workforce but will still need care. Any formula will be imperfect in the goal of attaining universally affordable health care, simply because the word “affordable” is such a relative term. But some such formula would need to be agreed upon that best reflected equitable terms for the largest number of citizens.

For those who can, but for whatever reasons do not (stay-at-home parent comes to mind), have regular employment, the health tax could be collected from the primary worker’s pay or through an annual tax payment, similar to today’s income tax. Or, more creatively, these citizens can recoup their health costs to the system by working in the system as orderlies and assistants for a fair hourly wage, the earnings of course being returned to the tax fund to cover their annual contribution rate. Such a barter arrangement should be limited to those not in the established workforce, to ensure a continued influx of actual cash from those who are, but would further reduce the overall operational costs of health care in general.

In return for paying the health tax, citizens would enjoy free office visits and aid from their neighborhood clinics, discussed in the previous essay, “The Doctor Will Be With You Shortly.” Vaccinations, minor stitching, first aid, and minor aches and pains would be treated as needed and would require no co-pays or material costs. Also included at no cost to patients would be basic pre-natal visits, bi-annual dental exams and cleanings, and an annual vision test if needed. Provided the medical matter could be resolved within the neighborhood clinic setting, citizens could help control costs for themselves and the system overall by learning what requires a doctor’s attention and what does not. The neighborhood clinic is the first barrier in the war to controlling costs, which it does by both handling minor, non-emergencies and by educating patients to recognize real medical problems from over-hyped non-issues. Also covered by the national tax would be annual medical screenings at your primary personal physician.

Patient costs would move beyond the national tax and into the fee-tax arena once their sickness went beyond the scope of the neighborhood clinic. Any visit to a personal primary physician, except for an annual preventive screening, would require a co-pay and a materials fee, again based on a formulaic percentage of some sort, but with a maximum ceiling and a consistent, reality based materials cost list. For those citizens unable to manage these costs, a no-low income safety program paid for in part by the public trust fund established by the health industry would cover these costs.

Finally, catastrophic medical situations could be paid for through a higher co-pay, based on procedure rather than on a standard admission fee, and adjusted according to an equitable formula. In addition to the co-pay, the patient would be responsible to pay up to 50% of the actual costs of the medical procedure, up to a maximum out-of-pocket expense, but would be allowed to negotiate a no-interest, long-term, no penalty, flex pay installment agreement. Such an agreement could not be used to foreclose on any citizen’s property or garnish of their wages too severely, provided the citizen maintained communications with the fund administrator. At the same time, citizens trying to evade their medical bills with malicious intent should be brought to justice and forced to repay, this time at the terms of the courts.

With regards to medications, cost control measures could be applied so that common remedies are readily affordable while designer drugs are much more expensive. Medical necessities like crutches, wheelchairs, and other reusable items could be rented for low daily or weekly fees, paid entirely by the patient, with the money being recycled into the system to perpetuate itself indefinitely.

The national health tax would pay the actual costs of maintaining the nations health system, from buildings and administration, to doctor’s fees and diagnostic and treatment costs, as well as to continue ongoing discovery and cures. But it would not pay for any type of elective surgery; doctor assisted suicide, or non-medically necessary abortions. Patients succumbing to the vanity medicines like elective plastic surgery or enhancement or magic libido potions should be required to foot the entire bill for these procedures, and at elevated costs and perhaps even be subjected to a vanity tax as well.. Provided that the procedure is not a necessary element of some greater illness or accident, elective surgeries like these use up valuable medical resources and should really belong in a private field of medicine, completely removed from a national care plan. The same is
true for doctor-assisted suicide, since the issue raises serious questions for people of differing faith. While the option should be available for those who want it, they should not rely on commingled tax dollars to pay for the costs. And really, how much can a few pills really cost? Finally, non-necessary abortions should be paid for by the patient, unless in case of medical necessary or verifiable rape or incest.

Contributions by the health care industry to a public trust fund would help defray costs incurred by expensive, life saving operations, long term-care for patients, and no-low income patients. In return for their contributions to the fund, they would receive generous tax breaks that could be reinfused into their R & D programs. They could receive specific supply contracts to ensure a steady flow of business. And all businesses, save for the insurance industry, would benefit by not having to pay health costs for employees and their families, something only fair if the National Whole Life Retirement Plan were to be adopted, as businesses would be solely responsible for funding the basic level of the nation’s retirement program.

The ideas presented in this four part discussion on medical care are a starting point, not necessarily a final answer. But taken together, they represent an effort to move outside the current environment of greed and profit above all else. Medical care is something we all need at some point in our lives. We should never expect a free ride, but we should also never have to fear that the costs of getting care are out of reach.

Solving the problem of access means we have to acknowledge that our current health structure is inadequate to modern society. Increased knowledge should have led to a more efficient system, but instead has given rise to ever increasing numbers of treatable conditions, driving us to our doctor’s doors at the first sign of illness. With an increasing population on top of that, doctors are finding themselves facing more patients with marginal health concerns, leaving them less time to address more serious health issues. Just as emergency room nurses prioritize incoming patients according to their injury, it is time our entire health care system performed triage on itself, establishing a system that addresses different levels of health care at different levels, and differentiating between necessary and elective medical procedures.

Suppose that the first line of health care treatment was a neighborhood clinic. Staffed mostly with novice doctors and nurses, but led by a seasoned doctor, these primary care clinics would be an integral part of the community, dispensing first aid, vaccinations, minor stitches or casts, caring for sprained muscles, colds, flu’s, and other lesser medical problems. One clinic per thousand residents (an admittedly randomly chosen number, for illustrative purposes only) would almost assure quick care when needed, and easy appointments for the rest. The facilities would be owned and administered by the public, and the doctors and nurses could receive tuition credits and on site housing options to accommodate a lower salary commensurate with their experience level. While working in the neighborhood clinics, doctors and nurses could continue their education towards a specialty, at no cost, and after a certain number of years experience and specialized training, could move into the next career phase of medicine, the Specialized Care Practice. Patients would utilize their neighborhood clinics as their first resource for the aforementioned medical needs. If their illness exceeds the level of primary care, patients would be sent to their specialized care doctor, who also would be their primary personal physician.

Each person, or family as the case may be, would have their own personal physician to turn to in addition to the neighborhood clinic. This would be the doctor you went to see for more serious medical problems like prolonged pain or if you needed diagnostic tests like blood tests or x-rays or MRI’s. This doctor would also perform comprehensive annual physicals for you as part of a preventive medical plan. Your dentist and eye doctor would fall into this class of doctors too, working in conjunction with your medical doctor to provide the patient with overall health care. Your primary doctor(s) would also be able to refer you to another specialist when necessary to help determine the course of your treatment. As with the neighborhood clinics, primary care practices should be developed to ensure adequate doctor-patient ratios in the communities they serve. Various specialists could reduce the overhead costs of separate facilities by creating community specialist clinics, larger versions of the neighborhood clinic due to the greater number of doctors and diagnostic tools. Unlike the neighborhood clinic, these facilities would be owned or leased by the doctor groups themselves. Another difference between the neighborhood clinic and the specialist clinics would be the matter of choice. With the neighborhood clinic, patients would have a designated clinic based on their home address. But your personal physician could be entirely up to you. Because this doctor could potentially manage your health care for your lifetime, it is important to choose someone you feel comfortable with, and different people have different health concerns. Since these doctors are specialists too, what you may need from a doctor could be different from what I need, but only you and I can make those choices for us. Doctors and nurses at this level of medicine would also have continued education requirements and testing levels before becoming eligible for hospital staffing, the final layer of a reorganized system.

Hospital care was designed for serious injury or illness, or birthing, or prolonged care and treatment. But hospitals today have become a catchall for anyone with anything who can’t see a regular doctor. With the institution of neighborhood clinics, coupled with annual preventive care and diagnostics from a personal physician, it could be possible for hospitals to return to their intended tasks. Barring an actual emergency situation, patients should need a personal doctors referral, or a referring doctors AND personal doctors referral, before being admitted. This would not apply to actual emergencies, severe trauma, or life-threatening conditions. But except for these types of patients, any person without a referral for hospital care should be sent back to their personal physician for care. This would have the effect of ensuring that hospital staff could better address critical patients instead of worrying about keeping the peace in the waiting rooms. Doctors would refer patients to hospitals for conditions requiring surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and childbirth, to name a few. Again, hospital size and number should be in a direct ratio to the populations they serve. Hospital wards could be divided into multiple building complexes too, to better prevent internal spread of disease, and to concentrate specialists together to provide better patient care. Like the neighborhood clinics, hospitals would be public owned and administered, allowing costs to be accountable and removing the “profit versus care” conundrum.

I mentioned the necessity earlier of differentiating between necessary and elective medical procedures. Elective medicine has recently become a boon industry as scientific advances extend beyond simple health concerns and embrace the cult of youth, self-image, and behavioral control. Elective medicine would include any procedure that is primarily intended to combat the visible effects of aging. But it could also include juvenile behavioral medications used to control a child’s attentiveness or aggression in place of parental guidance and discipline, or adult medications intended to increase certain physiological capabilities. Since the nature of these practices is not usually necessary for good health, they would fall outside the realm of the public health system. While doctors specializing in these areas of care would still need to be licensed and have completed the same initial training steps, they would not be eligible for public health dollars to cover their fees. And prescriptions for elective medications would not be regulated as far as costs were concerned. The only exception could be a patient referred by their primary physician for a medical necessity (read burn victim to plastic surgeons for example).

While this structure leaves out areas such as hospice care and assisted living care, I think that these could be considered lateral elements of the second tier of
health care. At the heart of such reorganization is, of course, public education. Ensuring that the public knows where to go for each level of illness would be vital to keeping facilities and doctors accessible. Just as important is letting people know that they will always be able to choose their personal doctor for their overall care, despite using neighborhood clinics for the minor problems. This stratification only helps ensure that doctors responsible for your total care have taken the time to learn their specialty and have been tested and licensed for your piece of mind. Such measures alone could lead to fewer misdiagnoses and hospital screw-ups, not only providing better access, but better care in the process.

Of course at this point it becomes incumbent upon me to provide the means and methods by which we pay for all this health care, because health care affordability dwarfs access as an issue of contention, and access is a pretty big issue. In my next essay, I’ll offer this final element of health care reform that, along with the cost saving measures already discussed in “Your Money or Your Life-The Costs of Health Care,” should provide an affordable, equitable, and more efficient means of paying for our good health.