Ben Nelson from Nebraska has worked out a compromise that the extremes on either side do not like. This is a way to kill health care reform and protect President Obama from further political damage. Remember what happened to immigration reform four years ago? Many are calling for the Senate to start over.
There is urgency to get something done before the end of the year. January 1 begins and election year and members of both houses of congress that are up for re-election do not want something this controversial standing in the way of their re-election chances. In order to get something passed by December 31, congress will have to work around the clock.
I encourage my readers to contact their representative in the House and both of their senators and let their feelings be known.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Job Summit
There are some things about the job summit that President Obama has called, and because of this, it is no more than another photo-op. Mr President, why was the US Chamber of Commerce excluded?
The US Chamber is represents many of those that have the ability to hire and put people back to work. The US Chamber knows under what conditions most companies will be able to hire again. If I was developing policies to improve the job market, I would listen to the chamber.
It also bothered me that President Obama decried pushing employees to be more and more efficient without hiring new people. Mr. Obama has never taken a single course at business school, and there are entire courses in motivating employees to be more efficient. There is nothing wrong with pushing your employees a little bit. It is what good managers do.
Most businesses do not exist solely to hire people. This is something that my dad lectured me about after I finished my Bachelor's Degree. It is a sad fact of life that we all must be willing to face. Businesses thrive because they fulfill a need or want of another person. When a business begins, it usually begins with just one proprietor. As the business grows, companies must hire more and more people. There are two things that need to be done in order to get people off the dole of unemployment. One is to grow businesses that already exist. The other is to create new enterprises.
When a person is hired on to a company and is paid a wage, it is up to that person to earn more money for the company than he or she gets paid. No one hires an employee without this in mind. If you do not earn back your paycheck for your boss, then you do not deserve a job. A company does not hire an employee unless that employee can be profitable for them, unless that employee can help grow the business.
That also implies that companies will not hire unless the powers that be believe that their business can grow. The worst nightmare for any manager is to have to look a productive employee in the eye and tell them that there is no more work for them to do. Companies will not hire anyone unless there is the belief that they can stay on for at least a couple of years. It is also difficult to fire someone that is unproductive.
As I have said before, a down economy IS the best time to begin a new business enterprise. Costs are lower. It is easier to attract quality people. The problem is finding the capitol. Unfortunately, the government is running out of money and there is not a lot a capitol left to give. And yes, the government CAN run out of money, because in the long run, it is really our money.
But wait a minute, there is capitol. It is called time. It's called effort and energy. It is called knowledge and wisdom These are things that we all have. Do we really need the government to get the economy rolling again? I suppose that politicians need to appear to be doing something. But do they really need to? What we really need is confidence in ourselves. Confidence is something that our president has plenty of. Please share. In the early 90s, I was upset at George HW Bush's pep talks to get the economy rolling again. I wish for that now.
The US Chamber is represents many of those that have the ability to hire and put people back to work. The US Chamber knows under what conditions most companies will be able to hire again. If I was developing policies to improve the job market, I would listen to the chamber.
It also bothered me that President Obama decried pushing employees to be more and more efficient without hiring new people. Mr. Obama has never taken a single course at business school, and there are entire courses in motivating employees to be more efficient. There is nothing wrong with pushing your employees a little bit. It is what good managers do.
Most businesses do not exist solely to hire people. This is something that my dad lectured me about after I finished my Bachelor's Degree. It is a sad fact of life that we all must be willing to face. Businesses thrive because they fulfill a need or want of another person. When a business begins, it usually begins with just one proprietor. As the business grows, companies must hire more and more people. There are two things that need to be done in order to get people off the dole of unemployment. One is to grow businesses that already exist. The other is to create new enterprises.
When a person is hired on to a company and is paid a wage, it is up to that person to earn more money for the company than he or she gets paid. No one hires an employee without this in mind. If you do not earn back your paycheck for your boss, then you do not deserve a job. A company does not hire an employee unless that employee can be profitable for them, unless that employee can help grow the business.
That also implies that companies will not hire unless the powers that be believe that their business can grow. The worst nightmare for any manager is to have to look a productive employee in the eye and tell them that there is no more work for them to do. Companies will not hire anyone unless there is the belief that they can stay on for at least a couple of years. It is also difficult to fire someone that is unproductive.
As I have said before, a down economy IS the best time to begin a new business enterprise. Costs are lower. It is easier to attract quality people. The problem is finding the capitol. Unfortunately, the government is running out of money and there is not a lot a capitol left to give. And yes, the government CAN run out of money, because in the long run, it is really our money.
But wait a minute, there is capitol. It is called time. It's called effort and energy. It is called knowledge and wisdom These are things that we all have. Do we really need the government to get the economy rolling again? I suppose that politicians need to appear to be doing something. But do they really need to? What we really need is confidence in ourselves. Confidence is something that our president has plenty of. Please share. In the early 90s, I was upset at George HW Bush's pep talks to get the economy rolling again. I wish for that now.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Ralph Becker and the Tea Parties
Looks like Salt Lake City mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake County are urging us to buy local. That is a fine thing to do, but please help local people compete. What got me off kilter today was when Becker stated that foreign visitors thought that some tea party event was hateful.
Remember this, if you are conservative, the things that you believe in are hateful. I will agree that things like White Supremacy, Gay Bashing and many other things often associated with the far right are hateful and I find them offensive.
What is hateful about protesting the spending at the federal government? What is so hateful about holding our elected officials accountable no matter what party they belong to? These people were elected for a limited time, not appointed for life!
The far right is not guiltless in this matter. Remember that people who were against the war in Afghanistan were unpatriotic or un-American? We often paint with a broad brush. Maybe this is what George Will meant when he said that George Bush should have dithered a little bit before going into the Afghan war. If more people would listen then fewer people would feel that they need to shout.
Please, Mr Becker and others. Do not dismiss the tea party goers. Please listen to them. Many of them voted for you and will again if you only open your ears.
A post script...
I found this editorial in Newsweek. It says that Cheney should run for President in 2012. Why? Assuming he lives that long, he would be an easy person for Obama to beat. How dense to you think the GOP is?
Remember this, if you are conservative, the things that you believe in are hateful. I will agree that things like White Supremacy, Gay Bashing and many other things often associated with the far right are hateful and I find them offensive.
What is hateful about protesting the spending at the federal government? What is so hateful about holding our elected officials accountable no matter what party they belong to? These people were elected for a limited time, not appointed for life!
The far right is not guiltless in this matter. Remember that people who were against the war in Afghanistan were unpatriotic or un-American? We often paint with a broad brush. Maybe this is what George Will meant when he said that George Bush should have dithered a little bit before going into the Afghan war. If more people would listen then fewer people would feel that they need to shout.
Please, Mr Becker and others. Do not dismiss the tea party goers. Please listen to them. Many of them voted for you and will again if you only open your ears.
A post script...
I found this editorial in Newsweek. It says that Cheney should run for President in 2012. Why? Assuming he lives that long, he would be an easy person for Obama to beat. How dense to you think the GOP is?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Clearfield Front Runner Station
The UTA wants to develop the 70 acres adjacent to the Front Runner Station. UTA's proposal was for a 4000 unit apartment complex. It was reject in whole by mayor Don Wood.
I think that both sides are unrealistic. True, you can not put a city of 8,000 new residents in 70 acres and not expect any negative consequences. Especially next to a commuter's parking lot. These cars will be empty and unattended most of the day. It is just asking for trouble.
However, a commercial site like Don Wood wants is also a bad idea. Even in better economic times, there are dozens of empty commercial sites littering the old highway from Roy to Kaysville. It does not take a genius to figure out that there are way too many such sites in the area. We have a surplus of strip malls.
One prime example is Antelope square, just to the south in Layton. This was the home of an Albertson's and is still the home of K-Mart. Most of the sites at the north end of this strip mall are empty. Ditto for a similar location in Roy. Vacant strip malls are just as much of a problem for a city as apartments. The difference is that they do not vote.
However, given the state of the economy, this may not be the right time to develop that property. I said in a comment at Deseret News that the UTA should leave it underdeveloped to show the city. They should actually leave it undeveloped because now is not the right time to move forward. There is not the demand for either a commercial or residential property at this time.
When the time comes, I hope for a mixed-use property. Some retail would be nice, but not an entire seventy acres unless a grocery store or something like it can be put on the property. Then have some professional offices. Finally, residential. Some sites work with retail on the ground floor, professional above the retail and residential on top. Maybe even some class-A office space would be nice as well. Finally, to please Mr. Wood and all of his cronies, the residential would be condo. But, it needs have something that will attract buyers, like a private pool or gym membership or both.
Now, just because a neighborhood is rentals does not make it a bad neighborhood. But if you want a mature neighborhood to have owner-occupants instead of land lords, you need to put something into it so that people will want to buy those properties to live in them. Street lights well repaired roads would be a start. This is something that my neighborhood does not have. We lack adequate street lighting and our road is not in good repair And what do we have? Landlords and renters.
The city of Clearfield has not been smart in it's planning for decades. They have relied way to much on the revenue from the Freport Center. Now, when Layton annexed all of the good revenue-generating land, Clearfield is behind. They need smart planning from now on.
I think that both sides are unrealistic. True, you can not put a city of 8,000 new residents in 70 acres and not expect any negative consequences. Especially next to a commuter's parking lot. These cars will be empty and unattended most of the day. It is just asking for trouble.
However, a commercial site like Don Wood wants is also a bad idea. Even in better economic times, there are dozens of empty commercial sites littering the old highway from Roy to Kaysville. It does not take a genius to figure out that there are way too many such sites in the area. We have a surplus of strip malls.
One prime example is Antelope square, just to the south in Layton. This was the home of an Albertson's and is still the home of K-Mart. Most of the sites at the north end of this strip mall are empty. Ditto for a similar location in Roy. Vacant strip malls are just as much of a problem for a city as apartments. The difference is that they do not vote.
However, given the state of the economy, this may not be the right time to develop that property. I said in a comment at Deseret News that the UTA should leave it underdeveloped to show the city. They should actually leave it undeveloped because now is not the right time to move forward. There is not the demand for either a commercial or residential property at this time.
When the time comes, I hope for a mixed-use property. Some retail would be nice, but not an entire seventy acres unless a grocery store or something like it can be put on the property. Then have some professional offices. Finally, residential. Some sites work with retail on the ground floor, professional above the retail and residential on top. Maybe even some class-A office space would be nice as well. Finally, to please Mr. Wood and all of his cronies, the residential would be condo. But, it needs have something that will attract buyers, like a private pool or gym membership or both.
Now, just because a neighborhood is rentals does not make it a bad neighborhood. But if you want a mature neighborhood to have owner-occupants instead of land lords, you need to put something into it so that people will want to buy those properties to live in them. Street lights well repaired roads would be a start. This is something that my neighborhood does not have. We lack adequate street lighting and our road is not in good repair And what do we have? Landlords and renters.
The city of Clearfield has not been smart in it's planning for decades. They have relied way to much on the revenue from the Freport Center. Now, when Layton annexed all of the good revenue-generating land, Clearfield is behind. They need smart planning from now on.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
My Thoughts on Palin Now.
Sarah Palin has released her memoir, and it has a lot of grass-roots conservatives in a frenzy. They love this woman, no doubt. But it would be a mistake to nominate Palin for President without more experience. She is still in her 40s and there is a lot that she can do. She could move to the lower 48 and serve a full term as governor over a state like Wyoming or Idaho. She could get elected governor over a smaller, conservative western state like that. She may even have a chance in a more moderate, energy-centric state like Montana.
She is not exactly qualified to be the President and she knows it. Only 2 years as a governor will not qualify her to knock off Barack Obama in 2012--such a win would be unprecidented. We do not want Obama to be THAT bad. If things are that bad, I think a lot of us will be living in shanties. If she wants to be the President, she will have to wait for 2016.
She can be the "king maker." She will be the factor that decides who is the 2012 nominee. The candidate that is philosophically most like Palin will get the nomination. The candidate that helps the Palinphiles feel most comfortable will get the nomination. The question is, who is that person?
I was excited about the possibility of Mark Sanford until we found out about his affair, now I agree that he should be impeached. I would be happy to see Rick Perry run for President, but the fight against Kay Bailey Hutchinson for another term is hurting his chances. I will be on the Rick Perry bandwagon if he gives up and runs for President instead. A lot of people are big on Bobby Jindal, but hey, he is from Louisiana...need I say more? That leaves it, in my mind, as a three man race for the GOP in 2012: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.
So if you are a Palinphile, who do you like? Other than Palin, who do you like?
She is not exactly qualified to be the President and she knows it. Only 2 years as a governor will not qualify her to knock off Barack Obama in 2012--such a win would be unprecidented. We do not want Obama to be THAT bad. If things are that bad, I think a lot of us will be living in shanties. If she wants to be the President, she will have to wait for 2016.
She can be the "king maker." She will be the factor that decides who is the 2012 nominee. The candidate that is philosophically most like Palin will get the nomination. The candidate that helps the Palinphiles feel most comfortable will get the nomination. The question is, who is that person?
I was excited about the possibility of Mark Sanford until we found out about his affair, now I agree that he should be impeached. I would be happy to see Rick Perry run for President, but the fight against Kay Bailey Hutchinson for another term is hurting his chances. I will be on the Rick Perry bandwagon if he gives up and runs for President instead. A lot of people are big on Bobby Jindal, but hey, he is from Louisiana...need I say more? That leaves it, in my mind, as a three man race for the GOP in 2012: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty.
So if you are a Palinphile, who do you like? Other than Palin, who do you like?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Bob Bennett
The Deseret Morning News had an article about Bob Bennett and his struggle to keep his US Senate seat. Here is my stance on the issue.
-Bennett originally said he would only serve two terms. Now he is running for a fourth.
-Bennett is a social conservative, but no so fiscally. His voting record proves it. He and a group of many so called conservatives in the US Senate failed to hold the line on spending.
-We need new blood in GOP and in congress, and now is our chance to get it.
To his credit, he is fighting Obama Care.
The main item that I am upset about Bennett about is that when Bush was in office, Bennett supported TARP. But when Obama was in office, he was against the economic bailout. He changed his vote on two very similar bills because of the part of the occupant of the Oval Office. We can not have that in Washington. We need to stop the run away spending. We need fiscal consistency. We need someone else.
-Bennett originally said he would only serve two terms. Now he is running for a fourth.
-Bennett is a social conservative, but no so fiscally. His voting record proves it. He and a group of many so called conservatives in the US Senate failed to hold the line on spending.
-We need new blood in GOP and in congress, and now is our chance to get it.
To his credit, he is fighting Obama Care.
The main item that I am upset about Bennett about is that when Bush was in office, Bennett supported TARP. But when Obama was in office, he was against the economic bailout. He changed his vote on two very similar bills because of the part of the occupant of the Oval Office. We can not have that in Washington. We need to stop the run away spending. We need fiscal consistency. We need someone else.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Letter to KSL...Don't repeal food tax law.
Doug,
You made me so upset that I wanted to throw my cell phone through my windshield and I could not get to you on the phone before coming to work.
Governor Huntsman understood one thing that you and certain members of our legislature do not. "Good tax policy attracts business." And when the economy was working, so was this policy. You can not cave simply because there is a revenue shortfall. If you do, you will delay the recovery. This list of states that has a sales tax on groceries is a very, very short one. Having this tax at all puts us at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to being an attractive state for business. Right now, only Alabama and Mississippi have a full sales tax on food without some sort of tax credit back to lower income families. That is not the company that a state like Utah needs to keep.
Speaking of giving a credit to lower income families, it would be more cost effective to the state not to collect the money in the first place. Since the number of families that would fall into this range is low. We could see how well this is working in Idaho.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1230
You mentioned that you and Dee do not notice the decrease because your nest is empty. Me and my family have. As have many families. And our income tax did not go down with Huntsman's reforms, it went up considerably. If you roll back the tax on food, you have to roll back the income tax reform as well to be fair. I was OK with the income tax increase knowing that with a lower sales tax on food, our family was coming out a little ahead.
If our state legislators need more revenue, then there are other ways to raise it that are more fiscally sound. I support switching the gas tax to a percent of the sale rather than a per gallon tax. I support toll roads, especially on roads like the Bicentennial Highway by Lake Powell or other roads that are generally used by tourists and not by commuters. I support higher tuition at our colleges and universities as the tuition at our universities is very generous compared to nearby states. (The U is about half of the University of Colorado, for example). I support a higher tax on cigarettes and alcohol. I support a higher hotel tax and a higher restraunt tax. We can even have a higher tax on new cars that burn gasoline. All of these are better taxes than a regressive tax on groceries. Finally, how about simply increasing the general sales tax rate?
-Ben Hunt
Clearfield
For tuition rate comparison:
http://www.colorado.edu/about/ataglance.html
http://fbs.admin.utah.edu/index.php/fsr/
You made me so upset that I wanted to throw my cell phone through my windshield and I could not get to you on the phone before coming to work.
Governor Huntsman understood one thing that you and certain members of our legislature do not. "Good tax policy attracts business." And when the economy was working, so was this policy. You can not cave simply because there is a revenue shortfall. If you do, you will delay the recovery. This list of states that has a sales tax on groceries is a very, very short one. Having this tax at all puts us at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to being an attractive state for business. Right now, only Alabama and Mississippi have a full sales tax on food without some sort of tax credit back to lower income families. That is not the company that a state like Utah needs to keep.
Speaking of giving a credit to lower income families, it would be more cost effective to the state not to collect the money in the first place. Since the number of families that would fall into this range is low. We could see how well this is working in Idaho.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1230
You mentioned that you and Dee do not notice the decrease because your nest is empty. Me and my family have. As have many families. And our income tax did not go down with Huntsman's reforms, it went up considerably. If you roll back the tax on food, you have to roll back the income tax reform as well to be fair. I was OK with the income tax increase knowing that with a lower sales tax on food, our family was coming out a little ahead.
If our state legislators need more revenue, then there are other ways to raise it that are more fiscally sound. I support switching the gas tax to a percent of the sale rather than a per gallon tax. I support toll roads, especially on roads like the Bicentennial Highway by Lake Powell or other roads that are generally used by tourists and not by commuters. I support higher tuition at our colleges and universities as the tuition at our universities is very generous compared to nearby states. (The U is about half of the University of Colorado, for example). I support a higher tax on cigarettes and alcohol. I support a higher hotel tax and a higher restraunt tax. We can even have a higher tax on new cars that burn gasoline. All of these are better taxes than a regressive tax on groceries. Finally, how about simply increasing the general sales tax rate?
-Ben Hunt
Clearfield
For tuition rate comparison:
http://www.colorado.edu/about/ataglance.html
http://fbs.admin.utah.edu/index.php/fsr/
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Hot of the presses
On a Saturday night, the US House of Representatives passed a health care reform package. I am not going to go into all the details, because I certainly have not had the time to read it. Even if I did, it was not posted anywhere. I suspect that almost no one in Congress has had the time to read it.
None of Utah's three congressmen voted for the bill. There is a move afoot to punish the democrats that voted against the bill. There is also going to be a move against the GOP congressman that voted for the bill.
You might think that I am going to blog about the partisanship in Washington, and how the people's house is not coming together to get something that is needed done for the people. The question I want everyone to ask themselves is this: if this bill is so important to the country and our future, why is the vote scheduled for Saturday night at midnight?
None of Utah's three congressmen voted for the bill. There is a move afoot to punish the democrats that voted against the bill. There is also going to be a move against the GOP congressman that voted for the bill.
You might think that I am going to blog about the partisanship in Washington, and how the people's house is not coming together to get something that is needed done for the people. The question I want everyone to ask themselves is this: if this bill is so important to the country and our future, why is the vote scheduled for Saturday night at midnight?
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Capping Executive Pay...Internet access controls
I have mixed feelings about capping the pay of executives at bailed out firms. I think that we need to keep in mind that no one gives money without strings attached, and the Federal Government should be no exception. However, one consequence of this action will be a brain drain at these firms. That will be a negative consequence for TARP recipients. But if these executives leave these companies and start their own firms, it could be a positive for all of the rest of us. If you can get the capital, this may be the best time in since the start of the Second World War to create a new company. Real estate prices and interest rates are low. As is the price of just about anything else you would need to go into business. Plus there are plenty of smart and hard working people unemployed who would accept a position with a start of firm that normally would stay away from this type of enterprise. Normally, I would be against the Obama administration, or any government agency taking this action, but this time, I say OK. It could turn out to be the one thing that get's this economy moving.
Let me also say that I am totally against government intrusion into the content of information on the Internet. These type of controls are scary in the hands of either Democrats or Republicans. The internet is the one truly free media in this country. It is both a dangerous and and wonderful thing. Let's leave it alone and not deal with the consequences of letting the government control it.
Finally, let me repeat my healthcare talking points. Pulbic healthcare is welfare for everyone. We are addicted to insurance, to really be a free market system, we need to pay cash for everything we can. We need more doctors, nurses, physicians assistants and pharmacists. Tort reform will stop endless unnecessary medial testing. Bring the invincible population into the insurance family. Don't cross the line between delaying death and extending life. Stop using the ER as your primary care physician. Let people who can not pay their bills work off their medical debt through public service.
Let me also say that I am totally against government intrusion into the content of information on the Internet. These type of controls are scary in the hands of either Democrats or Republicans. The internet is the one truly free media in this country. It is both a dangerous and and wonderful thing. Let's leave it alone and not deal with the consequences of letting the government control it.
Finally, let me repeat my healthcare talking points. Pulbic healthcare is welfare for everyone. We are addicted to insurance, to really be a free market system, we need to pay cash for everything we can. We need more doctors, nurses, physicians assistants and pharmacists. Tort reform will stop endless unnecessary medial testing. Bring the invincible population into the insurance family. Don't cross the line between delaying death and extending life. Stop using the ER as your primary care physician. Let people who can not pay their bills work off their medical debt through public service.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Davis School District Bond Information
I received the following from a Vice Principal at North Davis Junior High...
Dear Parents, The Davis School Board is presenting a School Bond Resolution for a public vote November 3rd. For more information you are invited to attend one of the following Open Houses or go to www.davis.k12.ut.us/district/2009_bond. Additional bond information may be obtained from your school. Bond Presentations for Public - Open House Tuesday, Oct. 13th Davis High Choral Rm. 7:00pm
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=9779717095333364127&q=Davis+High+School+Kaysville,+Utah&hl=en
Tuesday, Oct . 13th Viewmont High Choral Rm. 7:00pm
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=15719481086706740440&q=Viewmont+High+School+Bountiful,+Utah&hl=en
Thursday, Oct. 15th Syracuse High Choral Rm. 7:00pm (south east end of school)
http://maps.google.com/maps/place?cid=13960508366291156805&q=Syracuse+high+school+Syracuse,+Utah&hl=en
Thank You
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Letter to the D-News about Letterman
Here is my letter as it appeared in the D-News. It was edited a little:
As funny and sometimes crude as David Letterman has been over the years, the fact that he was having many secret affairs with his staffers comes as no surprise to me. What I find creepy about it is the fact that he played the whole matter to his audience for laughs and applause.
It is no laughing matter.
It creates a hostile environment for every female on the staff.
It invalidates the system of merit raises and promotions for everyone on the staff, regardless of gender.
It creates a negative image for all of Letterman's advertisers.
It sheds a bad light on CBS and all of its affiliates.
If CBS continues to support Letterman, then KUTV should drop the program.
I also suggested that the advertisers of the program would be better served by dropping their support for the program. There is no victim in this "sexploitation" case. Letterman is no hero.
Now reading the comments about this letter, I think that most people missed the point. This letter is not about the moral issue of adultery. It is about the legal issue of sexual harassment.
If two peers at the office meet and it leads to an intimate relationship and neither is married. I say--keep it professional at the office.
If to peers have a physical relationship and one of them is married, it is a non issue until someone brings work into it. Then there will be consequences.
If there is a relationship between a manager and a sub-ordinate, you have a problem. If I am a peer of the sub-ordinate, then I have to wonder about all of my performance reviews, merit increases and promotions. This is true regardless of my gender. Sexual harassment hurts everyone, including everyone.
Also, I expect to make a major announcement in about 4 weeks.
As funny and sometimes crude as David Letterman has been over the years, the fact that he was having many secret affairs with his staffers comes as no surprise to me. What I find creepy about it is the fact that he played the whole matter to his audience for laughs and applause.
It is no laughing matter.
It creates a hostile environment for every female on the staff.
It invalidates the system of merit raises and promotions for everyone on the staff, regardless of gender.
It creates a negative image for all of Letterman's advertisers.
It sheds a bad light on CBS and all of its affiliates.
If CBS continues to support Letterman, then KUTV should drop the program.
I also suggested that the advertisers of the program would be better served by dropping their support for the program. There is no victim in this "sexploitation" case. Letterman is no hero.
Now reading the comments about this letter, I think that most people missed the point. This letter is not about the moral issue of adultery. It is about the legal issue of sexual harassment.
If two peers at the office meet and it leads to an intimate relationship and neither is married. I say--keep it professional at the office.
If to peers have a physical relationship and one of them is married, it is a non issue until someone brings work into it. Then there will be consequences.
If there is a relationship between a manager and a sub-ordinate, you have a problem. If I am a peer of the sub-ordinate, then I have to wonder about all of my performance reviews, merit increases and promotions. This is true regardless of my gender. Sexual harassment hurts everyone, including everyone.
Also, I expect to make a major announcement in about 4 weeks.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
More competition does not always equal lower prices.
Why allowing insurance companies to cross state lines will not make a big difference.
In addition to the rivalry among current competitors, there are four other components of competition in business. First is the threat of new entrants. Second is the power of the customer. Third is the power of the supplier. Fourth is the threat of substitute products and services.
There are two problems with the health insurance competition equation. One is that in the doctor, patient and insurance company relationship, arguably the insurance company is the most powerful. They have the money and control the access that the patient has in the system. The other, is that there are no substitutes for health insurance.
One reason to move to a catastrophic-only insurance system is to break the power that the insurance company has in the relationship. Then the price the doctor charges a patient can be based upon the laws of supply and demand. This will also help the doctor become more responsive to the needs of the patient. Whereas now, the insurance company has too much say.
Lifting the state boundaries will improve the quality of the product that the insurance company provides, but competition alone does not, in and of itself, guarantee a lower price. There are many, many things that are very expensive in-spite of the competition. Examples include such items like houses, cars and energy. The threat of new entrants is only a part of the equation and not the entire story. First, break the power that the insurance companies have in the doctor-patient relationship and then competition can make the price fall.
There are no substitutes for health insurance or insurance in general. For auto insurance, in some states you can have a lawyer notarize a document stating that you have enough liquid assets to cover the minimum state requirements. So, there is a substitute for auto insurance--of sorts. Operating an automobile is also not a requirement. If you do not want auto insurance, you have the option of parking your car. You can avoid directly paying for home owners insurance by renting. You can avoid the need for life insurance by purchasing your casket, tombstone and grave site in advance. How can you avoid the need for health insurance?
So, no substitutes with power over the customer and supplier relationship. Therefore, opening the state boundaries is not much of a threat.
Eight Points:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Pay out of pocket for simple and common doctor visits and meds.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA-type tests.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death.
5. Train more providers of all types. Introduce more competition into the system by ending the shortage or doctors, nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises. Have more insta-care type facilities.
7. Alternative payment methods. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud. Recovering from criminal losses adds to everyone's costs in one way or another.
In addition to the rivalry among current competitors, there are four other components of competition in business. First is the threat of new entrants. Second is the power of the customer. Third is the power of the supplier. Fourth is the threat of substitute products and services.
There are two problems with the health insurance competition equation. One is that in the doctor, patient and insurance company relationship, arguably the insurance company is the most powerful. They have the money and control the access that the patient has in the system. The other, is that there are no substitutes for health insurance.
One reason to move to a catastrophic-only insurance system is to break the power that the insurance company has in the relationship. Then the price the doctor charges a patient can be based upon the laws of supply and demand. This will also help the doctor become more responsive to the needs of the patient. Whereas now, the insurance company has too much say.
Lifting the state boundaries will improve the quality of the product that the insurance company provides, but competition alone does not, in and of itself, guarantee a lower price. There are many, many things that are very expensive in-spite of the competition. Examples include such items like houses, cars and energy. The threat of new entrants is only a part of the equation and not the entire story. First, break the power that the insurance companies have in the doctor-patient relationship and then competition can make the price fall.
There are no substitutes for health insurance or insurance in general. For auto insurance, in some states you can have a lawyer notarize a document stating that you have enough liquid assets to cover the minimum state requirements. So, there is a substitute for auto insurance--of sorts. Operating an automobile is also not a requirement. If you do not want auto insurance, you have the option of parking your car. You can avoid directly paying for home owners insurance by renting. You can avoid the need for life insurance by purchasing your casket, tombstone and grave site in advance. How can you avoid the need for health insurance?
So, no substitutes with power over the customer and supplier relationship. Therefore, opening the state boundaries is not much of a threat.
Eight Points:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Pay out of pocket for simple and common doctor visits and meds.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA-type tests.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death.
5. Train more providers of all types. Introduce more competition into the system by ending the shortage or doctors, nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises. Have more insta-care type facilities.
7. Alternative payment methods. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud. Recovering from criminal losses adds to everyone's costs in one way or another.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
8th Point on Health Care Reform
It's been nearly two weeks since I blogged on this site. The health care debate rages on in Congress. I would like to first speak on the idea of requiring people to purchase health insurance. It is very different than the auto insurance requirement. Here is why:
1. I do not really have to purchase auto insurance! Really? Yes, the law requires that you have auto insurance...if you have a car. You do not have to purchase a car or obtain a driver's license. If you operate a car, you agree to carry auto insurance, but you do not have to operate a car...therefore auto insurance is optional.
2. Auto insurance is about YOUR liability. It is to protect YOU against the financial losses when YOU make a mistake. SOME medical issues are preventable, but not all of them. Some are hereditary, some are environmental or involve other factors beyond your control. Why should YOU be responsible for something YOU can not control?
Now for the 8th point. In review, here are the other 7:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Pay out of pocket for simple and common doctor visits and meds. He who has the gold makes the rules. When you run a business that relies on third parties to pay your services, you should not be surprised when those third parties attempt to control the process. The more the money comes directly from the patient, the more control the patient will have over the process.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc. Lower risk means lower costs. It would also lower risks to focus on preventative measures.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA-type tests. End medical testing that doctors order simply because they are afraid of being sued. Sure, there is negligence and the duty to care or at least do no harm, but testing simply because one is fearful of a lawsuit is a different thing entirely. It increases demand for medical services which drives costs.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death. This would include proper grief counseling for those who loved ones are near the end. It is hard to let someone go, but there comes a time to do so.
5. Train more providers of all types. Introduce more competition into the system by ending the shortage of doctors, nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists. I'm certain that everyone knows someone who would have been a great doctor if he could only get into medical school.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises. Have more insta-care type facilities including co-located facilities that people can use for such situation. If someone shows up in the ER who can wait, have them wait or pay through the nose. This will leave the ER people available for real life or death problems.
7. Alternative payment methods. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride. Use arbitration instead of threatening bill collection.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud. Recovering from criminal losses adds to everyone's costs in one way or another.
1. I do not really have to purchase auto insurance! Really? Yes, the law requires that you have auto insurance...if you have a car. You do not have to purchase a car or obtain a driver's license. If you operate a car, you agree to carry auto insurance, but you do not have to operate a car...therefore auto insurance is optional.
2. Auto insurance is about YOUR liability. It is to protect YOU against the financial losses when YOU make a mistake. SOME medical issues are preventable, but not all of them. Some are hereditary, some are environmental or involve other factors beyond your control. Why should YOU be responsible for something YOU can not control?
Now for the 8th point. In review, here are the other 7:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Pay out of pocket for simple and common doctor visits and meds. He who has the gold makes the rules. When you run a business that relies on third parties to pay your services, you should not be surprised when those third parties attempt to control the process. The more the money comes directly from the patient, the more control the patient will have over the process.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc. Lower risk means lower costs. It would also lower risks to focus on preventative measures.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA-type tests. End medical testing that doctors order simply because they are afraid of being sued. Sure, there is negligence and the duty to care or at least do no harm, but testing simply because one is fearful of a lawsuit is a different thing entirely. It increases demand for medical services which drives costs.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death. This would include proper grief counseling for those who loved ones are near the end. It is hard to let someone go, but there comes a time to do so.
5. Train more providers of all types. Introduce more competition into the system by ending the shortage of doctors, nurses, physician assistants and pharmacists. I'm certain that everyone knows someone who would have been a great doctor if he could only get into medical school.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises. Have more insta-care type facilities including co-located facilities that people can use for such situation. If someone shows up in the ER who can wait, have them wait or pay through the nose. This will leave the ER people available for real life or death problems.
7. Alternative payment methods. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride. Use arbitration instead of threatening bill collection.
8. Aggressively prosecute medical fraud. Recovering from criminal losses adds to everyone's costs in one way or another.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Remember When?
Before the "Great Society" programs of the Johnson Administration, the United States truly had the best health care system in the world. What are some of the differences between then and now?
1. In 1965, doctors got 67% of their revenues directly from the patient. Why is this an important? Have you ever heard of the "Golden Rule?" Not the biblical one, but the one from Disney'sAladdin , "he who has the gold makes the rules." Doctors could be more responsive to the needs of the patient because the patient was the source of most of their money. So the patients were in control. Insurance companies were involved when there was a catastrophic need. When the patients are in control of the process, the free market can work.
Solution:
I repeat what I have said before. If I go to my doctor and leave with only advice, there is no reason why I should have to file a claim with my insurance company. I don't file a claim with my auto insurance when I change the oil in my car. I don't make a claim with my home insurance when I paint the house. Insurance should be for catastrophic trouble only! Fewer claims mean lower prices and more accessibility. Don't cover routine doctor visits, or prescriptions. Don't cover eyeglasses or contacts. Focus on prevention, but offer premium discounts instead of reimbursements.
2. The population was younger. Why is this important? Even if you sew your wild oats night after night, problems rarely happen. If you don't crash your car or bike, nothing will happen. When you are under 45, you are invincible. Lower risk means lower prices for insurance and greater accessibility. Also, like homeowners and auto insurance, discounts should be given to people that take steps to lower their personal risk.
Solution:
There is little we can do about the population pyramid other than have more babies and bring more immigrants into the system. Let's get busy. If you have fewer than 3 kids and you are still in child bearing years, have another. Just kidding, of course. But our failure to realize that all the money we spend on children will come back to us is one of the biggest failures in modern society. We need younger workers to cover the older ones and the retirees. We should aggressively recruit the "invincible" crowd into insurance plans to reduce the risk.
3. There were fewer lawyers. Malpractice insurance does not directly add a lot of money to your medical bill. But your doctor orders a ton of unneeded CYA tests just in case he is sued. There is the belief that doctors have deep pockets and they become easy targets for law suits.
Solution:
We need medical tort reform. Doctors and other providers need to be held accountable for mistakes that they make, just like the rest of us. But limit the amount of money that can be collected. Also, if a doctor has to renew his license every year, than a lawyer should as well.
4. End of life issues did not exist. Something that we must understand: There is a difference between extending life and delaying death. In 1965 we had little power to do either. It is difficult and painful and emotional to realize that this line has been crossed, especially if it is your mother, father, brother, sister or child; but expecting other people to pony up when that line has been crossed is just as immoral as letting someone die before the line is crossed. The difference between 1965 and today is that we had little choice but to let people die. Many procedures we take for granted now were new back then.
This is likely the most controversial thing I have ever blogged on this site. But there is a "most miraculous ever" threshold. Once it has been crossed, say goodbye and let people go. There have been some high profile cases in the news in this area, and there is always someone waiting for the next miracle. If you have the means to keep your loved one alive forever and not be a burden to taxpayers or society, go ahead. But don't expect insurance companies and taxpayers or even your church to pay the bill. Costs for this type of care are expensive and escalate exponentially.
Solution:
Be sure that you have a will and a medical end of life directive on file. Ensure that family knows where those documents arrive. One of the big problems in prominent end-of-life cases is that family was unaware of the actual desires of the patient.
5. Doctor to patient ratios were realistic. Do you know when the last new medical school was accredited in the United States? Here is a trivia question: where is the newest medical school in the US? (Hint--They are one of the lesser known Universities in the Miami area.) They open just this fall and are the first new medical school in this country in many years. There are only 131 medical schools in the United States to server all 400,000,000 of us. We are not training enough doctors. Soon, baby boomer doctors will begin to retire and we will not be able to replace them. We also do not have enough nurses or enough pharmacists, or just about anyone. Who does not know someone who would have made a brilliant doctor that could not get into medical school?
Solution:
We need more medical schools and everything that they provide. We also need a lot more nurse practitioners and physician assistants. They can lower the overhead and free a doctor from many of the routine problems that take a doctor's time.
Trivia question answer: http://medicine.fiu.edu/index.php
6. Emergency Rooms. When people had a non life-threatening emergency, where did they go? It was not the ER. It was their local doctor. When my dad was 9--1952--he was knocked silly on the playground and the doctor came to his house! (He tells the story much better than I could.) And not only that, Grandpa did not go bankrupt because of it either.
Solution:
We have got to stop using the emergency room for every little problem. If you don't have to call 911, don't visit the ER!
7. Paying for service. Back to that story about my dad. My Grandparents were not Rockefellers. I know that my Grandad would exchange services with many people in the community. He was an exterminator. All of his medical bills were paid and the town doctor never had mice at the office or grasshoppers in his orchard. This is often how small business people got what they needed back in the day.
Solution:
If you can't pay your medical bills, there should be a way to work them off. The doctor provides you a service you can not pay for, you work a Saturday morning at the food bank. The doctor gets a tax write off. It's a win/win. No one, no matter what their circumstances are, is entitled to free medical services. If you can't pay, then you can serve. Even organizations like St Jude and Primary Children's Hospital should find some way for patients (or their parents) to pay forward the services they have received.
Think of these seven solutions, does any of this involve the Federal Government? Again, here are the 7 points of the plan:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Providers should get the majority of their revenues directly from the patient.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA testing.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death.
5. Train more providers. Introduce more competition into the system.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises.
7. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride.
1. In 1965, doctors got 67% of their revenues directly from the patient. Why is this an important? Have you ever heard of the "Golden Rule?" Not the biblical one, but the one from Disney's
Solution:
I repeat what I have said before. If I go to my doctor and leave with only advice, there is no reason why I should have to file a claim with my insurance company. I don't file a claim with my auto insurance when I change the oil in my car. I don't make a claim with my home insurance when I paint the house. Insurance should be for catastrophic trouble only! Fewer claims mean lower prices and more accessibility. Don't cover routine doctor visits, or prescriptions. Don't cover eyeglasses or contacts. Focus on prevention, but offer premium discounts instead of reimbursements.
2. The population was younger. Why is this important? Even if you sew your wild oats night after night, problems rarely happen. If you don't crash your car or bike, nothing will happen. When you are under 45, you are invincible. Lower risk means lower prices for insurance and greater accessibility. Also, like homeowners and auto insurance, discounts should be given to people that take steps to lower their personal risk.
Solution:
There is little we can do about the population pyramid other than have more babies and bring more immigrants into the system. Let's get busy. If you have fewer than 3 kids and you are still in child bearing years, have another. Just kidding, of course. But our failure to realize that all the money we spend on children will come back to us is one of the biggest failures in modern society. We need younger workers to cover the older ones and the retirees. We should aggressively recruit the "invincible" crowd into insurance plans to reduce the risk.
3. There were fewer lawyers. Malpractice insurance does not directly add a lot of money to your medical bill. But your doctor orders a ton of unneeded CYA tests just in case he is sued. There is the belief that doctors have deep pockets and they become easy targets for law suits.
Solution:
We need medical tort reform. Doctors and other providers need to be held accountable for mistakes that they make, just like the rest of us. But limit the amount of money that can be collected. Also, if a doctor has to renew his license every year, than a lawyer should as well.
4. End of life issues did not exist. Something that we must understand: There is a difference between extending life and delaying death. In 1965 we had little power to do either. It is difficult and painful and emotional to realize that this line has been crossed, especially if it is your mother, father, brother, sister or child; but expecting other people to pony up when that line has been crossed is just as immoral as letting someone die before the line is crossed. The difference between 1965 and today is that we had little choice but to let people die. Many procedures we take for granted now were new back then.
This is likely the most controversial thing I have ever blogged on this site. But there is a "most miraculous ever" threshold. Once it has been crossed, say goodbye and let people go. There have been some high profile cases in the news in this area, and there is always someone waiting for the next miracle. If you have the means to keep your loved one alive forever and not be a burden to taxpayers or society, go ahead. But don't expect insurance companies and taxpayers or even your church to pay the bill. Costs for this type of care are expensive and escalate exponentially.
Solution:
Be sure that you have a will and a medical end of life directive on file. Ensure that family knows where those documents arrive. One of the big problems in prominent end-of-life cases is that family was unaware of the actual desires of the patient.
5. Doctor to patient ratios were realistic. Do you know when the last new medical school was accredited in the United States? Here is a trivia question: where is the newest medical school in the US? (Hint--They are one of the lesser known Universities in the Miami area.) They open just this fall and are the first new medical school in this country in many years. There are only 131 medical schools in the United States to server all 400,000,000 of us. We are not training enough doctors. Soon, baby boomer doctors will begin to retire and we will not be able to replace them. We also do not have enough nurses or enough pharmacists, or just about anyone. Who does not know someone who would have made a brilliant doctor that could not get into medical school?
Solution:
We need more medical schools and everything that they provide. We also need a lot more nurse practitioners and physician assistants. They can lower the overhead and free a doctor from many of the routine problems that take a doctor's time.
Trivia question answer: http://medicine.fiu.edu/index.php
6. Emergency Rooms. When people had a non life-threatening emergency, where did they go? It was not the ER. It was their local doctor. When my dad was 9--1952--he was knocked silly on the playground and the doctor came to his house! (He tells the story much better than I could.) And not only that, Grandpa did not go bankrupt because of it either.
Solution:
We have got to stop using the emergency room for every little problem. If you don't have to call 911, don't visit the ER!
7. Paying for service. Back to that story about my dad. My Grandparents were not Rockefellers. I know that my Grandad would exchange services with many people in the community. He was an exterminator. All of his medical bills were paid and the town doctor never had mice at the office or grasshoppers in his orchard. This is often how small business people got what they needed back in the day.
Solution:
If you can't pay your medical bills, there should be a way to work them off. The doctor provides you a service you can not pay for, you work a Saturday morning at the food bank. The doctor gets a tax write off. It's a win/win. No one, no matter what their circumstances are, is entitled to free medical services. If you can't pay, then you can serve. Even organizations like St Jude and Primary Children's Hospital should find some way for patients (or their parents) to pay forward the services they have received.
Think of these seven solutions, does any of this involve the Federal Government? Again, here are the 7 points of the plan:
1. Catastrophic-only insurance. Government as a last-resort safety-net. Providers should get the majority of their revenues directly from the patient.
2. Diffuse the risk. Bring low-risk populations that are not currently covered into insurance plans. These populations include immigrants, college students and younger workers. Reward those who take steps to lower their personal risk by joining gyms, loosing weight, etc.
3. Tort reform to end unneeded CYA testing.
4. Realistic end-of-life care that focuses on extending a quality of life instead of simply delaying death.
5. Train more providers. Introduce more competition into the system.
6. End the use of the Emergency Room when an unplanned medical problem arises.
7. Patients who can not pay for their medical bills should work them off through community service in lieu of forcing them into bankruptcy. No one gets a free ride. End the practice of just writing-off unpaid bills. End the expectation of a free ride.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Davis bond proposal...not bold enough
Davis County is asking voters to approve a new bond initiative this coming election. The bond is for new schools. It is meant to raise money for four elementary schools (1 rebuilt) 1 junior high school in west Kaysville and for a 10-classroom addition to Woods Cross High School.
At first blush, it might seem a little bold, but looking at growth projections in the county it is not bold enough. It will lead to more portable classrooms and year-round schools. These new schools will not be enough. What is needed is six elementary schools, 2 junior high schools and one new high school. The other 3 elementary schools, the other junior high and the high school will be needed to be bonded in another two years. But it would be better to bond these projects now while the materials are at a lower cost and labor is willing. We may not have this luxury in another two years. Also, adding 250 new students to Woods Cross High School will mess up an already ugly boundary problem in the south end of the county. Are you going to bus kids in the Porter-Walton area of Centerville all the way to Bountiful High School and have the buses drive right by Viewmont High School on the way?
For more information on the Davis County School bond issue, please visit this link:
http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/district/2009_bond/
1,000 new students in the county every year. We need at least 6 new elementary schools, 3 new junior highs...Kaysville, North Salt Lake, and South Weber or East Layton. And at least one new high school in Farmington. This location will fix the boundary problem in the south end of the county and relieve the overcrowding at Davis High.
At first blush, it might seem a little bold, but looking at growth projections in the county it is not bold enough. It will lead to more portable classrooms and year-round schools. These new schools will not be enough. What is needed is six elementary schools, 2 junior high schools and one new high school. The other 3 elementary schools, the other junior high and the high school will be needed to be bonded in another two years. But it would be better to bond these projects now while the materials are at a lower cost and labor is willing. We may not have this luxury in another two years. Also, adding 250 new students to Woods Cross High School will mess up an already ugly boundary problem in the south end of the county. Are you going to bus kids in the Porter-Walton area of Centerville all the way to Bountiful High School and have the buses drive right by Viewmont High School on the way?
For more information on the Davis County School bond issue, please visit this link:
http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/district/2009_bond/
1,000 new students in the county every year. We need at least 6 new elementary schools, 3 new junior highs...Kaysville, North Salt Lake, and South Weber or East Layton. And at least one new high school in Farmington. This location will fix the boundary problem in the south end of the county and relieve the overcrowding at Davis High.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Is This You?
In the health care debate, most of the complaints are about price. I want to know if anyone has a complaint that NOT related to price. This can include:
-Doctor Mistakes
-Waiting too long in the waiting room
-Inability to get an appointment
-"Bedside" manner
-Inability to make a complaint
Any problems at all other than price.
Post a comment to this blog.
Pass this on to your friends.
-Ben
-Doctor Mistakes
-Waiting too long in the waiting room
-Inability to get an appointment
-"Bedside" manner
-Inability to make a complaint
Any problems at all other than price.
Post a comment to this blog.
Pass this on to your friends.
-Ben
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Obama can come to my school
Yes, I am a republican. But Obama can come to my school and speak to my kids any time he pleases. I would be pleased to hear him motivate the kids to do their homework, to be active in politics, to be physically fit. It would be an experience that they would never forget. I would even be pleased if he would address the kids about his struggles with tobacco.
What bothers me is when any politician, no matter the office, uses children to push their policies, whether I agree with them or not.
So, on behalf of all Clearfield High School parents, I hereby invite President Obama to come to our school and speak with our kids in an assembly. Please come and inspire and motivate our children and give them an experience that they will never forget. The children are the future of our country, and our chief should lead them to that future.
Speaking of which, the "I pledge allegience to our debt" commercial that has been running give me pause for thought. And remember, the debt is owned by both parties.
What bothers me is when any politician, no matter the office, uses children to push their policies, whether I agree with them or not.
So, on behalf of all Clearfield High School parents, I hereby invite President Obama to come to our school and speak with our kids in an assembly. Please come and inspire and motivate our children and give them an experience that they will never forget. The children are the future of our country, and our chief should lead them to that future.
Speaking of which, the "I pledge allegience to our debt" commercial that has been running give me pause for thought. And remember, the debt is owned by both parties.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Give Up Put Downs
I finally saw one, and I knew that it was coming. A bumper sticker that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for the American."
I am not happy about this kind of rhetoric. Why? The original bumper sticker "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush" were aimed at those who voted for H. Ross Perot in 1992. John McCain did not loose the last election because a third party candidate stole votes away from him. Second, it flames hatred in Politics. Here is the chain of hatred, as I see it.
Hatred against Lyndon Johnson for the Vietnam war gave us Richard Nixon.
Anger against Gerald Ford for his pardoning of Nixon gave us Jimmy Carter.
Anger against Carter for a weekend military and a poor economy gave us Ronald Reagan.
Anger against George H Bush for tax increases caused GOP defections for Perot that gave us Clinton.
Anger against Clinton gave us W.
Hatred for W gave us Obama.
We will not get a good president through anger and hatred. Focus that anger against your representatives in the House and against your senators. Here in Utah, focus your anger and Hatch, Bennett, Matheson and Bishop. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them understand that they represent you in Congress. Make your voice heard.
Then let's work to get a positive candidate for President in 2012. But remember, we have another election before then.
I am not happy about this kind of rhetoric. Why? The original bumper sticker "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Bush" were aimed at those who voted for H. Ross Perot in 1992. John McCain did not loose the last election because a third party candidate stole votes away from him. Second, it flames hatred in Politics. Here is the chain of hatred, as I see it.
Hatred against Lyndon Johnson for the Vietnam war gave us Richard Nixon.
Anger against Gerald Ford for his pardoning of Nixon gave us Jimmy Carter.
Anger against Carter for a weekend military and a poor economy gave us Ronald Reagan.
Anger against George H Bush for tax increases caused GOP defections for Perot that gave us Clinton.
Anger against Clinton gave us W.
Hatred for W gave us Obama.
We will not get a good president through anger and hatred. Focus that anger against your representatives in the House and against your senators. Here in Utah, focus your anger and Hatch, Bennett, Matheson and Bishop. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them understand that they represent you in Congress. Make your voice heard.
Then let's work to get a positive candidate for President in 2012. But remember, we have another election before then.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Memo to Fox News...
Next time a big democratic senator dies, you will appear "fair and balanced" if you do not send Sean Hannity as a commentator.
Memo to the GOPs in Congress...
Some of you in Congress, including Bennett, are pushing a plan in Congress that is actually worse than Obama care. It requires businesses to provide insurance for their employees, where now it it just optional. Why will it be more costly? First, enforcement of the new law. It would require a new class of IRS auditors. Second, some businesses would close their doors if forced to provide insurance. Finally, companies that do still provide insurance to their employees would loose a recruiting advantage.
I once thought that Universal Coverage would be as simple as requireing all businesses to provide insurance, but I am re-thinking that position. If it makes Obamacare look good in comparison, no way.
My question: how can you really call yourself a Reagan Republican and completely ignore the supply side of the equation? The real complaint most people have about healthcare is the price. Demand is escalating, and there is very little you can do about it. This is because our population is aging.
Everything that is spoken of by republican commentators will work...a little. But there needs to be some serious supply-side solutions to relieve the pressures that are really driving up prices. If building more refineries and opening more oil fileds will help with energy costs, then training more providers, building more clinics and hospitals, making more pills and flooding the market with more of everything will bring down costs more than anything else that is being proposed right now.
Rest assured, that when Bennett votes for something, a cash register rings and someone makes a killing.
Next time a big democratic senator dies, you will appear "fair and balanced" if you do not send Sean Hannity as a commentator.
Memo to the GOPs in Congress...
Some of you in Congress, including Bennett, are pushing a plan in Congress that is actually worse than Obama care. It requires businesses to provide insurance for their employees, where now it it just optional. Why will it be more costly? First, enforcement of the new law. It would require a new class of IRS auditors. Second, some businesses would close their doors if forced to provide insurance. Finally, companies that do still provide insurance to their employees would loose a recruiting advantage.
I once thought that Universal Coverage would be as simple as requireing all businesses to provide insurance, but I am re-thinking that position. If it makes Obamacare look good in comparison, no way.
My question: how can you really call yourself a Reagan Republican and completely ignore the supply side of the equation? The real complaint most people have about healthcare is the price. Demand is escalating, and there is very little you can do about it. This is because our population is aging.
Everything that is spoken of by republican commentators will work...a little. But there needs to be some serious supply-side solutions to relieve the pressures that are really driving up prices. If building more refineries and opening more oil fileds will help with energy costs, then training more providers, building more clinics and hospitals, making more pills and flooding the market with more of everything will bring down costs more than anything else that is being proposed right now.
Rest assured, that when Bennett votes for something, a cash register rings and someone makes a killing.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
God Speed Ted Kennedy
I have a lot that I want to say about Ted Kennedy, but I want to stay positive for the time being and allow the family to morn. You will never hear me say anything about the Chappaquiddick incident in a negative light. From what I have read about the incident, it was not as bad as it looks at first blush. I will not address it again.
But I wish that on the conservative side, we has someone like Kennedy. I do not think that we would be as bad off as we are today.
But I wish that on the conservative side, we has someone like Kennedy. I do not think that we would be as bad off as we are today.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Citizenship Ammendment
Is a child born in the US automatic citizens, even if they are born to illegal immigrant. True, that court precedent does not allow us to deny them a public education, welfare or health care. But what happens when they turn 18? What about voting? All that they need is a birth certificate, and they get a drivers license and just about everything else that comes with it, including a voting registration.
The case US v Wong, the same case cited in the courts to grant these privileges to the children of illegals, also provides the guidance for who is a US citizen by birth. This also could be the template for the constitutional amendment many claim we need.
A person born inside the borders of the states of the United States is a natural born citizen if...
1. One parent is a a citizen of the United States.
2. One parent is a legal resident of the United States.
3. The parents are not diplomats
A person born outside the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States if...
1. At least one parent is a Citizen of the United State who has been a resident of the United States at least five years prior to the birth of that child.
2. One parent is a member of the US Armed forces or Diplomatic Corps.
The current law is more complicated than this, but this is simple. A constitutional amendment should be simple. There should also be a clause in the amendment ensuring that only Congress has the right to set laws regarding naturalization and immigration to ensure uniformity.
The case US v Wong, the same case cited in the courts to grant these privileges to the children of illegals, also provides the guidance for who is a US citizen by birth. This also could be the template for the constitutional amendment many claim we need.
A person born inside the borders of the states of the United States is a natural born citizen if...
1. One parent is a a citizen of the United States.
2. One parent is a legal resident of the United States.
3. The parents are not diplomats
A person born outside the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States if...
1. At least one parent is a Citizen of the United State who has been a resident of the United States at least five years prior to the birth of that child.
2. One parent is a member of the US Armed forces or Diplomatic Corps.
The current law is more complicated than this, but this is simple. A constitutional amendment should be simple. There should also be a clause in the amendment ensuring that only Congress has the right to set laws regarding naturalization and immigration to ensure uniformity.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
If Health Insurance Were More Like Auto Insurance
There was a rant by Limbaugh sometime ago about how different Auto Insurance would be if it was run like medical insurance. I apologize for not having a link. How about we turn it around.
1. The owner...or the patient would be responsible for all maintenance costs including gym memberships and routine visits to a physician.
2. The patient would be responsible to pay for minor damage or defects to the body...like glasses, contacts and routine prescriptions.
3. The providers would price items that the patients pay for at a reasonable enough price to allow patients to meet these costs with their own funds...without having to file a claim with a third party.
4. The patient would be responsible for carrying an insurance policy.
5. There would be a penalty from the state if the patient fails to pay the cost of insurance.
6. Persons with a higher risk of needing to file a claim pay a higher premium for that insurance.
7. Insurance companies would provide discounts for people who take steps to reduce their risk.
8. The price of the insurance policy would not change if the patient looses a job.
9. The government would only regulate the system to ensure it is fair for all. The larger burden for this regulation would fall upon the state.
10. The patient would not be expected to pay a steep deductible for claims beyond control.
11. When it gets to a point where nothing can be done for the patient, when it is time to die, the patient would be allowed to go peacefully.
12. All final decisions are made by the patient.
13. Prices would be part of the discussion when determining what should be done. Patients would know the cost up front.
14. There would be a minimum amount of coverage that people would be expected to carry. There would add-ons and options, as well.
15. People who abuse the system are put on a special, more expensive plan.
There is one huge difference between me and my car. My car does not feel pain. I can put off a car repair or ride the bus. There should be reasonable differences, but not many.
If you really want to know how good a single-payer, government run system will work, take a good look at how well the families of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and veterans are taken care of. I thought that my family had good care when I was in the Air Force, but there were some things that bothered me as well. Most of the abuse, however, comes from the families of our heroes. A lot of people over using the system. But I left in 1997...has it gotten better or worse? I know there are fewer providers and more people using them. I know that families use a plan and don't see military providers any longer.
I have a post-grad cert in Health Care Administration. According to what I have studied, the biggest problem is that Americans expect the best health care in the world, and they expect to pay next to nothing for it. I also think that the prices are unreasonably high. When you provide a good or service in this country, you should consider how much your customers can afford. People should not be forced into bankruptcy for most medical procedures. I understand the difference between a three year battle with cancer vs a gall bladder extraction. The latter procedure should bankrupt no one. I think that it is unreasonable to expect that people who allow their bodies to waste away should pay the same costs as someone who takes care of their body. People should not expect any insurance reimbursement for something that is routine and planned.
When demand is high and price is high about the only thing that can reasonably be done is increase demand. If I had a trillion dollars to improve the system, I would give a billion to every medical school to doubled their enrollment in five years. There would be bonus money for accepting retiring soldiers and other middle aged people into medical schools. (That's about 50 billion, leaving 970 billion) I would give ten billion each to the first new 10 medical schools. (That is another 100 billion, leaving 870 billion.) Then I would use the remaining money to build more hospitals, bring more generic drugs on the market, triple the number of nurses and PAs and finally to beef up the licensing boards that will be needed to certify all of this. In other words, increased supply, and also more jobs. And we desperately need jobs right now. Yes, we can improve our health care system and the economy at the same time!
1. The owner...or the patient would be responsible for all maintenance costs including gym memberships and routine visits to a physician.
2. The patient would be responsible to pay for minor damage or defects to the body...like glasses, contacts and routine prescriptions.
3. The providers would price items that the patients pay for at a reasonable enough price to allow patients to meet these costs with their own funds...without having to file a claim with a third party.
4. The patient would be responsible for carrying an insurance policy.
5. There would be a penalty from the state if the patient fails to pay the cost of insurance.
6. Persons with a higher risk of needing to file a claim pay a higher premium for that insurance.
7. Insurance companies would provide discounts for people who take steps to reduce their risk.
8. The price of the insurance policy would not change if the patient looses a job.
9. The government would only regulate the system to ensure it is fair for all. The larger burden for this regulation would fall upon the state.
10. The patient would not be expected to pay a steep deductible for claims beyond control.
11. When it gets to a point where nothing can be done for the patient, when it is time to die, the patient would be allowed to go peacefully.
12. All final decisions are made by the patient.
13. Prices would be part of the discussion when determining what should be done. Patients would know the cost up front.
14. There would be a minimum amount of coverage that people would be expected to carry. There would add-ons and options, as well.
15. People who abuse the system are put on a special, more expensive plan.
There is one huge difference between me and my car. My car does not feel pain. I can put off a car repair or ride the bus. There should be reasonable differences, but not many.
If you really want to know how good a single-payer, government run system will work, take a good look at how well the families of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and veterans are taken care of. I thought that my family had good care when I was in the Air Force, but there were some things that bothered me as well. Most of the abuse, however, comes from the families of our heroes. A lot of people over using the system. But I left in 1997...has it gotten better or worse? I know there are fewer providers and more people using them. I know that families use a plan and don't see military providers any longer.
I have a post-grad cert in Health Care Administration. According to what I have studied, the biggest problem is that Americans expect the best health care in the world, and they expect to pay next to nothing for it. I also think that the prices are unreasonably high. When you provide a good or service in this country, you should consider how much your customers can afford. People should not be forced into bankruptcy for most medical procedures. I understand the difference between a three year battle with cancer vs a gall bladder extraction. The latter procedure should bankrupt no one. I think that it is unreasonable to expect that people who allow their bodies to waste away should pay the same costs as someone who takes care of their body. People should not expect any insurance reimbursement for something that is routine and planned.
When demand is high and price is high about the only thing that can reasonably be done is increase demand. If I had a trillion dollars to improve the system, I would give a billion to every medical school to doubled their enrollment in five years. There would be bonus money for accepting retiring soldiers and other middle aged people into medical schools. (That's about 50 billion, leaving 970 billion) I would give ten billion each to the first new 10 medical schools. (That is another 100 billion, leaving 870 billion.) Then I would use the remaining money to build more hospitals, bring more generic drugs on the market, triple the number of nurses and PAs and finally to beef up the licensing boards that will be needed to certify all of this. In other words, increased supply, and also more jobs. And we desperately need jobs right now. Yes, we can improve our health care system and the economy at the same time!
Monday, August 10, 2009
Word To The Wise
I don't have a lot of time today, but I have 3 words for people who think that Obama is not a US Citizen. They are three of the most scary words I can think of right now.
President Joe Biden
Let's just vote them both out in 2012.
President Joe Biden
Let's just vote them both out in 2012.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Name Change
Fire Orrin Hatch has changed it's name. And to my two readers, I will send you emails letting you know.
I have changed the name of my political blog for three reasons:
1. The dismisal of the TEA-party movement and protests against health care reform as being fake and contrived.
2. The fact that Orrin Hatch is not up for election again until 2012.
3. There are bigger threats to my current way of life than Orrin Hatch.
I am still committed to:
1. A congressional term-limit ammendment to the constitution. (18 years. 3 terms in the senate, 9 terms in the house. That would apply to 23 senators and 71 members of the house)
2. Lobbying for good government. Especially in Utah.
I have changed the name of my political blog for three reasons:
1. The dismisal of the TEA-party movement and protests against health care reform as being fake and contrived.
2. The fact that Orrin Hatch is not up for election again until 2012.
3. There are bigger threats to my current way of life than Orrin Hatch.
I am still committed to:
1. A congressional term-limit ammendment to the constitution. (18 years. 3 terms in the senate, 9 terms in the house. That would apply to 23 senators and 71 members of the house)
2. Lobbying for good government. Especially in Utah.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Why Most Utahans Vote Republican
First, tonight is the first time I have blogged on this site using Google Chrome. Let me know if you notice the difference. So far, I do not. But it is a good alternative if you have Microsoft Derangement Syndrome.
Jim Matheson has caved. Simply by removing only 100,000,000,000 out of the 1,000,000,000,000 dollar health care bill, Matheson is on board. Matheson, who runs on being a fiscal conservative, considers it imoral to go a trillion in the hock for healthcare, but is OK with only 9 hundred billion. And then he immediately announces that he is running for re-election. Well, let's see if the GOPs in SL County can take advantage of this blunder.
And it now looks like they are trying. Well, they will have to find an acceptable alternative to Matheson in the state. There are plenty of Republicans in the district that Jim represents, but the 2nd district GOP has a history of falling on their own swords. Here are some that I can list by memory.
Alan Howe--thought he was soliciting a prostitute on 300 South, but it turned out to be an undercover cop.
Merrill Cook--Can't decide if he is really a Republican or a Libritarian
Enid Greene--Nice lady whose Ex- got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Dave Monson--Was the Lt to Jim's Dad as gov. Couldn't stand on his own.
Dan Marriott--Left congress just to loose the nomination for gov to a guy named Bangerter.
So, as you can see...the GOP in Utah's 2nd district does not have a good track record. Hopefully, there can be better days ahead.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh
This letter to the Deseret News bothers me and makes me upset. The author of this letter is clueless and the D News editors should be ashamed by publishing it.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319027/Readers-forum-Tired-of-hate-speak.html
Here is where the author is wrong.
1. Sean Hannity is not the Republican Party, KSL or the LDS Church. He is a registered Conservative, which in the State of New York is an option. He is not a registered Republican. He is from Long Island and is a Roman Catholic.
2. The only reason he is on the air is because people listen to him. He connects with enough people to sell commercial time. If this was not the case, he would not be on the air.
3. What bothers me the most is that so many people call speech that disagrees with them hate speech. Just because you do not agree with what is said does not mean it is hateful.
Last week, Glen Beck went viral on a caller. She berated him. She wanted to know why he was against spending all of this money on health care reform when he was OK with the financial system bailouts last fall. Glen told the "pin head" to "get off the phone."
Brother Beck was wrong to yell at this woman, but I understand why he got upset. Beck WAS very critical of the bail-outs last fall. He was upset, extremely upset at the bail-outs last fall. That was when he gave his famous, "wake up America!" message on the phone.
This caller was trying to paint Beck into the same corner that Hatch, Bennett and many Republicans belong. There were many, including both of our Senators and Congressman Cannon who voted wrong on this issue. Even I thought it that the government needed to do something. But NOW these guys are being fiscally conservative. Why? Just because the Dems are in charge? But this label does not belong to Beck.
So take offense if you want to. But give people the same right that you have. To speak. That is their right. You also have the right to take offense, to take it as hate. But that hate belongs to you, not to the authors of talk radio. The thing about talk radio is that if their listeners go away, they will too. Offer the listeners something else, something better. Then Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and everyone else will disappear.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705319027/Readers-forum-Tired-of-hate-speak.html
Here is where the author is wrong.
1. Sean Hannity is not the Republican Party, KSL or the LDS Church. He is a registered Conservative, which in the State of New York is an option. He is not a registered Republican. He is from Long Island and is a Roman Catholic.
2. The only reason he is on the air is because people listen to him. He connects with enough people to sell commercial time. If this was not the case, he would not be on the air.
3. What bothers me the most is that so many people call speech that disagrees with them hate speech. Just because you do not agree with what is said does not mean it is hateful.
Last week, Glen Beck went viral on a caller. She berated him. She wanted to know why he was against spending all of this money on health care reform when he was OK with the financial system bailouts last fall. Glen told the "pin head" to "get off the phone."
Brother Beck was wrong to yell at this woman, but I understand why he got upset. Beck WAS very critical of the bail-outs last fall. He was upset, extremely upset at the bail-outs last fall. That was when he gave his famous, "wake up America!" message on the phone.
This caller was trying to paint Beck into the same corner that Hatch, Bennett and many Republicans belong. There were many, including both of our Senators and Congressman Cannon who voted wrong on this issue. Even I thought it that the government needed to do something. But NOW these guys are being fiscally conservative. Why? Just because the Dems are in charge? But this label does not belong to Beck.
So take offense if you want to. But give people the same right that you have. To speak. That is their right. You also have the right to take offense, to take it as hate. But that hate belongs to you, not to the authors of talk radio. The thing about talk radio is that if their listeners go away, they will too. Offer the listeners something else, something better. Then Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and everyone else will disappear.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Hatch Oposes Sotomeyor
So...Orrin Hatch for the first time in his career will oppose a Supreme Court nominee. Here are all of the Supreme Court nominees he has supported, some of which are more liberal than the current nominee.
Nominated by Jimmy Carter
none
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor
William Rhenquiet (For Chief Justice--already sitting)
Antonin Scalia
Robert Bork (Rejected by the Senate)
Anthony Kennedy
Nominated by George H. W. Bush
David Souter
Clarance Thomas
Nominated by Bill Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Stephen Breyer
Nominated by George W. Bush
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
When Alito was up for a vote in the full Senate, a filibusterer was attempted by the Democrats in the Senate. In explaining why he thought that Alito deserved an up or down vote, he explained that elections have consequences and the president had the right to nominate who he chose.
So, he knew what we were getting in Ginsberg. Far more liberal than "Whizzer" White. Whizzer desented on Roe v. Wade, but supported Civil Rights cases. Ginsberg was not a replacement. It was a liberal replacing a moderate back then. But Hatch did nothing to stop this woman from reaching the highest court in the land.
I am NOT saying that Sonia Sotomeyor is a great nominee for the court. Every indication is that she will be similar to the man she is replacing. I am saying that Mr. Hatch needs to be consistent...that is what Utahans deserve. Why make a stand now?
Nominated by Jimmy Carter
none
Nominated by Ronald Reagan
Sandra Day O'Connor
William Rhenquiet (For Chief Justice--already sitting)
Antonin Scalia
Robert Bork (Rejected by the Senate)
Anthony Kennedy
Nominated by George H. W. Bush
David Souter
Clarance Thomas
Nominated by Bill Clinton
Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Stephen Breyer
Nominated by George W. Bush
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
When Alito was up for a vote in the full Senate, a filibusterer was attempted by the Democrats in the Senate. In explaining why he thought that Alito deserved an up or down vote, he explained that elections have consequences and the president had the right to nominate who he chose.
So, he knew what we were getting in Ginsberg. Far more liberal than "Whizzer" White. Whizzer desented on Roe v. Wade, but supported Civil Rights cases. Ginsberg was not a replacement. It was a liberal replacing a moderate back then. But Hatch did nothing to stop this woman from reaching the highest court in the land.
I am NOT saying that Sonia Sotomeyor is a great nominee for the court. Every indication is that she will be similar to the man she is replacing. I am saying that Mr. Hatch needs to be consistent...that is what Utahans deserve. Why make a stand now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
