Health Care - What's the Story?

Part I – How To Think About It & The Economics and Politics of It

By Bill Seebeck

My son Matt taught me a few things in an essay he wrote this week, when he asked the question, “Why do so many people know so very little about subjects that are so important to them?” Now he asked that question not about health care but about the defense of the nation.

In the essay, he said that in his quest to answer that question, he thought, “What kind of preconceived notions did people have and where did they come from? What is the reason for their knowing a half-truth or a true falsehood and was it a result of their education?”

He continued, “After long periods of study and introspection, I deduced that there are two types of knowledge people acquire often without acknowledging the disparity between the two. First, ‘perceived knowledge’ is a veritable brain dump, something learned or heard of, studied for a test but never examined or understood.”

“The second type, ‘actual learned knowledge’ is the opposite, instructed or read in a detailed manner and expressed in such a way that it is appreciated,” he opined. “The beauty of actual learned knowledge is that it incorporates a whole spectrum of topics. For example, history inherently requires economics, politics, and sociology to be more fully explained. It is a way to wisdom,” he wrote.

Thanks Matt for helping to focus on and shape how we think about the subjects that are so important to us. Thank you also for serving all of us this day in the uniform of our country.

Health Care

So, as we think about health care, let us also think about the fact that we also need to consider economics, politics, history, sociology, medicine, science, technology and how we value life, our lives and others.

Economics

Health care is one of the most expensive items in our personal budgets, state budgets and in the budget of the United States.

The cost to those budgets continues to rise. We (the citizens, our state governments and federal government) cannot afford the basic cost of health care, nor its continuing increases.

Therefore, we must change the system.

Politics

There are lots of politics wrapped up in health care. Why? In part because there is so much MONEY wrapped up in health care.

Corporations run health care. They make the drugs we take, operate the pharmacies that dispense the drugs, make the machines (CT-Scan, X-Rays, etc.) used for performing tests, blood testing services, they own the insurance companies and the hospitals that determine how much everything costs and who is going to pay for what.

Then we have the doctors, nurses, technicians, etc., and the colleges and universities that train them. It costs thousands and thousands of dollars to train these people who not only choose this profession but they are the people to whom we entrust our lives. They have a need to protect the quality of their educations, but they also need to pay off the cost of their educations while practicing medicine, paying the high cost of insurance required to practice medicine and living life with some quality.

The next group is ourselves. We always want something better. We also don’t want to pay a high cost for it.

We have our seniors, who since the 1960’s have had a medical system of their own that in tandem with Social Security provides at the very least a basic style of life that recognizes their dignity and life’s effort as working people, who because of age and the challenges of health that come with aging generally cannot afford a system without support.

Finally, we have our elected officials. They are after all politicians. They are influenced by each of the groups noted above and many more. The lobbyists that represent such groups contribute millions to politicians at election time. Such influence can cause an elected official to move from the right thing to do, to the thing to do in order to get elected the next time they run for public office.

A sub-group of the elected officials are governors, state governments and their legislative bodies. Most states require an annual BALANCED budget and the cost of health care to a state can be punishing, especially if the federal government doesn’t help fund what the state is required by law to provide its citizens. Then, if the state has to cut costs to balance their budget, then local governments (your town) will also have less money from the state and generally will have to make cuts as well.

It is the role of the President of course to lead the country as its chief executive officer. He or she must offer programs to Congress that balance the cost of health care in relation to other needs of the nation with in this case, the health care needs of its citizens.

The President knows that the health care system has to change because as we noted in the economic section, it costs too much for everyone. In the economic mess we are in, it absolutely must be addressed. Not later, but now because it represents such a large and growing percentage of the federal budget, state governments and our own budgets at home.

What we change to as the NEW HEALTH CARE SYSTEM is a battle between all of the groups noted above, the debate we are experiencing today, with all sorts of half-truths and falsehoods flying about, all because it is first ABOUT MONEY and only a distant second about our health.

As a result, at the end of the day, it does not mean that we will have a new system that will truly serve our health care needs in the future nor be as inexpensive as it could possibly be. What we will have will be what the lobbyists and elected officials bang together. Unfortunately, not a happy thought.

More tomorrow!

Let me know what you think.

Post Script: Responses to the Michael Jackson Article

I have received a number of comments on the article I wrote about Michael Jackson last month. Unfortunately, only one of those scripts could be published. The others were written with words that were filled with hate and unpublishable language.

Everyone has the right to their opinion about any subject in this society, that's what free speech is all about. Yet, I am willing to say that not too many of us actually "knew" Michael Jackson. I know I didn't, never met the boy or the man. What I knew about him was his work, music and public performances as an entertainer. These are the only things that I can judge about him and yes, I believe that they were expressions of extraordinary gifts. He developed them and then shared them with us, the world around him.

It appeared to me also that he was a troubled person and had many conflicts in his life that only he and those actually in his life may ever truly understand. As a Christian, I give thanks for his shared gifts and pray for those things in his life that troubled him. I do not presume to be the judge of his soul. I believe that is the role of God.

And as for the peace of God, it is always present and offered to each of us, unconditionally.

-- Bill Seebeck

Happy Birthday USA

I make a promise to work harder this coming year at being a better American.

-- Bill Seebeck

What's With All of This Age Discrimination? Whatever Happened to the Dignity of Labor?

by Bill Seebeck

When I first went looking for a full-time job, I was greeted with the usual statement, "You have no experience." Of course, I knew that, but my answer was then and I am sure it is today for all of those young people starting out,"How am I going to get experience if you don't give me a chance to see what I can do!" Give me a chance.

In today's world, it is money that is the value that counts. If a company can hire you or even two of you at less money than it is paying one older, more "seasoned" person, they will do it in a heartbeat. Then on top of it, they will let the older person go --- laid off, fired, whatever you want to call it. The British call it being "made redundant".

Today, I have a bundle full of friends, as I am sure my readers have as well, that have lost their jobs. They are baby boomers, older than 50. They have had very good careers, degrees, yes, including from Harvard and now they have been made redundant and the worst part, they can't seem able to get another job.

I find this amazing. Why? Because as my old partner Hunter Grant used to say, it is counter intuitive. I mean we educate people, then they gain very valuable experience and insight and then when they hit 45 plus, instead of benefiting from their experience, employers are looking to get rid of them.

Why? Is it because they have become flawed? Are they somehow diseased? Have they acquired too much knowledge? No. No. The reason that employers don't want them around anymore is because they cost too much, their salaries have increased over time and so have their benefit packages. It has nothing to do with knowledge and experience, it has all to do with MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY.

When the United States traded knowledge and experience for MONEY it fundamentally went the wrong way. What a surprise then that we are where we are right now as a nation, because chasing MONEY can lead to GREED and then you never, never have enough.

Yet another reason, other than MONEY, that these boomers can't get new jobs is because they are viewed as too OLD. Companies are constantly finding new ways to get around age discrimination laws. One popular way is online applications. These computerized resumes are then scanned by companies to create reports that can be ranked by "year college degree awarded". If you add 21 to the subtraction from the current year, generally that will give you the person's age (e.g. graduated 1971, therefore: 2009-1971=38+21=59).

How about the application question, "What is the salary or value of benefit package that would you accept for this position?" That question is asked without the company having provided the compensation range. The company attitude is, we don't have to tell you what the job pays, but you have to tell us what you will accept. This practice allows companies to rid themselves of lots of boomer resumes legally. Yes, there are lots of ways around in the age discrimination game. Is anyone with oversight looking into this?

So, is this a Seebeck Rant? You bet it is.

Another related subject should make me cry, but now I laugh when I hear our Congress people say in their absolute ignorance of reality, "You know Social Security costs are high, the same with other 'entitlement' programs, people will just have to work into their 70's". HAHAHA! or LOL! Mr./Ms. Congress Person, we know that we are going to have to work until we're in our 70's, because we have no money left.

The problem, Mr./Ms. Elected Official, is that after the age of 45, the employers are looking to rid themselves of us because it is easier to cut us to lower costs rather than to keep us boomers employed until we're 70 or 71 or 72. They would rather bring in a couple of 24 year olds, pay them very little and work them to the bone. So, who is going to hire us boomers when we are old? Dunkin Donuts? Wal-Mart? Fortunately, they do, but generally at minimum wage.

So, now here is where another term I dislike intensely usually pops up, "You should be glad you have a job".

No, I am NOT glad to have a job, especially when the employer takes away my health benefits, vacations, pensions and wants me to work six to seven days a week for not enough money to feed me or my family.

No, I'm not GLAD. You see EMPLOYER, it is my right as a citizen of this country to work and that means whenever and wherever I work to be able to work with DIGNITY. I'm sure there are companies out there that have never heard that word before or have forgotten, so let me say it again, DIGNITY.

The Oxford American Dictionary describes DIGNITY as "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect such as the dignity of labor."

In 1891, during the first Industrial Revolution, Pope Leo XIII wrote a major letter/statement (encyclical) entitled Rerum Novarum, which dealt with the dignity of the worker. If you haven't read this document before, it is worth the read because believe it or not, we face similar challenges today. In part, it states:

"[Employers] should not look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers - that is truly shameful and inhuman."

"Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings."

"Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one's profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine."

Enough said.

What do you think?