Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Wasting time and ...
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, currently debating the status of health care is wasting their time, as the issue is presently being discussed. Without honing in on "end of life" care, nothing is going to change either the status quo or the direction our health care budget is going. This IS the cold hard fact that nobody appears to be interested in discussing. Most estimates place 2 out of every 3 dollars spent on "end of life" care. Everything else is merely subterfuge, period.
It is imperative that we define exactly how much of our heath care resources will go toward those approaching their respective life expectancies. Think of ourselves as a car...as maintenance increases with the age of the car, those costs get to the point where it is less expensive to purchase a new car. It is fiscally irresponsible to bankrupt this country in order to attempt to extend life expectancies on the margin. It becomes an economic decision over how to allocate our health care resources.
One constructive way of doing this is to establish some level of care we can afford for those that are approaching the end of their life expectancies. For example, perhaps we spend 60% on a person at their life expectancy relative to a 21 year old. Clearly the math can be made to work any number of ways, but this is one method of balancing our health care resources. Because we are discussing public funds, it IS absolutely necessary to make sure we are getting the best return possible.
Unless "end of life" care is addressed, everyone is just wasting their time.
Everyone, and I do mean everyone, currently debating the status of health care is wasting their time, as the issue is presently being discussed. Without honing in on "end of life" care, nothing is going to change either the status quo or the direction our health care budget is going. This IS the cold hard fact that nobody appears to be interested in discussing. Most estimates place 2 out of every 3 dollars spent on "end of life" care. Everything else is merely subterfuge, period.
It is imperative that we define exactly how much of our heath care resources will go toward those approaching their respective life expectancies. Think of ourselves as a car...as maintenance increases with the age of the car, those costs get to the point where it is less expensive to purchase a new car. It is fiscally irresponsible to bankrupt this country in order to attempt to extend life expectancies on the margin. It becomes an economic decision over how to allocate our health care resources.
One constructive way of doing this is to establish some level of care we can afford for those that are approaching the end of their life expectancies. For example, perhaps we spend 60% on a person at their life expectancy relative to a 21 year old. Clearly the math can be made to work any number of ways, but this is one method of balancing our health care resources. Because we are discussing public funds, it IS absolutely necessary to make sure we are getting the best return possible.
Unless "end of life" care is addressed, everyone is just wasting their time.
Labels: Health Care Reform, Health Care Spending
Monday, May 11, 2009
Ideas for health care reform that do not include "end of life care" are complete poppycock! End of life care absorbs a disproportionate share of our health care dollars. Most estimates place this figure to be around two-thirds of our health care budget. End of life care includes our most expensive procedures and may well briefly extend an individual's life; but at what cost? While we are spending 2 out of every 3 dollars extending a person's life for a few days, children and adolescents are squeezed out of basic health care placing an entire life at risk. The economics of health care demand that we make decisions regarding how our health care resources are invested. Is it wise investing 2 out of every 3 dollars on a person who is nearing the end of life as opposed to one who is just beginning?
Labels: End of Life Care, Health Care Reform, Medicine
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Performance pay...getting your money's worth.
Performance is the "Holy Grail" of capitalism. To that end America is THE PROMISED LAND. However, what is in fact being rewarded on Wall Street is misleading at best. The cyclical nature of financial markets is a reflection of our overall economy. That being said, why is anyone receiving incentive based compensation, supposedly rewarding performance, for an economic climate for which they have absolutely nothing to do with? This argument applies to both sides of the market. Should individuals be credited for business profits solely attributable to a bull market or vice versa be penalized for bear market results? The short answer is they should not. Blame here is borne by Boards of Directors and corporate compensation committee's for their failure to clearly enumerate and reward actual performance. Whether industry averages or even broader benchmarks are used, incentive based compensation plans must account for the larger economic environment in which their company's operate. While most of Wall Street, or what remains, is being lampooned for the ill timed incentive payouts, the actual culprits reside on the Boards of Directors and Human Resource Departments.
Performance is the "Holy Grail" of capitalism. To that end America is THE PROMISED LAND. However, what is in fact being rewarded on Wall Street is misleading at best. The cyclical nature of financial markets is a reflection of our overall economy. That being said, why is anyone receiving incentive based compensation, supposedly rewarding performance, for an economic climate for which they have absolutely nothing to do with? This argument applies to both sides of the market. Should individuals be credited for business profits solely attributable to a bull market or vice versa be penalized for bear market results? The short answer is they should not. Blame here is borne by Boards of Directors and corporate compensation committee's for their failure to clearly enumerate and reward actual performance. Whether industry averages or even broader benchmarks are used, incentive based compensation plans must account for the larger economic environment in which their company's operate. While most of Wall Street, or what remains, is being lampooned for the ill timed incentive payouts, the actual culprits reside on the Boards of Directors and Human Resource Departments.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Resolution Trust Corporation, V2.0.2009...
Forget the untested scheme affectionately referred to as TARP! Tarps have but one purpose, and that is to cover things up. We should NOT be covering up the billions of dollars being directed toward bank after bank without any accountability. Congress does not need to reinvent the wheel here. During our most recent lapse in regulatory oversight, the RTC was charged with responsibility of cleaning up the Savings and Loan mess. Certainly not perfect, but accountable none the less. Yes, the RTC was largely accountable for spending huge sums of money that is currently unaccounted for under TARP. If we are really interested in accountability of our money, and we are not interested in testing unproven strategies, then Congress and the President will move to enact Resolution Trust Corporation, V2.0.2009.
Forget the untested scheme affectionately referred to as TARP! Tarps have but one purpose, and that is to cover things up. We should NOT be covering up the billions of dollars being directed toward bank after bank without any accountability. Congress does not need to reinvent the wheel here. During our most recent lapse in regulatory oversight, the RTC was charged with responsibility of cleaning up the Savings and Loan mess. Certainly not perfect, but accountable none the less. Yes, the RTC was largely accountable for spending huge sums of money that is currently unaccounted for under TARP. If we are really interested in accountability of our money, and we are not interested in testing unproven strategies, then Congress and the President will move to enact Resolution Trust Corporation, V2.0.2009.
Labels: Banks, Congress, Financial Industry, TARP, The President
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Where America goes from here? FACT, our financial markets are in gridlock. REASON, dependency on a few large players, industry concentration or lack of diversification. However you prefer to characterize the problem, the end result is the same. SOLUTION, diversification, diversification and more diversification!
How do we get to a more diversified financial market from where we are now? For all organizations such as Citigroup that cannot remain ongoing concerns with private capital, they should be placed into government receivership and their many parts sold off. Money being wasted on the current bailout effort would be much better spent financing the purchase of Citigroup's parts. Existing banks and financial institutions should be excluded from government financing consideration so as not to undermine our goals here. This accomplishes several important national objectives: 1) diversifies the financial community 2) puts more people to work as these new smaller banking organizations will have to restock the manpower pool that had been furloughed over the years. 3) brings credit decision making back to the people doing the borrowing, and 4) makes for a more flexible financial framework for America to grow into the 21st century and beyond.
Lets take note of the winners, and the losers here. The big winners will be the American public as jobs will be created, more banks will means more options for borrowers and credit decisions will once again be made at the local level. The losers, as they should be, current stockholders, bondholders and management.
Moving back toward a fully diversified financial system is in America's best long term interest.
How do we get to a more diversified financial market from where we are now? For all organizations such as Citigroup that cannot remain ongoing concerns with private capital, they should be placed into government receivership and their many parts sold off. Money being wasted on the current bailout effort would be much better spent financing the purchase of Citigroup's parts. Existing banks and financial institutions should be excluded from government financing consideration so as not to undermine our goals here. This accomplishes several important national objectives: 1) diversifies the financial community 2) puts more people to work as these new smaller banking organizations will have to restock the manpower pool that had been furloughed over the years. 3) brings credit decision making back to the people doing the borrowing, and 4) makes for a more flexible financial framework for America to grow into the 21st century and beyond.
Lets take note of the winners, and the losers here. The big winners will be the American public as jobs will be created, more banks will means more options for borrowers and credit decisions will once again be made at the local level. The losers, as they should be, current stockholders, bondholders and management.
Moving back toward a fully diversified financial system is in America's best long term interest.
Labels: bank failures, diversification, economic policy, Financial markets
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Socialist States of America...America at a crossroad
We have been on a glorious journey for just over 230 years! Capitalism IS the economic framework under which the United States has developed into one of the more successful societies planet earth has known to date. But, just as the Greeks and Romans discovered, the future holds NO guarantees.
The crossroads at which we stand may not spell an end to the United States in name, however, the same may not be said of our unique version of capitalism. With much of our financial system having been nationalized and the auto industry in toe, what industry is next? As increasing amounts of our domestic production become "public property", we inch ever closer to socialism.
Need we be reminded that capitalism is economic Darwinism, survival of the fittest. In so far as the field of play is moderately level (a primary mission of government I might add), economic Darwinism ought to be left to run its course. The argument that Citigroup, or any other company for that matter, is too big to allow to fail is in fact a failure to understand and appreciate capitalism, period. The folks in Washington use all types of buzz words and euphemisms to characterize their policy decisions, however, socialism by any other name is still socialism. The question we need to ask ourselves...is the failure of any single business or industry justification to socialize the United States?
We have been on a glorious journey for just over 230 years! Capitalism IS the economic framework under which the United States has developed into one of the more successful societies planet earth has known to date. But, just as the Greeks and Romans discovered, the future holds NO guarantees.
The crossroads at which we stand may not spell an end to the United States in name, however, the same may not be said of our unique version of capitalism. With much of our financial system having been nationalized and the auto industry in toe, what industry is next? As increasing amounts of our domestic production become "public property", we inch ever closer to socialism.
Need we be reminded that capitalism is economic Darwinism, survival of the fittest. In so far as the field of play is moderately level (a primary mission of government I might add), economic Darwinism ought to be left to run its course. The argument that Citigroup, or any other company for that matter, is too big to allow to fail is in fact a failure to understand and appreciate capitalism, period. The folks in Washington use all types of buzz words and euphemisms to characterize their policy decisions, however, socialism by any other name is still socialism. The question we need to ask ourselves...is the failure of any single business or industry justification to socialize the United States?
Labels: capitalism, financial bailout, socialism, United States of America
Friday, November 28, 2008
Lets stick to the core issue undermining Social Security, that being AGE. In 1938, the debut of the program, the average person only lived to the age of 62. Part of the thinking in the program's development was that most people would never see a nickle of it. On average beneficiaries were dead 3 years before they were eligible to collect. Here we have the underpinnings of a sound program. Low and behold beneficiaries start living longer. At present, the average beneficiary will live to the ripe old age of about 82 (this figure could have been updated to an even higher number). Working Americans are financing the retirement of the average Social Security beneficiary for about 15 years! Despite the meaningless increases currently legislated in the official retirement age, we still have an insurmountable period to finance! Until the "age issue" is addressed, there is NO saving Social Security. Any talk to the contrary is pure poppycock.
Labels: pending disaster, retirement, retirement age, Social Security
