The question you commonly hear from liberals is “Are CEOs paid too much”. A conservative answers that they make whatever the market bears. My question is “are they paid more than they are worth to the corporation, and if so why”? Forget that a CEO might make 1000 times more than the lowest paid employee. Forget that they get a golden parachute. Even forget that they do well even when they are poor managers of the company. Are the power structures that have created this market, based on fair capitalism or are they based on power structures that have conflicts of interest?
Conservatives often bemoan the fact that union employees are and have been overpaid because of undue influence that a union exerts over a corporation, but is it not possible that a ruling class of corporate leaders have been able to exert the same type of power.
I don’t have all the answers, but some questions I will be asking are as follows: How are 401k, mutual fund, and pension fund holders represented by fund managers? To what extent do fund managers and CEOs have similar interests? To what extent do boards (which approve and recommend a salary for a CEO) consists of friends and others with a conflict of interest? For example, does this CEO sit on another CEOs board? How does performance actually affect CEO pay?
I have a hypothesis on this, and tend to think that it is a serious problem, but I’d like to see more actual evidence on either side of the debate.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Shirley Sherrod demonstrates the chasm in US opinion
I've been following various news sources and blogs pretty closely the last few weeks. The Shirley Sherrod case exemplifies the great chasm of American opinion today. I have red redstate.com, dailykos.com huffingtonpost.com, townhall.com, cnn, bbc, fox, etc.
On one hand, the left sees this as all out warfare from the right, and some on the right still see this as a case of racism... Andrew Brietbart and Foxnews have made virtually no apology for sloppy Journalism (Fox went to so far as use the Administrations firing to smear Obama). The question in my mind is why did Fox report this story in the way in which they did? Until that question is answered, I will not consider them a serious news source; it's one thing to be biased and yet quite another to be yellow.
On one hand, the left sees this as all out warfare from the right, and some on the right still see this as a case of racism... Andrew Brietbart and Foxnews have made virtually no apology for sloppy Journalism (Fox went to so far as use the Administrations firing to smear Obama). The question in my mind is why did Fox report this story in the way in which they did? Until that question is answered, I will not consider them a serious news source; it's one thing to be biased and yet quite another to be yellow.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Fox News and NAACP
Looks like Fox really dropped the ball here. I'll be curious to see why this was reported the way Fox reported it.
NAACP 'snookered' over video of former USDA employee
This and the gold scandal don't add up well for Fox.
NAACP 'snookered' over video of former USDA employee
This and the gold scandal don't add up well for Fox.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Heath care ramblings
As I see it, here are some of the most serious problems with our health care system
Insurance companies arbitrate their policies with little recourse.
Insurance companies are oligopolies
Overuse and waste
High cost of pharmaceuticals
Uninsured have access, but use the highest cost (ER)
I’m certainly no expert on this, but these are some of my observations that I would like to discuss.
Here are some things I see as the underlying causes to these problems:
The way insurance is sold in the corporate world is as a health care plan rather than actual insurance to protect a consumer from financial disaster. Not only does this create overuse and abuse, but it also creates unnecessary bureaucracy (not productive to the economy). A tank of gas cost about $50 for most people. Imagine if instead of just paying directly, you had an employer provided comprehensive insurance plan that included all car repairs, maintenance, and even gasoline. Now, the gas station has to hire somebody to file claims; the insurance company has to hire people to oversee, administer, and pay the claims; your employer has to hire someone to oversee and administer the insurance company. Now, your tank of gas may only cost you a small co-pay of $10, but the cost of the gas would probably be at least $200. Isn’t it possible, that these same sort of economic problems exists within the current framework of our medical system?
The first reform in my book would be to remove all government incentive for corporations having these comprehensive plans. Take away tax breaks, make corporations disclose on your paycheck how much they are actually paying (that is money that could be part of your salary), and remove the idea that group discounts are primarily at the corporate level. Next, expand the medical savings plans to be more like the HSA’s for those that work for large corporations Allow employees to have tax free savings accounts that they don’t forfeit so long as it is somewhere around their deductible. Next, require that all medical providers disclose the costs of the services they provide. Now, people are paying the providers directly, and are shopping for the best value rather than allowing insurance companies to do it. It may also be important to eliminate the idea that a corporate entity can negotiate a better rate than an individual.
We already have death panels – it’s called insurance bureaucrats. The best solution for this is as follows, no longer allow insurance companies to write plans where they are the arbiter of what procedures get paid and what doesn’t get paid. Force them to disclose in CLEAR language what they will cover and what they want, and allow the doctors to make the decision. If the doctor makes a wrong decision, it will be up to the insurance companies to go to court to overturn it. Increase penalties on doctors that misuse the system so that we can trust them as arbiters. There could be clear rules written into the contract, such as an insurance company will or will not pay for X treatment if someone has Stage 4 lung cancer.
There is no easy answer for the high cost of pharmaceuticals since the R&D dollars that go into these is extremely high. Producing them according to various governments’ regulations is also very expensive, and probably necessary. If these companies do not have a high ROI on their products, they will decrease the research, so regulating profits will not likely help (we may never know what we don’t find). One problem is that other countries do regulate the cost of these drugs, meaning that the US pays the highest share of the pharma profits. We need to go to battle with these policies so that the cost are shared. Another problem is that pharma companies usually have less than 10 years to make all their money since their patent starts at the time of discovery, not production. Perhaps, patent law could be changed so that these companies can produce the drugs longer. This means waiting longer for a generic, but likely paying less in the mean time.
Lastly, I think it is time to realize that we already have “universal health care”, but that we are doing it all in the wrong way. We have to provide a cheaper and more efficient safety net than Emergency rooms. Go to any emergency room, and you will see all sorts of people with colds and other minor medical issues. We aren’t going to turn away those that can’t afford to pay, so why not provide care to them in a cheaper way? This way ERs can be ERs, and the cost of a visit by indigents will not be paid by the unfortunate who happen to be able to pay the bill. Then again, if we eliminate insurance for things that shouldn’t be insured, the cost of seeing a doctor would probably be much less.
Insurance companies arbitrate their policies with little recourse.
Insurance companies are oligopolies
Overuse and waste
High cost of pharmaceuticals
Uninsured have access, but use the highest cost (ER)
I’m certainly no expert on this, but these are some of my observations that I would like to discuss.
Here are some things I see as the underlying causes to these problems:
The way insurance is sold in the corporate world is as a health care plan rather than actual insurance to protect a consumer from financial disaster. Not only does this create overuse and abuse, but it also creates unnecessary bureaucracy (not productive to the economy). A tank of gas cost about $50 for most people. Imagine if instead of just paying directly, you had an employer provided comprehensive insurance plan that included all car repairs, maintenance, and even gasoline. Now, the gas station has to hire somebody to file claims; the insurance company has to hire people to oversee, administer, and pay the claims; your employer has to hire someone to oversee and administer the insurance company. Now, your tank of gas may only cost you a small co-pay of $10, but the cost of the gas would probably be at least $200. Isn’t it possible, that these same sort of economic problems exists within the current framework of our medical system?
The first reform in my book would be to remove all government incentive for corporations having these comprehensive plans. Take away tax breaks, make corporations disclose on your paycheck how much they are actually paying (that is money that could be part of your salary), and remove the idea that group discounts are primarily at the corporate level. Next, expand the medical savings plans to be more like the HSA’s for those that work for large corporations Allow employees to have tax free savings accounts that they don’t forfeit so long as it is somewhere around their deductible. Next, require that all medical providers disclose the costs of the services they provide. Now, people are paying the providers directly, and are shopping for the best value rather than allowing insurance companies to do it. It may also be important to eliminate the idea that a corporate entity can negotiate a better rate than an individual.
We already have death panels – it’s called insurance bureaucrats. The best solution for this is as follows, no longer allow insurance companies to write plans where they are the arbiter of what procedures get paid and what doesn’t get paid. Force them to disclose in CLEAR language what they will cover and what they want, and allow the doctors to make the decision. If the doctor makes a wrong decision, it will be up to the insurance companies to go to court to overturn it. Increase penalties on doctors that misuse the system so that we can trust them as arbiters. There could be clear rules written into the contract, such as an insurance company will or will not pay for X treatment if someone has Stage 4 lung cancer.
There is no easy answer for the high cost of pharmaceuticals since the R&D dollars that go into these is extremely high. Producing them according to various governments’ regulations is also very expensive, and probably necessary. If these companies do not have a high ROI on their products, they will decrease the research, so regulating profits will not likely help (we may never know what we don’t find). One problem is that other countries do regulate the cost of these drugs, meaning that the US pays the highest share of the pharma profits. We need to go to battle with these policies so that the cost are shared. Another problem is that pharma companies usually have less than 10 years to make all their money since their patent starts at the time of discovery, not production. Perhaps, patent law could be changed so that these companies can produce the drugs longer. This means waiting longer for a generic, but likely paying less in the mean time.
Lastly, I think it is time to realize that we already have “universal health care”, but that we are doing it all in the wrong way. We have to provide a cheaper and more efficient safety net than Emergency rooms. Go to any emergency room, and you will see all sorts of people with colds and other minor medical issues. We aren’t going to turn away those that can’t afford to pay, so why not provide care to them in a cheaper way? This way ERs can be ERs, and the cost of a visit by indigents will not be paid by the unfortunate who happen to be able to pay the bill. Then again, if we eliminate insurance for things that shouldn’t be insured, the cost of seeing a doctor would probably be much less.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Arizona law on illegal aliens
Not sure I agree with this or not, but I definitely think POTUS joking about it at the correspondence dinner was classless. The reason states such as Arizona are desperate are because the federal government has done nothing to curb the problem. On the other hand, the old saying goes, "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride". Here is a question that I don't know the answer to. If a Hispanic person from another state (one where illegals can get a driver's license) is pulled over, will a drivers license be ample proof of citizenship?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Five reasons the right is setting themselves up for defeat.
Here are some reasons I think the right, and specifically the Republican party are setting themselves up for eventual obscurity.
1. Overconfidence in the failure of current economic policies. While I doubt that the $700B stimulus program was the best way to handle the economic crisis, it is one way. People are mad at Obama right now; they are angry with the health care plan, angry with the recession, and angry with the way he has handled other issues. The Republicans will certainly win a significant number of house seats along with a few Senate ones, but it is easy to forget that the same happened to Clinton and Reagan. BTW, one of the reasons for the recovery in the mid 90’s was the Bush I stimulus package, which even included a tax increase. Reagan signed on to increased spending in order to get tax cuts, and they both probably helped us come out of the recession of the early 80s.
2. The sky is falling syndrome. If you listen to the right, you would think we are heading towards a communist utopia under Obama, but the fact is that Obama is just a continuation of the Progressive policies of those such as FDR and LBJ. Not only that, Obama’s policy makers are more influenced by political realism (look at how many Clinton people are in his administration) than the liberal’s of the mid 20th century. Aside from Obama’s pseudo-lovefest with our enemies, his foreign policy has been more like GWB post 2006 than what the right has predicted. Of course it helped that getting out of Iraq was made easier by the very surge that the leadership of the Democratic Party maligned. Obama has kept Gates, and put in Generals (Betrayus anyone) that Bush championed. And he is done playing go-fish with North Korea and Iran (they are our allies now, right?).
3. The belief that the only abuse of power is the government. It’s one thing to be against Obama care or against the latest attempt at Wall Street reform, it’s quite another to be against it and to pretend that there aren’t abuses to be addressed by health insurance companies and financial institutions. People will eventually see through this.
4. Immigration policy. I was very encouraged by conservative Republicans (especially Texas ones) in the last decade attempt to reform immigration policy with a sensible worker visa plan as well as a comprehensive immigration reform. Its too bad that conservatives from other states demonized it as well as Democrats tried to give free tuition to children of illegals. Now, even McCain is against doing something reasonable in favor of the impossible tasks of only preventing people from coming across. Don’t even get me started with this one. If Republicans would take the moral high ground on this issue, they could easily become a majority party again as the Democrats are still divided on it.
5. It’s not had to make caricatures if your politicians ARE caricatures. Sarah Palin could not answer basic questions on civics (it matters not that it was a set up), and she quit as Governor for very poor reasons. She is an uninformed and unfaithful former magistrate. Yah, that’s a winning formula.
1. Overconfidence in the failure of current economic policies. While I doubt that the $700B stimulus program was the best way to handle the economic crisis, it is one way. People are mad at Obama right now; they are angry with the health care plan, angry with the recession, and angry with the way he has handled other issues. The Republicans will certainly win a significant number of house seats along with a few Senate ones, but it is easy to forget that the same happened to Clinton and Reagan. BTW, one of the reasons for the recovery in the mid 90’s was the Bush I stimulus package, which even included a tax increase. Reagan signed on to increased spending in order to get tax cuts, and they both probably helped us come out of the recession of the early 80s.
2. The sky is falling syndrome. If you listen to the right, you would think we are heading towards a communist utopia under Obama, but the fact is that Obama is just a continuation of the Progressive policies of those such as FDR and LBJ. Not only that, Obama’s policy makers are more influenced by political realism (look at how many Clinton people are in his administration) than the liberal’s of the mid 20th century. Aside from Obama’s pseudo-lovefest with our enemies, his foreign policy has been more like GWB post 2006 than what the right has predicted. Of course it helped that getting out of Iraq was made easier by the very surge that the leadership of the Democratic Party maligned. Obama has kept Gates, and put in Generals (Betrayus anyone) that Bush championed. And he is done playing go-fish with North Korea and Iran (they are our allies now, right?).
3. The belief that the only abuse of power is the government. It’s one thing to be against Obama care or against the latest attempt at Wall Street reform, it’s quite another to be against it and to pretend that there aren’t abuses to be addressed by health insurance companies and financial institutions. People will eventually see through this.
4. Immigration policy. I was very encouraged by conservative Republicans (especially Texas ones) in the last decade attempt to reform immigration policy with a sensible worker visa plan as well as a comprehensive immigration reform. Its too bad that conservatives from other states demonized it as well as Democrats tried to give free tuition to children of illegals. Now, even McCain is against doing something reasonable in favor of the impossible tasks of only preventing people from coming across. Don’t even get me started with this one. If Republicans would take the moral high ground on this issue, they could easily become a majority party again as the Democrats are still divided on it.
5. It’s not had to make caricatures if your politicians ARE caricatures. Sarah Palin could not answer basic questions on civics (it matters not that it was a set up), and she quit as Governor for very poor reasons. She is an uninformed and unfaithful former magistrate. Yah, that’s a winning formula.
First Post
The purpose of this blog is for my musings and rantings on politics, current events, sports, and anything else I want to talk about. I welcome comments and debate, but will not publish anything inflammatory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)