The Front-Runner Reduction

The, or maybe a, front-runner in the Republican Party has come forth with the “solution” to Medicare and Social Security. Well, at least yet another regurgitation of a solution re-packaged and re-advertised as the path to salvation. Is it a solution? There is really only one way to tell, and let’s be serious it is not by listening to the politicians. Neither group appears to have a clue nor more pointedly neither side has demonstrated that they understand the cause-effect of the system they created, fund, manage, and (God, I hate to say this) are responsible for finding a way to secure. Our front-runner is going to use his business acumen to save us all from the folly of the past.

How does this comparatively (relative to his competition) mental giant propose to perform this miraculous feat? He is going to reduce the cost of the system of course. Is this just his easy solutions to incredibly complex problems; or just a good sounding ‘sound-bite’ for a catastrophically stupid plan? Given he is a politician the statistical bet would surely have to go to the less desirable option. Now don’t get me wrong, none of his compatriots have any better idea, and none from the Democratic party has shown any more insight or comprehension of the problems than he has. But really, the solution that we are going to be asked to vote for and then swallow is another idiotic and ill-conceived approach to addressing the problem.

The merits of the plan, more the faults actually, are: he is going to gradually raise the age of retirement. He is going to let participants choose to stay with Medicare or use a government-support voucher to purchase a plan from the market. Medicaid funding responsibility would transfer from the federal government to state governments. Federal spending would be capped at 20% of GDP, and he would cut spending by some amount. Well these certainly solve the problems, right? I mean you can judge the quality and level of intelligence represented by his and most Republicans reading from their nationally approved play-book. The Democrats are no better being equally incapable of seeing and taking the eight-lane freeway out of the disaster area and instead insisting that the steep ascent through the mountain path at the start of winter is a safe route.

Raising the age of retirement on Social Security – this eliminates more recipients so that will lower costs. The elimination is obvious right; nothing more needs to be said on that. This is similar to paying more if you retire later, which we do today. We could stop COLA that would work also. These are the same old methods that have been used over and over. Takes a real brainy type to think of these now doesn’t it. “Same old, same old.”

Now using Government supported vouchers (or any marketing researched advertising terms that polls well with the public) will certainly reduce the costs of the Medicare. Because instead of running a big government bureaucracy, the plan that solves the problem will be to have the government run just a large bureaucracy and also pay insurance companies to make up the difference. Once again, let’s not see the obvious solution that Americans have been taught over each generation will solve the problem; let’s go with a politician’s approach to diddling the public.

And think how much less it will cost when we transfer the cost of and responsibility for Medicaid from the federal government to state governments. The states will have two basic choices, the same ones the federal government has, pay the bills for what is covered or cut what is covered/delivered. It’s not likely the states will see the efficient approach that reduces costs, improves coverage, and help the economy.

And capping federal expenditures to 20% of GDP is just another way to say, I don’t know how to solve the real problem but surely if we reduce the value delivered and the benefits provided and cut more and more the problem will be solved. The consequences of the approach are not reflected in this approach, but yes it is true that if you spend less money you will in fact spend less money. I think I learned that in some elementary school math class, probably around third or fourth grade or even earlier. Why cap it as the method, why not have it reduce itself as the consequence of a smart plan? I guess he/they haven’t thought of that.

If you want to solve the health-care and safety-net problems in America, you should look to someone who can present a plan that doesn’t just do less, shift costs, pretend to provide a difference, and more importantly addresses the underlying dynamics of the cost causing principles that the currently flawed policies and plans are based upon.

Have you seen any politician who has shown even the slightest indication that are even modestly intelligent, let alone smart enough to trust with setting the direction for the nation on any of these issues?  Perhaps what we need here is another ‘stupor’ committee to produce a bipartisan plan.

LaHood, Asleep On The Job

Ray LaHood is providing a case study in governmental appointee, Department of Transportation Secretary, who can’t see his way in the dark. The public safety and airline industry are in dire need of leadership that can step up to issues, take in the advice and recommendations of experts, and reach an informed and rational decision. This of course rarely happens because like their political superiors, a positional reference term that has nothing to do with higher levels of ability, governmental department heads rely upon policies and polls that guide their decision process. Administration leadership has nothing to do with delivering value to the American people, but in bending to the risk that it may appear to be unpopular and cause a popularity problem.

LaHood and his FAA administrator (Randy Babbitt) refuse to acknowledge that finding a way to accommodate solutions for handling on the job fatigue. Having stated strongly and uncompromisingly that “we don’t pay people to sleep at work” LaHood and Babbitt have closed off the possibility that the correct thing to do may require knowledge, reason, understanding and creativity in dealing with the problem that they are specifically responsible for, are charged with addressing and took an oath to perform. If LaHood and Babbitt cannot see how to accept the results and recommendations of their own research, the research of other experts from other industries, the work done by the US military over a half century ago and since, and some little know guys who work for NASA (not that they’re rocket scientists or anything) then are they awake on the job? They may not be asleep at the switch I suppose, they may just be lost in the dark with their bureaucratic heads stuck to far up their backside to be able to see, hear or read any such information. If they did, it would tell them conclusively that nightshifts and fatigue are significant workplace issues that must be dealt with properly or you are actively responsible for and personally accepting the predictable consequences from doing effectively nothing. Attentiveness and cognitive diligence are severely degraded when fatigues, the very competencies required by air-traffic controllers to fulfill their jobs.

There are always ways to use knowledge and information about a problem to then solve it. If someone would just go wake up LaHood and tell him it’s time to go to work. We aren’t paying for people to sleep around here! Oh, his boss should probably fire his ass! Not because he is unconscious at work but because he doesn’t know how to run his department. If he doesn’t like the concept of “paying to sleep or nap” then maybe he should ask someone how to avoid the perception that that is what he is doing. Until he does something useful, or is fired, Mr. LaHood should be mandated to fly only late at night and to take at least one trip a week. Oh, and no special precautions or warning by the FAA that he is on a flight.