A would-be terrorist just managed to nearly bring down an airliner despite what was known about him at the various intelligence and other agencies. The pieces of information were not put together or the risk made known to those who are in a position to do anything about it. This is an old story. It was blamed for the 9/11 attack on our twin towers and so the new bureaucracy was created, Dept. of Homland Security (DHS), as the fix. That has not worked and in fact it may be doing more harm than good. Combining FEMA into the DHS was certainly a contributing factor to Katrina. Now we have this near catastrophy.
A factor here that one does not hear about on the news or from bloviators is that the people in the intelligence agencies get their personal political power from secrecy and from witholding information. That extends beyond the individuals to the agencies. How many intelligence agencies do we have? I am not sure but I recall hearing something like 20. Why? In my opinion more for polical power than for national security.
I suspect that our President understands these facts - lets hope he can fix the system. One step that will ultimately be needed and will be difficult to get through congress is a solid national identification system that is tied to passports and that incorporate radio frequency identification (RFI) chips in them similar to what the Europeans are now doing. This will allow tracking of people electronically when necessary. Similarly the visas to enter the US should be electronic as well, which should enable better management and ability to tract visitors while here and reduce overstays. Real security however will come from proper collection and analysis of intelligence data and from reduction of the global condiditions that drive young people into terrorism.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Health Care - Insurance or Entitlement
Insurance is to provide financial protection from the cost of devestating events, such as one's house burning down, that are very unlikely to occur. Insurance to cover major medical costs, such as organ transplant, makes sense in that context. But when insurance is to cover everday medical needs then it is no longer insurance but is instead a transfer payment system.
If our society is to provide universal medical care as a right of citizenship, as do all the other developed societies, then a payment transfer process where the burden is spread over the entire society and not just those groups receiving the benefits is required. Insurance is not the right model for this purpose.
The right model is one simliar to existing Medicare or Social Security both of which are managed very well for about 4% of the money transfered. Our medical insurance companies do that same job for 14% to 20% of the money transfered as well as introducing inequities for those receiving care.
The medical insurance companies do not add value to the process and as such are a liability and not a benefit. The purpose they serve is to employ people and enrich their owners and executives. The people they employ could be better employed in activities that add value which would enhance our national GDP. As it stands now they are basically receiving disguised welfare paid for by the middle and lower classes.
If our society is to provide universal medical care as a right of citizenship, as do all the other developed societies, then a payment transfer process where the burden is spread over the entire society and not just those groups receiving the benefits is required. Insurance is not the right model for this purpose.
The right model is one simliar to existing Medicare or Social Security both of which are managed very well for about 4% of the money transfered. Our medical insurance companies do that same job for 14% to 20% of the money transfered as well as introducing inequities for those receiving care.
The medical insurance companies do not add value to the process and as such are a liability and not a benefit. The purpose they serve is to employ people and enrich their owners and executives. The people they employ could be better employed in activities that add value which would enhance our national GDP. As it stands now they are basically receiving disguised welfare paid for by the middle and lower classes.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Does the Post Office bias people to believe that governement can not run health care
Today, I stood in line at the Post Office (United States Postal Service) for over one hour with about 40 other people while a single clerk packed boxes for some of the patrons. When I got to the head of the line, I was greated by a surley and insulting individual. If this were a business that had to compete for customers it would disappear overnight.
I wondered while standing there if these experiences and similar ones that can be experienced while registering one's car are what destroys ones confidence in the abilty of the government to do anything including the delivery of health care. These examples are forunately not really representative of what the governement can do. Medicare operates with a 4% administrative overhead while that of private insurance is about 14% and I have heard 20%. Anyone receiving Medicare or Social Security has nothing but praise at how well those programs run. The Veterans Administration is more efficient in delivering health care than is the private sector.
I wondered while standing there if these experiences and similar ones that can be experienced while registering one's car are what destroys ones confidence in the abilty of the government to do anything including the delivery of health care. These examples are forunately not really representative of what the governement can do. Medicare operates with a 4% administrative overhead while that of private insurance is about 14% and I have heard 20%. Anyone receiving Medicare or Social Security has nothing but praise at how well those programs run. The Veterans Administration is more efficient in delivering health care than is the private sector.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Capitalism & Regulation
Capitalism of today is what Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, 1776, called Commercial Society and we sometimes call a Free Market System. Merriam-Webster offers an 1877 definition: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
The beauty of this system is that under ideal conditions the strongest motivators of human action which include greed, selfishness, lust for power, are directed into activities that benefit the society at large on balance instead of what would otherwise likely be activities that harm society. This is not a totally fair or egalitarian society but one in which the extremes of deprivation at the hands of a cruel dictatorship are not reached - at least if necessary controls and limits are placed on just how far people can go in satisfying their less than savory motivations.
Without some limits, capitalism will devolve in either of two directions. With too few controls it will become a corrupt government of a few who hold all the wealth and power over a largely impoverished society. Examples are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia. With too many controls it will devolve into a brutal dictatorship of controlled economy such as what we had with Communist USSR under Stalin and now we see in Iran and North Korea.
So, we need a balance of control. Enough control to keep the system reasonably fair with a broad distribution of wealth but neither over-controlled nor under-controlled. In our system, as so eloquently and intelligently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and James Madison in our Constitution, the government's job is to provide the controls with a system of laws that are fairly enforced. These laws being drafted by the representatives of the people at large who choose their representatives. Further, the true feedback to achieve stability is the fact that these representatives of the people who are democratically elected by the governed can be thrown out by the people at the polls.
This works only to the extent that the people who go to the polls have accurate information and realistic beliefs for making their decisions. In this technological age, with its flood of mass electronic media, one would think having accurate information would be easy. But as we have seen, it is as easy to put out inaccurate information and those with the greatest wealth and power can pay to get whatever message they want sent to the masses.
The combination of this ability to control the message with the new knowledge from cognitive science about how to impress beliefs into minds with carefully framed mass messages, has led us to the situation we are in today where the stability of our capitalistic system is threatened. Specifically, we have people in those states with the worst health care, worst education, highest unemployment, greatest number of people living in poverty and which receive far more government money than they pay in taxes, electing those politicians who want more tax breaks for the rich, want to not improve health care, oppose education reforms, reject federal money to help relieve poverty, and who support economic policies that will only worsen the situation (but greatly increase the wealth of the few who are already wealthy). How in the world can this happen in our representative democracy?
It happens because those who have gained enough power have learned how to manipulate perceived reality by controlling the mass messages. They do this with framed messages that reinforce certain neural connections in the listener's brain thereby establishing preferred perceptions. This is well explained by Professor George Lakoff, professor of cognitive science at Berkeley in his book, "The Political Mind." One process is to frame a message around the religious values held by many in the largely southern impoverished states, and pound it in with the Republican talking points that are repeated over and over, and with blatantly dishonest campaigns such as the Swift Boaters. All of this is so willingly broadcast by news organizations and enthusiastically by Fox news. In the George W. Bush administration this was skillfully orchestrated by Carl Rove who I call the Brainwasher in Chief. Achieving political power by controlling the message of course is an age-old tactic, the propaganda of Stalinist USSR and now the controls over press in Iran and North Korea even to some extent China are recent examples.
Policies of politicians that, while beneficial to the very powerful and most wealthy are at the same time harmful to the State and its people, if implemented, will pose the greatest risk to the longevity of our capitalistic system. We are in a time now where the stabilizing process of democratic feedback that should prevent such implementation is being severely tested. Will our system work to overcome the negative forces of misinformation campaigns and restore balance to our democratic process?
Clearly, current regulation and laws need to be enforced and others changed or created to prevent the current situation from arising again. We see the power of the powerful being exercised largely through the rampantly out of control lobbying channels and through the control of funds for political campaigns.
The beauty of this system is that under ideal conditions the strongest motivators of human action which include greed, selfishness, lust for power, are directed into activities that benefit the society at large on balance instead of what would otherwise likely be activities that harm society. This is not a totally fair or egalitarian society but one in which the extremes of deprivation at the hands of a cruel dictatorship are not reached - at least if necessary controls and limits are placed on just how far people can go in satisfying their less than savory motivations.
Without some limits, capitalism will devolve in either of two directions. With too few controls it will become a corrupt government of a few who hold all the wealth and power over a largely impoverished society. Examples are Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia. With too many controls it will devolve into a brutal dictatorship of controlled economy such as what we had with Communist USSR under Stalin and now we see in Iran and North Korea.
So, we need a balance of control. Enough control to keep the system reasonably fair with a broad distribution of wealth but neither over-controlled nor under-controlled. In our system, as so eloquently and intelligently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and James Madison in our Constitution, the government's job is to provide the controls with a system of laws that are fairly enforced. These laws being drafted by the representatives of the people at large who choose their representatives. Further, the true feedback to achieve stability is the fact that these representatives of the people who are democratically elected by the governed can be thrown out by the people at the polls.
This works only to the extent that the people who go to the polls have accurate information and realistic beliefs for making their decisions. In this technological age, with its flood of mass electronic media, one would think having accurate information would be easy. But as we have seen, it is as easy to put out inaccurate information and those with the greatest wealth and power can pay to get whatever message they want sent to the masses.
The combination of this ability to control the message with the new knowledge from cognitive science about how to impress beliefs into minds with carefully framed mass messages, has led us to the situation we are in today where the stability of our capitalistic system is threatened. Specifically, we have people in those states with the worst health care, worst education, highest unemployment, greatest number of people living in poverty and which receive far more government money than they pay in taxes, electing those politicians who want more tax breaks for the rich, want to not improve health care, oppose education reforms, reject federal money to help relieve poverty, and who support economic policies that will only worsen the situation (but greatly increase the wealth of the few who are already wealthy). How in the world can this happen in our representative democracy?
It happens because those who have gained enough power have learned how to manipulate perceived reality by controlling the mass messages. They do this with framed messages that reinforce certain neural connections in the listener's brain thereby establishing preferred perceptions. This is well explained by Professor George Lakoff, professor of cognitive science at Berkeley in his book, "The Political Mind." One process is to frame a message around the religious values held by many in the largely southern impoverished states, and pound it in with the Republican talking points that are repeated over and over, and with blatantly dishonest campaigns such as the Swift Boaters. All of this is so willingly broadcast by news organizations and enthusiastically by Fox news. In the George W. Bush administration this was skillfully orchestrated by Carl Rove who I call the Brainwasher in Chief. Achieving political power by controlling the message of course is an age-old tactic, the propaganda of Stalinist USSR and now the controls over press in Iran and North Korea even to some extent China are recent examples.
Policies of politicians that, while beneficial to the very powerful and most wealthy are at the same time harmful to the State and its people, if implemented, will pose the greatest risk to the longevity of our capitalistic system. We are in a time now where the stabilizing process of democratic feedback that should prevent such implementation is being severely tested. Will our system work to overcome the negative forces of misinformation campaigns and restore balance to our democratic process?
Clearly, current regulation and laws need to be enforced and others changed or created to prevent the current situation from arising again. We see the power of the powerful being exercised largely through the rampantly out of control lobbying channels and through the control of funds for political campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)