The Fall of American Democracy

Historically, the rise of democracy, both in the US and around the world has led to a lessening of aristocratic political power. This does not mean that the upper classes have not tried to subvert democracy to their own ends. Probably in modern times, the high point of democracy in the US was that period of the New Deal through the first decade after WW2 (1932-55) This was the high point of union membership and most Americans were of like mind as far as their economic and social viewpoints were concerned. This was also a period of great prosperity for all classes despite the much higher top income brackets ( 0ver 80% for part of the time, never less than 60%. If the Bush tax cuts are renewed, the maximum bracket will remain 35% ). Even during that period a sizable part of the citizenry was denied basic civil rights in some states. The Civil Rights and "Hippy" movements marked the beginning of political polarization and the American individualistic basic values along with the marked economic boom led to a lessening of interest in unions and politics, allowing the politically focused upper classes to gain control of political parties which first acted in concert and now are violently opposed. The American "Tea Party" movement is basically that of disaffected middle class white americans who feel dispossessed of their political control. It has been fairly easy for wealthy TV demagogs and their even wealthier corporate backers to take control of the movement and steer it into supporting policies which will, if implemented, probably be directly opposed to the average TP member's interests (e.g. changes in Medicare and Social Security).

Health Care Debate

I've been watching the president's group meeting with Demo and GOP congressional leaders and find it about as I expected - a bunch of politicians taking the opportunity to spout sound bites.
The seem unable to come to grips with a few self-evident - to me at least - facts.

1. The US healthcare system is expensive for a number of reasons - our attitude toward healthcare, the fact that it's controlled by insurance companies, and the lack of effective oversight.
2. To start from the point of view of what's good national health care, instead of how can we reign in insurance costs is a better way to go.
3. Just about every other solution to this problem used by other countries is both cheaper and more satisfactory as far as results go.

A logical solution would be to develop a national healthcare system which covers everybody and for which everybody who can afford it pays.
Our current total expenditure on health care is over 2.5 Trillion dollars a year or about $8162 per capita. Canada, Germany, and the UK, who have the next most expensive systems each spend about half that amount per capita, yet we decry those systems as being unsatisfactory. Unlike the US, these countries have no loud political or popular demands that their systems be changed.
In the US, private insurance expenditures seems to be rising at a rate twice that of government (medicare).

A government managed program, paying private physicians (as in UK and Canada) and paid for through a tax increase would result in a substantial decrease in over-all healthcare expense. Medicare expenses are, for example much less per capita than private insurance (Medicare does not pay at the insurance rate which is inflated as the higher the payments, the more the private insurers make. he increased taxes should be a good deal less than the private health insurance premiums - for one thing, a single payer system would have a far larger pool to in which to spread the tax/pay-outs.

The question remains, will the American citizens like such a system? The seniors certainly seem to like Medicare - which is such a system.

Happy New Decade

Happy New Decade

I find myself in the rather strange position of looking at this one not as a beginning, rather as an ending.
I will be 80 in April, which rather limits my expectations about greeting 2020 - but you never know.
I've been blogging probably longer than you have - blogging certainly has changed - not always for the better - and I certainly have seen a world change - not always for the better. Unlike many of my generation, I am not particularly dissatisfied by the world that emerged from the twentieth century.
I really enjoy the opportunity to have a few friends I have never and will probably never meet. Their viewpoints and ideas are fascinating and certainly help color my own. Thanks, you guys.
A phenomena most young folks don't seem to understand is that many of us old farts don't think of ourselves as old and come up against our age-related disabilities with somewhat of a shock. Also many of us have a lot of trouble seeing the world through "new eyes" and worry that the world we grew up in and found comfortable no longer exists and isn't coming back.
I do not count myself among that group, rather I really like this Brave New World.
I would caution my younger readers that the "Age of Excess" is over. The world you grow up in will will be one where a lot more thought about expending energy, resources, and income will be necessary. I think "Living within your means" will be a lot more prevalent than the "Spend, Spend, Spend - uphold our way of living and our economy" ideas your parents grew up with.
As a child of the Great Depression, I find this changing attitude somewhat familiar and satisfying.