Beware of the Leopard

One of my favorite exchanges in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams has to do with the planned destruction of the house Arthur Dent, the main character. He hadn't heard of the demolition details for the new highway bypass, and bulldozers were poised at his door, ready to plow his home down. The foreman claimed that everyone knew the plans, well, except Arthur, who was lying in the mud to block the destruction. 

" ...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything." 

"But the plans were on display..." 

"On display?! I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." 

"That's the display department." 

"With a torch." 

"Ah, well the lights had probably gone." 

"So had the stairs." 

"But look you found the notice didn't you?" 

"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of The Leopard'."

In many ways, that's how I'm feeling about the current discussion of social justice in the Vice Presidential debate. (Yes, I'm a geek). We're hearing lots of talk about how the Paul Ryan budget is aimed to improve the efficiency of the economy, improve our finances, and ensure that the business will thrive. But like planners who thought a highway bypass would be a great way to move forward, it completely ignores those whose lives are destroyed, whose homes will be lost, who will be cast under the tractor in the name of progress.

Both candidates are Roman Catholic. I was raised Roman Catholic, though now I'm a practicing Episcopalian. In either denomination, the concept of social justice is fairly deep. It's part of our religious culture, our DNA. We take care of those who need assistance. Look around the country, and a vast number of larger hospitals, hospices, shelters, and food banks are run or were started by churches with a social justice tradition. 

Social justice is not a political position. It's a moral obligation. It's part of our covenant with God: love each other as God loves us. It has nothing to do with communism, socialism, or other such "Beware of the Leopard" demagoguery.

Without the details of what an economic plan involves, I have to agree with Sister Simone and the Nuns on the Bus. The social safety net is most assuredly going to be hacksawed in order to accomplish all the things that have been promised. If there were other reasonable offsets and plans (reduction of military budgets, elimination of capital gains tax preferences, etc) that addressed the revenue-expenditure imbalance directly, I would believe that the budget could do this without sacrificing the needy on the cross of economic realities. But I don't see it. The Romney-Ryan budget plans don't add up. 

I don't understand why it's too difficult to share the details, explaining how the numbers will actually work. To insist on hiding details is to demonstrate arrogance, paternalism, and elitism. We can handle the truth, as it shall set us free.

So, like Arthur Dent, I feel like I need to lie in the mud in front of my house, hoping I can thwart the implementation of a plan I feel I know nothing about, a plan that cares not a whit about those who lie in its path. And as Arthur eventually puts a towel over his eyes so that he cannot see things that might cause panic, so too are we being asked to ignore the bulldozer at our door.

Our Vice Presidential candidates may talk about their Roman Catholic faith, but I can certainly sense when one hasn't really been listening in his pew. I pray that we hear the details soon so that we can in fact make progress, without sacrificing the needy.

Health Care "Debate"

I don't understand the current tone of the health care debate. We seem to be debating about whether the government should not participate in the health care business. I thought the point was to discuss US health in general, which is unfortunately short of the mark compared to other advanced economies of the world.

Here are some thoughts that I just wanted to jot down.

• Many think: Things are fine as is
  
  I find this to be the sentiment of those with good health care. I accept that, but the selfishness astounds. For those without health care or with inadequate health care, it's a nightmare. They certainly don't seem happy with status quo. As a small business owner, I am also frustrated by the enormous cost of providing health care to myself and my employees. It's not that I don't want to do it, it's just the cost that's so egregious. Moreover, it's disturbing whenever I hear (and I hear it a lot) that people use health care as a decision making factor when looking to change jobs or further their education - that's just downright economically inefficient for a capitalist market.
  
  
• Many think: Keep government out
  
  This is a legitimate concern. What the current legislation seems to be doing is offering an alternative to the open market in health care. Interestingly, the government does this in other economically vital areas: finance and higher education. Many people in America would not be able to afford homes or finance college without the option of government assistance. Bond markets would not function as effectively if we did not have Treasury bills as alternatives. These instruments are out there and they have not destroyed private lenders or the bond market.
  
  As such, why is a government option in health care going to kill private industry? It doesn't have to do so and it's wrong to assume that it will.
  
  
• Many think: It will cost too much
  
  Yes it will. Quite a bit. But currently, when you consider the number of people who are not receiving adequate health care, what is the true cost to the economy, much less our faithful hearts? The cost is currently quite high. Conservative estimates put the uninsured (not the under-insured) at 20% of the working population. If that 20% were healthier they would and could be more productive.
  
  Imagine a minuscule 2% improvement in productivity from these folks (one week more productivity in a year due to access to medical advice and medication). That means a 0.4% increase in GNP alone just in labor productivity. We're talking a $57 billion dollar improvement on a $14.3 trillion (2008) economy.
  
  I'm no economist and I simplify outrageously, but it seems like we can afford at least this amount as a reasonable investment.
  
  
• We aren't talking about alternatives any more
  
  If the status quo isn't sufficient, have we really exhausted alternatives? If the idea is to use the government to combine millions of the uninsured into a huge insurance pool, then why aren't there significant private offerings. Why can't the government subsidize or encourage that?
  
  
• People hate insurance companies
  
  Insurance companies have to keep the costs low and have to assume that people are cheating the system. Consequently, people hate the perceived run-around for payments to the health care system.
  
  The government isn't rushing out to hire doctors. They're out to offer an alternative to insurance companies. That does mean that they open themselves up to the ire and vitriol held for insurance companies. Why on earth would they want that ? Only those "on a mission" to do something would want that...
  
  
• Tax us equally
  
  I'm a small business owner. Big companies have great deductions but not me. Level the playing field. Either tax the big companies, tax the people receiving the benefits or give me an equal deduction or credit to offer these benefits.
  
  

That's all for now. I hope people believe that it's a moral responsibility to care for those who cannot do so. Given that basic moral stand, there are many ways of meeting this obligation, but we repeatedly fall short and have not yet succeeded. I pray that should people agree these two statements, we can further the debate in an atmosphere of constructive problem-solving rather than acrimony and finger-pointing.