SCHIP, Medicaid

In 2007, Deamonte Driver had a toothache. He was 12 years old, and he was homeless. His mother had tried to take him to a dentist but had trouble finding one that would accept Medicaid, in which Deamonte was enrolled, because the costs of administering treatment is much higher than what Medicaid will actually pay out after the procedure, therefore many dentists who do accept Medicaid lose money. Coincidentally, the Bush administration and Republican congress cut medicaid funding by $45 billion dollars before the Democratic takeover in 2006. Dental care has been hit the hardest by these cuts as it is seen primarily as nonessential care. This bode poorly for Deamonte. His toothache grew progressively worse. Eventually, the simple bacteria in the gum that had caused the toothache spread to his brain. By the time he was admitted to a hospital it was too late. After six weeks in the hospital and undergoing brain surgery in a futile attempt to remove the bacteria, the costs of his medical care had exceeded $250,000. What is more tragic, and cannot be measured in monetary value, is the life of a child. Deamonte Driver died on February 28, 2007.

I don't know why Deamonte was homeless. At this point, whether his single mother had been a victim of tragic circumstances that left her, Deamonte, and another son homeless, or a series of poor life decisions is irrelevant. 12 year old children are not responsible for their families financial situation, but because his mother, for whatever reason, could not afford $80 for a routine medical procedure (what it initially would have cost to remove the bacteria), and because our country would not foot $80 to cover it, the problem got worse, and this 12 year old kid is now dead.

The Republican alternative to the expansion of this state administered health insurance is to give a $5,000 voucher to families to buy their own private health insurance. The problem with this, is that poor families like Deamonte Driver's would still not be able to afford the deductibles, copays, or coinsurance. It would be totally ineffective at administering aid to the lower and working class families.

Now, I know that increased levels of federal involvement in health-care can lead to inefficient administration. The fact is, our current corporate system is already inefficient. So much so that the cost of entirely socializing our health-care system would be less than we currently spend on our private one. I also realize that many countries that have a socialized system have longer wait times than in the U.S. I realize that this is a great inconvenience to many Americans who can afford to buy into our current system. But I would be willing to look those who would be affected inconveniently by government health-care expansion in the eye, and tell them that their inconvenience is necessary to ensure that all Americans have access to the same quality of care that they receive. I would not be willing to look the mother of Deamonte Driver in the eye, and tell her that it was necessary for her son to die, so that others who are more affluent could receive more efficient care.

Now that the 111th congress has begun it's first session, the first controversial bill that is being discussed is the expansion of SCHIP. Democrats have promised that Medicaid expanision will follow. Not only do they clearly have the votes in the house and senate to pass it, but they have a president who will not veto it, as Bush did twice. When it does pass, it will be a victory for humanity.

Second Blog: Gas, Oil, SUV’s and market failure.

Another interesting note from Detroit is that once again people are buying gas guzzling SUV’s. Car purchases as a whole are down, but now that gas prices are significantly lower than a few months ago, once again behemoths are the vehicle of choice among consumers. This may be slightly good news for the big three who dominates the truck and SUV market and who were hurt the most when fuel prices skyrocketed, forcing people to invest in smaller cars, but it’s not good for responsible American who buy fuel efficient vehicles. Gas prices are already going back up yet people continue to ignorantly buy the vehicles that guzzle the most gas. What we can conclude from this observation, as well as the last time gas prices spiked, is that consumers reactions to price increases lags behind said price increases.

Now, I have no problem with people buying trucks and SUV’s who need them. If you haul tools to your worksite, need to tow a boat or equipment, or live or travel on treacherous snowy highways or dirt back-roads, that’s fine. But many people who buy big vehicles have absolutely no practical use for them, and this is a problem because it hurts those of us who own smaller, more efficient cars. When we have more trucks and SUV’s on the road, we use up our scarce oil resources at a faster rate, driving the prices up even faster, hurting the pocketbooks of not only those who purchase these behemoths, but those who drive family sedans and compacts as well. This is unfair to those of us who have said family sedans and compact cars.

We need to urgently raise our CAFE (Comparative Advantage Fuel Efficiency) standards. CAFÉ standards set the minimum fuel efficiency requirements for manufacturers that produce vehicles to be sold in the United States. Under CAFÉ standards, a company can still produce big trucks and SUV’s that fall below the fuel efficiency benchmarks, but it must produce enough vehicles that exceed the benchmarks to bring the average fuel consumption rate up to the minimum standard. In other words it limits the ratio of trucks that can be produced to cars that can be produced. While this may be frustrating for suburbanites that just have to have the new Cadillac Escalade, it protects those of us who drive smaller cars from getting hurt worse at the pump. Many of the people who drive smaller cars need this relief the most, as they tend to be those in the lower income brackets.

While an increase in CAFÉ standards is critical, it is also essential that we invest more in renewable energy research. Once we can operate our cars on renewable energy, we can travel at a cost that is much better stabilized.

That said we must realize that this will not happen overnight. In the immediate future we need to achieve the greatest level of energy independence possible. This means allowing for more oil drilling here at home, and allowing for the production of more nuclear energy.

Members of both parties must come together for the common good on this issue. We need the clean, renewable energy and efficiency that the Democrats fight for, but we also need the energy independence in the form or U.S. based drilling and nuclear technology that Republicans champion.

Education and the need for vouchers: The first blog.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am very opinionated on political matters. Anyone who knows my wife knows that I often use her to vent my thoughts on recent political news, sometimes to the point that she can’t take it anymore. It is with dedication to her that I’ve set this blog up, with the hope of lessening the load that I unleash on her by writing my opinions online for the public to see, should anyone so choose.

As I write this, I’ve just arrived home in Michigan’s beautiful Upper Peninsula after spending the holidays with my family in Metro Detroit. Christmas was wonderful and it was good to see my parents and brother again (my sister was in Indiana with her fiancée).

As my family was driving home from church on Sunday our attention was drawn to a billboard for a neighborhood being built on the border of the South Lyon and Northville school districts. It advertised the following prices: “South Lyon Schools from the $280’s, Northville Schools from the $340’s.”

The Northville school district is consistently ranked one of the best in the state of Michigan, while South Lyon’s school district is pretty average. This difference is so important that in a subdivision where all houses and lots are relatively the same size and floor-plans are all similar, access to better schools is available only for those who can afford an extra $60,000. What a shame.

We live in a great country, but it’s far from perfect. One of my biggest frustrations with it is that we do not live up to our creed that “all men are created equal.” Now I’m not advocating a perfectly egalitarian society, I firmly believe that those who work harder and are more innovative than others should reap the rewards of their labor, and that those who are lazy and unmotivated should face hardship and struggle until their turn their life around and adopt a strong work ethic. But for all men to be created equal, our children need the opportunity to reach adulthood with the equal resources for success regardless of their parent’s income. The best tool for success for a young adult is a good educational background. This is not afforded to children who live in underprivileged homes.

The statistics in this matter are startling. If you hope to obtain a bachelors degree by the age of 24, your chances are roughly 50-50 if you come from a family with an income of over $90,000 a year; one in four if your family income falls between $61,000 and $91,000; one in ten for those in families that earn between $35,000 and $61,000; and one in twenty for those with family incomes under $35,000. We’re cheating the poor children in our society. How can we expect them to compete with the rich kids if they don’t have access to the same high quality education?

The solution offered by most liberals is not sustainable: to simply increase funding for lower-income school districts. While a noble idea, it is not practical. Our annual per pupil spending on k-12 education has seen a real increase (taking inflation into account) by 53.6% since 1985. Our massive public school system has become very bureaucratic and inefficient.

We need an education system that promotes equality regardless of income, and that also empowers parents to take control of their children’s education curriculum. Such a program would involve vouchers given at a flat rate for each pupil in the country, and to be allocated to the school in which the pupil’s parents choose to enroll him or her. Schools that would compete for these students and their vouchers would have to meet a reasonable standard for curriculum which could be measured by standardized testing. Furthermore, schools whose tuition fee exceeded the cost of the voucher would not be eligible for the voucher program.

Not only would such a system reduce the gap in meritocracy that we currently face, but would allow parents to choose the environment in which their children are taught because participating schools could have an orientation towards the arts, music, sciences, skilled trades, a religious or values education, etc. as long as they meet the minimum curriculum and cost standards. It would also eliminate many of the behavioral problems we see in the current public school system. As it is, dress codes go un-enforced, and problem children get away with actions that are intimidating to other students or disruptive to a classroom learning environment, because teachers and principals fear bickering from parents. With a voucher program such as this, schools would have more of an incentive to enforce the rules, because if they are lax in their discipline, parents will have incentive to enroll their children in a different school the following year.

A voucher program such as this would successfully address many of the current failures and injustices of our education system. It’s the best solution available, and it’s nice to see some cities and states implementing similar programs. While these programs are young, early data indicates that they are especially successful, especially with providing quality education to all children, regardless of family income. Hopefully more states and municipalities will institute these programs as well. If so, maybe our grandkids generation can be the one that finally prides itself on an America where all children have access to a quality education.