I believe in sharing the road. When traffic permits, I move over a lane to allow people who need to merge onto the expressway to come in. I wait my turn at stop signs. I stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. I try to give bicyclists and stranded motorists a safe clearance. I try to practice what I consider to be common sense good driver citizenship.
I like other drivers to be courteous drivers as well. But, I want them to use their heads! Some people seem to think it is being nice to yield the right of way when the laws of the road dictate that I need to be yielding to them and have already done so. That is absurd. In the time it takes for me to figure out what is going on with them, they could have already exercised their right of way and been out of my way. Instead of doing me a good turn, they just irritate me.
Some people like to do these driving "niceties" because it makes them feel good. They feel they are spreading good will in the world. That is often not the case. Consider the time I was stuck in traffic so dense that changing lanes was nearly impossible. The woman driving the car in front of me was on one of these "good will" missions. As we approached an intersection with a traffic light there were vehicles coming to a parking lot exit from a store parking lot to enter the roadway. This woman decided to let them on the road. Some others came up from the parking lot behind them, and the woman let them in as well. We actually missed that light because she let so many cars in from the store parking lot.
I would have liked to have gone around this driver, but that was not possible. I actually had to put up with this sort of behavior for several blocks before the opportunity to get around her finally appeared. All the while, she kept letting people onto the road regardless of whether they had been sitting there for a while or had only just driven up.
To be sure, the drivers who were on the receiving end of this "benevolence" were quite pleased. They smiled and waved and, I am sure, greatly added to the good feelings this woman in front of me was having about herself. She just loved spreading her good will. She was totally clueless to the ill will she was building up behind her. I was experiencing some rather nasty thoughts, and I know the people behind me were quite frustrated over our lane moving so much more slowly than all the others. They kept looking for opportunities to change lanes.
Obviously, unless we let people out of parking lots into traffic, they are stuck there. I know that. But driving courtesy needs to extend to people on all sides, including the rear.
This woman would have been fine if she had only used a simple common sense rule. If someone has been waiting to get out into the road longer than the person behind me has been waiting to get through this section, then, and only then, do I consider letting them in. If the person behind me has been waiting longer to get through this section longer than the other driver has been waiting to get out of the parking lot, then I consider myself to have no right to let the person sitting in the parking lot out. It is a matter of simple fairness.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 24, 2007
Previous Post
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
That Precious Liquid
Thinking about the water crisis we are facing here in north Georgia has made me realize how very much water we could avoid using in the first place. Having an ample supply of running water is a convenience I do not want to give up. But I have to admit we have made it enormously convenient to waste it at an alarming rate.
Consider the question, "How much water would you use each day if you had to draw it up bucket by bucket from your hand cranked well?" I believe nearly every one of us would use less. Furthermore, the water we did use would be put through as many uses as possible before it was completely discarded. For example, we would catch the water from rinsing our dishes to use to flush our toilets. Water spent washing our fruits and vegetables would be captured to pour on our house plants.
Anyone who has ever been camping in the woods knows how possible it is to get by with using considerably less water. Since you normally have to carry with you the water you are going to drink and cook with, you guard that precious liquid with great care. You learn to brush your teeth using just a cup of water.
If we treated the water we conveniently access by simply turning on the faucet with the same care we would give it if we had to pull it up by bucket from a well, we would find we had plenty. That applies even during a drought.
Outdoor water use is already prohibited here. But, we need to start reducing our indoor water use as well. I have begun double checking to make sure I am not turning on the water flow at the faucet more than I need to. Some people have begun keeping a bucket in the shower to catch extra water to pour on their parched plants.
An additional step we can take is to avoid flushing our toilets as often. Unless there is solid waste present we can normally just put the lid down and go on our way. In some parts of the country, more familiar with water rationing, they use the limerick, "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."
If our clothes are not visibly dirty, we might be able to get by with just airing them out a bit. Perhaps we could shorten our showers and do just a quick total rinse with special attention to a different section of the body each day.
Yes, there are measures we can take to conserve before the water stops flowing. The big question is, "Will we take them?" Some of us will. But lots of my fellow citizens seem to see conservation and sacrifice as something for the other guy.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 20, 2007
Previous post
Consider the question, "How much water would you use each day if you had to draw it up bucket by bucket from your hand cranked well?" I believe nearly every one of us would use less. Furthermore, the water we did use would be put through as many uses as possible before it was completely discarded. For example, we would catch the water from rinsing our dishes to use to flush our toilets. Water spent washing our fruits and vegetables would be captured to pour on our house plants.
Anyone who has ever been camping in the woods knows how possible it is to get by with using considerably less water. Since you normally have to carry with you the water you are going to drink and cook with, you guard that precious liquid with great care. You learn to brush your teeth using just a cup of water.
If we treated the water we conveniently access by simply turning on the faucet with the same care we would give it if we had to pull it up by bucket from a well, we would find we had plenty. That applies even during a drought.
Outdoor water use is already prohibited here. But, we need to start reducing our indoor water use as well. I have begun double checking to make sure I am not turning on the water flow at the faucet more than I need to. Some people have begun keeping a bucket in the shower to catch extra water to pour on their parched plants.
An additional step we can take is to avoid flushing our toilets as often. Unless there is solid waste present we can normally just put the lid down and go on our way. In some parts of the country, more familiar with water rationing, they use the limerick, "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."
If our clothes are not visibly dirty, we might be able to get by with just airing them out a bit. Perhaps we could shorten our showers and do just a quick total rinse with special attention to a different section of the body each day.
Yes, there are measures we can take to conserve before the water stops flowing. The big question is, "Will we take them?" Some of us will. But lots of my fellow citizens seem to see conservation and sacrifice as something for the other guy.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 20, 2007
Previous post
Thursday, October 18, 2007
No Wave To Ride
In the metropolitan Atlanta we are facing a water crisis that is beyond any we have ever faced in the past. Extreme drought conditions have drained area lakes to the point where many docks lead to more dry land and boating is seriously restricted. Lakeside businesses are finding their commerce drying up as well. But those problems are minor compared to the looming loss of drinking water.
All outdoor watering is now banned. Violators are having their water shut off and must pay heavy fines to have it restored. Area restaurants are offering table water only upon request. Plant nurseries have curtailed selling outdoor plants that require much watering upon transplantation. New sod is not being delivered.
This is not enough. We are still consuming water faster than it is accumulating. The long range forecast is for dryer than normal conditions. With the present rate of consumption, it is forecast that our area will be without running water sometime in early 2008.
In spite of these extreme conditions, the Army Corp of Engineers continues to drain the reservoir sending water downstream to Alabama and Florida at the same rate they normally do. Does that make any sense? Why should Alabama and Florida be exempt from suffering from the same consequences of drought that plague Georgia?
Obviously, it does not make sense. Unfortunately, no provision for the current conditions was ever built into the water release guidelines. The Governor has requested that the water release be curtailed. The Army Corp of Engineers said they are considering their options but are continuing to drain the lake. It is sort of like someone saying, "Yeah, it looks like this fire is getting out of hand," while throwing more wood on it at the same time.
The State of Georgia is now faced with trying to get legal injunctions to block further water releases until a new plan can be drafted. A legal injunction will take the Corp of Engineers off the hook for not following the guidelines they have been given. It will empower them to use their common sense without suffering the consequences.
Clearly, we need more forward thinking in our government and in the electorate. It is inefficient to wait until situations become critical before we react. But that is the nature of politics. Even the best of our elected officials often lack the mandate to make needed changes until the public is so uncomfortable with current circumstances they give them no choice. The blame lies not just on our elected government but also upon ourselves.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 18, 2007
Previous post
All outdoor watering is now banned. Violators are having their water shut off and must pay heavy fines to have it restored. Area restaurants are offering table water only upon request. Plant nurseries have curtailed selling outdoor plants that require much watering upon transplantation. New sod is not being delivered.
This is not enough. We are still consuming water faster than it is accumulating. The long range forecast is for dryer than normal conditions. With the present rate of consumption, it is forecast that our area will be without running water sometime in early 2008.
In spite of these extreme conditions, the Army Corp of Engineers continues to drain the reservoir sending water downstream to Alabama and Florida at the same rate they normally do. Does that make any sense? Why should Alabama and Florida be exempt from suffering from the same consequences of drought that plague Georgia?
Obviously, it does not make sense. Unfortunately, no provision for the current conditions was ever built into the water release guidelines. The Governor has requested that the water release be curtailed. The Army Corp of Engineers said they are considering their options but are continuing to drain the lake. It is sort of like someone saying, "Yeah, it looks like this fire is getting out of hand," while throwing more wood on it at the same time.
The State of Georgia is now faced with trying to get legal injunctions to block further water releases until a new plan can be drafted. A legal injunction will take the Corp of Engineers off the hook for not following the guidelines they have been given. It will empower them to use their common sense without suffering the consequences.
Clearly, we need more forward thinking in our government and in the electorate. It is inefficient to wait until situations become critical before we react. But that is the nature of politics. Even the best of our elected officials often lack the mandate to make needed changes until the public is so uncomfortable with current circumstances they give them no choice. The blame lies not just on our elected government but also upon ourselves.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 18, 2007
Previous post
Monday, October 15, 2007
Beware The Quick Fix Energy Solution
In the United States we are rapidly coming to the understanding that we must have energy independence as soon as possible. We have already seen our foreign policy hijacked because of dependence on oil from abroad and face an ever worsening trade deficit besides. As more and more third world countries are industrializing, their energy demands are putting upward price pressure on scarce resources.
None of this was unforeseen. But we lacked the political will to do much about it until the situation became urgent. Maybe some of the blame can be placed on oil industry lobbyists; maybe not. But the situation has become increasingly difficult to simply dismiss as "the pessimistic forecasts of the chronic doom sayers".
The fact that we need energy independence as soon as possible (if not yesterday) has increased the likelihood that we will make some bad choices. We want the quick fixes. But we need to take some time to think through the consequences of those fixes.
Some want us to move into greater use of coal and its derivative, coal oil. We can do that. The United States has vast quantities of coal. It has been said that the U.S. is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. That would certainly make us energy independent, and we already have the technology. The problem is that it would be an environmental catastrophe.
Traditional coal mining (digging caves in the ground) is dangerous to the miners. Mountain top removal is ugly and pollutes our streams and rivers. Burning coal releases enormous amounts of carbon dioxide along with other pollutants. When it comes to fuel sources, you can hardly get more carbon based than coal. We could use coal to almost completely solve the problem of reliance on foreign sources for our energy. But by doing so we could destroy our fresh water supplies and further pollute our air while simultaneously hastening global warming.
Corn farmers want us to do more with converting corn to ethanol. We already have the technology to do this. Since corn is grown, it is a renewable resource. Burning ethanol does release some carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide is absorbed from the air by the corn plants themselves. So it sort of cleans up after itself and becomes the perfect solution, right? Wrong!
Corn is useful for an amazing number of things. So many, in fact, it is a waste to burn it up. If you walked through your local grocery store and removed everything that had corn or a corn derivative in it, you would find the shelves rather barren. If you took away animals raised on corn products, much of the meat, eggs, and dairy would disappear. Obviously, anything that increases our demand for corn is going to cause the cost of a lot of other things to rise.
There are also the fuel expenditures in raising corn and getting the ethanol to market. Furthermore, it would require all the suitable agricultural land in the U.S. just to grow enough corn to produce the amount of ethanol required to replace our need for gasoline and diesel. There would be no farmland for anything else. However, as we diminish our population through starvation, we would find our energy needs going down.
I have named the increased use of coal and corn based ethanol as but two examples of quick fixes. They are quick fixes because we possess the technology in a sufficiently developed state to implement these solutions now. There are others in this category.
Each solution has its supporters. Most of these are advocated by people with a personal economic interest in their adoption. They will emphasize the benefits and dismiss the problems. Beware the quick fix.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 15, 2007
None of this was unforeseen. But we lacked the political will to do much about it until the situation became urgent. Maybe some of the blame can be placed on oil industry lobbyists; maybe not. But the situation has become increasingly difficult to simply dismiss as "the pessimistic forecasts of the chronic doom sayers".
The fact that we need energy independence as soon as possible (if not yesterday) has increased the likelihood that we will make some bad choices. We want the quick fixes. But we need to take some time to think through the consequences of those fixes.
Some want us to move into greater use of coal and its derivative, coal oil. We can do that. The United States has vast quantities of coal. It has been said that the U.S. is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. That would certainly make us energy independent, and we already have the technology. The problem is that it would be an environmental catastrophe.
Traditional coal mining (digging caves in the ground) is dangerous to the miners. Mountain top removal is ugly and pollutes our streams and rivers. Burning coal releases enormous amounts of carbon dioxide along with other pollutants. When it comes to fuel sources, you can hardly get more carbon based than coal. We could use coal to almost completely solve the problem of reliance on foreign sources for our energy. But by doing so we could destroy our fresh water supplies and further pollute our air while simultaneously hastening global warming.
Corn farmers want us to do more with converting corn to ethanol. We already have the technology to do this. Since corn is grown, it is a renewable resource. Burning ethanol does release some carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide is absorbed from the air by the corn plants themselves. So it sort of cleans up after itself and becomes the perfect solution, right? Wrong!
Corn is useful for an amazing number of things. So many, in fact, it is a waste to burn it up. If you walked through your local grocery store and removed everything that had corn or a corn derivative in it, you would find the shelves rather barren. If you took away animals raised on corn products, much of the meat, eggs, and dairy would disappear. Obviously, anything that increases our demand for corn is going to cause the cost of a lot of other things to rise.
There are also the fuel expenditures in raising corn and getting the ethanol to market. Furthermore, it would require all the suitable agricultural land in the U.S. just to grow enough corn to produce the amount of ethanol required to replace our need for gasoline and diesel. There would be no farmland for anything else. However, as we diminish our population through starvation, we would find our energy needs going down.
I have named the increased use of coal and corn based ethanol as but two examples of quick fixes. They are quick fixes because we possess the technology in a sufficiently developed state to implement these solutions now. There are others in this category.
Each solution has its supporters. Most of these are advocated by people with a personal economic interest in their adoption. They will emphasize the benefits and dismiss the problems. Beware the quick fix.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 15, 2007
Saturday, October 13, 2007
SEO Is Not For The Faint Of Heart
Search engine optimization is like running on a treadmill. You have to stay constantly on the move to keep from going backwards. It is not a task for a lazy person.
That's my problem. I want to do something once and have it done. I don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. That seems like a waste of time. Of course, you could say the same thing about eating, sleeping, or bathing. The author of Ecclesiastes said it well when he proclaimed, "All is vanity."
Their are several reasons search engine optimization is a constant battle. For one, there are always new websites being added to the mix. They never stop coming. Those websites have to be crawled and examined by the search engines and then positioned according to the rules. That means your website may have a lower placement tomorrow simply because of a new website that came on the scene today.
Another reason search engine optimization is a constant process is because people keep changing their websites. They don't stay the same. Search engines like fresh content and give websites with the newest content more favorable placement. Well, with content for websites always changing, the search engines are always rearranging the order they place sites in.
Since everybody wants to be placed near the top of the search engines, there is lots of competition. You are competing with people all over the world for a good position in Google, Yahoo, or whatever. Until your competition sleeps, you do so at your peril.
There is no one magic bullet that will propel you to the top of the search engines and keep you there. If there were, it would not last, because the search engines keep changing their own rules and criteria for evaluating websites. There is an entire industry just devoted to keeping up with search engine optimization rule changes.
It used to be that you could do a search on something and find several sites that came up were no longer in operation. That is hardly true anymore unless your search is on a really obscure subject. The competition for top spots will drive the dead listings so far down in the pack, practically no one will ever find them. That is a good thing.
No, search engine optimization is not for the faint of heart. Ironically, some people will pay good money to this or that SEO service to get their websites in the upper rankings and then they will let those services go. They totally ignore the law of gravity. It takes effort to sustain the lofty position. If someone is not going to keep up the effort, one should not bother employing the service.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
October 13, 2007
That's my problem. I want to do something once and have it done. I don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. That seems like a waste of time. Of course, you could say the same thing about eating, sleeping, or bathing. The author of Ecclesiastes said it well when he proclaimed, "All is vanity."
Their are several reasons search engine optimization is a constant battle. For one, there are always new websites being added to the mix. They never stop coming. Those websites have to be crawled and examined by the search engines and then positioned according to the rules. That means your website may have a lower placement tomorrow simply because of a new website that came on the scene today.
Another reason search engine optimization is a constant process is because people keep changing their websites. They don't stay the same. Search engines like fresh content and give websites with the newest content more favorable placement. Well, with content for websites always changing, the search engines are always rearranging the order they place sites in.
Since everybody wants to be placed near the top of the search engines, there is lots of competition. You are competing with people all over the world for a good position in Google, Yahoo, or whatever. Until your competition sleeps, you do so at your peril.
There is no one magic bullet that will propel you to the top of the search engines and keep you there. If there were, it would not last, because the search engines keep changing their own rules and criteria for evaluating websites. There is an entire industry just devoted to keeping up with search engine optimization rule changes.
It used to be that you could do a search on something and find several sites that came up were no longer in operation. That is hardly true anymore unless your search is on a really obscure subject. The competition for top spots will drive the dead listings so far down in the pack, practically no one will ever find them. That is a good thing.
No, search engine optimization is not for the faint of heart. Ironically, some people will pay good money to this or that SEO service to get their websites in the upper rankings and then they will let those services go. They totally ignore the law of gravity. It takes effort to sustain the lofty position. If someone is not going to keep up the effort, one should not bother employing the service.
That's my two cents.
Wade Houston
October 13, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Efficiency or Absurdity?
Years ago, as a teenager, I read the book, "Cheaper By The Dozen," which was about the exploits of an efficiency expert and how he applied his craft to the raising of his twelve children. It was amusing reading, but it was inspiring too. I found myself looking for ways to make my own life more efficient.
Now, when I first got inspired along those lines, I was a bit absurd. For example, to save time getting ready in the morning I combined my toothbrushing time with the time I spent on my morning elimination. But, I got over it.
However, even today, the influence of that book shows up in my life. Long before it was a gas saving concern, I was trying to organize my errands and combine trips. I save up my junk mail so as to handle it all at one time and be done with it. I put the trash by the door so as to carry it to the can when I go out rather than making a special trip.
Even the way I use the microwave oven has been influenced by efficiency consciousness. For example, if something needs to be zapped for one minute, I will hit 55 seconds or 66 seconds which involve two strokes on a single key instead of using three key strokes on two different keys to enter 100. Instead of half a minute, I'll use 33 seconds. Instead of one and a half minutes, I will key in 88 seconds. That way I use two strokes on the same key instead of three strokes on three different keys.
Some people will view such economy of effort as laziness. I really don't care. I think it's fun.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 9, 2007
Now, when I first got inspired along those lines, I was a bit absurd. For example, to save time getting ready in the morning I combined my toothbrushing time with the time I spent on my morning elimination. But, I got over it.
However, even today, the influence of that book shows up in my life. Long before it was a gas saving concern, I was trying to organize my errands and combine trips. I save up my junk mail so as to handle it all at one time and be done with it. I put the trash by the door so as to carry it to the can when I go out rather than making a special trip.
Even the way I use the microwave oven has been influenced by efficiency consciousness. For example, if something needs to be zapped for one minute, I will hit 55 seconds or 66 seconds which involve two strokes on a single key instead of using three key strokes on two different keys to enter 100. Instead of half a minute, I'll use 33 seconds. Instead of one and a half minutes, I will key in 88 seconds. That way I use two strokes on the same key instead of three strokes on three different keys.
Some people will view such economy of effort as laziness. I really don't care. I think it's fun.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 9, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Reparations for Slavery in America
From time to time the subject of the payment of reparations for black slavery in America comes up. Politically, this issue is a non-starter. No mainstream politician is willing to embrace the matter. Generally, politicians prefer to change the topic.
To have any sort of meaningful conversation on the subject there are several problems which must be faced squarely. Avoidance of any of these issues derails the entire discussion. Unfortunately, people to prefer to cherry pick the different aspects of the problem and only present those concerns that support their own agenda.
Here are the key points I see that need to be included in any meaningful discussion:
1) Kidnapping people, taking them from their homeland, depriving them of their liberty, and subjugating them to the whim and will of others through no fault of the victims is a crime against humanity.
2) Slavery is vile, immoral, evil, wicked, deplorable, and inhumane.
3) Though against their will slaves made a significant contribution to American life and culture.
4) Justice cries for restitution.
5) None of the slaves who were brought to America are alive today.
6) No one living in America today was born in slavery.
7) All those who engaged in the slave trade in America have died.
8) None of those living in America today ever held slaves.
9) It is not possible to make direct amends to the victims of slavery who are now dead.
10) It is wrong to hold anyone who did not participate in a crime and who had no power to stop it accountable for the acts of others who did.
There are those who would argue that while direct restitution to the slaves is not possible, it is acceptable to make reparation payments to their descendants. Unfortunately, these payments would be a defacto punishment of others who were not even alive when the atrocity of slavery was being committed. This would seem to be creating a new injustice to make up for an old one.
The advocates for reparations for slavery argue that placing this burden on people who did not directly participate in slave ownership is okay. The reason they say it is okay is because the descendants of slave holders have inherited the benefits of the slavery institution in the passed down quality of their lives. There is some merit to this concept.
However, it is also true that the descendants of slaves have also benefited from the contributions their ancestors made to our society at large. Furthermore, compared against the average member of the population of the slave ancestral homeland, many of the slave descendants are actually much better off. Any honest discussion of inherited benefits must not ignore these facts.
Since all the direct victims and perpetrators of the black slave trade in America are dead, and since the descendants of the victims are generally fairing better than they would be if their ancestors had remained in their homeland, no reasonable calculation of reparations can be determined.
If this were a civil lawsuit, it would be a situation where actual damages to the claimant could not be assessed. Any other damages would be punitive in nature. Since people who did not commit the crime should not be punished, no award would be given. The case would be dismissed.
Saying that nothing can (or, at this point, should) be done regarding monetary reparations for slavery in America does not ignore the injustice that was done. We should honor the memory of the slaves and their contributions. We must dedicate ourselves to eliminating all aspects of racism in our society. We must all build on the lessons of the past and seek to promote respect and equality before the law for everyone. Living for freedom and justice for all is the best reparations that our society can make.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 6, 2007
To have any sort of meaningful conversation on the subject there are several problems which must be faced squarely. Avoidance of any of these issues derails the entire discussion. Unfortunately, people to prefer to cherry pick the different aspects of the problem and only present those concerns that support their own agenda.
Here are the key points I see that need to be included in any meaningful discussion:
1) Kidnapping people, taking them from their homeland, depriving them of their liberty, and subjugating them to the whim and will of others through no fault of the victims is a crime against humanity.
2) Slavery is vile, immoral, evil, wicked, deplorable, and inhumane.
3) Though against their will slaves made a significant contribution to American life and culture.
4) Justice cries for restitution.
5) None of the slaves who were brought to America are alive today.
6) No one living in America today was born in slavery.
7) All those who engaged in the slave trade in America have died.
8) None of those living in America today ever held slaves.
9) It is not possible to make direct amends to the victims of slavery who are now dead.
10) It is wrong to hold anyone who did not participate in a crime and who had no power to stop it accountable for the acts of others who did.
There are those who would argue that while direct restitution to the slaves is not possible, it is acceptable to make reparation payments to their descendants. Unfortunately, these payments would be a defacto punishment of others who were not even alive when the atrocity of slavery was being committed. This would seem to be creating a new injustice to make up for an old one.
The advocates for reparations for slavery argue that placing this burden on people who did not directly participate in slave ownership is okay. The reason they say it is okay is because the descendants of slave holders have inherited the benefits of the slavery institution in the passed down quality of their lives. There is some merit to this concept.
However, it is also true that the descendants of slaves have also benefited from the contributions their ancestors made to our society at large. Furthermore, compared against the average member of the population of the slave ancestral homeland, many of the slave descendants are actually much better off. Any honest discussion of inherited benefits must not ignore these facts.
Since all the direct victims and perpetrators of the black slave trade in America are dead, and since the descendants of the victims are generally fairing better than they would be if their ancestors had remained in their homeland, no reasonable calculation of reparations can be determined.
If this were a civil lawsuit, it would be a situation where actual damages to the claimant could not be assessed. Any other damages would be punitive in nature. Since people who did not commit the crime should not be punished, no award would be given. The case would be dismissed.
Saying that nothing can (or, at this point, should) be done regarding monetary reparations for slavery in America does not ignore the injustice that was done. We should honor the memory of the slaves and their contributions. We must dedicate ourselves to eliminating all aspects of racism in our society. We must all build on the lessons of the past and seek to promote respect and equality before the law for everyone. Living for freedom and justice for all is the best reparations that our society can make.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 6, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Solving the Private Health Insurance Dilemma
According to the latest polls, the number one domestic issue in the minds of the American people is health care. There is a growing push toward universal health care, and the politicians know it. I am one who strongly favors this trend.
The biggest question is how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Some people want to completely scrap private health insurance in favor of enrolling everyone in a government run program. The greatest merit to this approach is its apparent simplicity. However, that is totally unfair to those who have invested their capital and labor in health insurance businesses. These people have invested in good faith and would suddenly have the financial rug jerked out from beneath them. I would not want the government doing that to me. Would you?
We have to know that derailing the private health insurance industry is as wrong as condemning someone's house to make way for a highway and providing no compensation except for a tax write off. It screams of injustice. It is unAmerican.
But private health insurance programs have their problems. Their inherent reason for existing is to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. Making money is not a sin, but it does put them at odds with providing the best possible health care. When they pay for prescriptions, doctor visits, hospital stays, medical tests, etc., insurance companies are cutting into their profits. So, naturally, they are going to try to keep these expenditures to a minimum.
One way private health insurers keep their costs down is by refusing to accept people who already have costly health problems. They know these people are going to be spending more money on their medical needs than they would be paying to the insurance company. So, it only makes sense that the company would not want them as customers. Generally, they refuse them. Even when they do take on these people as individuals, the insurance company will charge quite a bit extra for their coverage and may impose high deductibles and exclusions. It's just good business sense.
Even with group insurance, small groups will find their aggregate premiums raised when there are very many claims. Even a single claim for a high cost procedure, such as a liver transplant, can dramatically raise the premiums for the entire small group. The group may seek to reduce this premium increase by raising the deductibles and out of pocket expenses. But this can have the effect of discouraging preventive medicine and creating more costly expenses down the road.
The private health insurers face a dilemma as well. If they pay all the medical claims too readily, they lose money and end up going out of business. If they don't pay the medical claims reasonably well, they will lose their customers and end up going out of business. Under present laws this balancing act can only work to the insurance industry's favor if it is allowed to exclude higher risk customers.
What if a health insurance company acting alone decided to accept everyone regardless of medical history? What if it just decided to raise its premiums enough to stay in business? Two things would happen.
First, those people with no known health problems would leave that insurer to find someone else who had lower premiums. Second, those with serious health problems would rush to get coverage by that insurer. The company would be unable to keep pace with the expenses and would fold. Everyone loses.
What if a law were passed requiring ALL health insurance companies to stop considering pre-existing medical conditions? This would avoid the flight of the healthy to the lower premium companies since all the companies would be in the same situation. However, it would create another problem.
People who are able to get health insurance generally do so to avoid potential devastating out of pocket medical expenses somewhere down the road. If pre-existing medical conditions are excluded from consideration, then more people will wait until they know they are going to need the insurance benefits before they will spend the money on the premiums. This is especially true for those without much disposable income. Unfortunately, this would bankrupt the insurance companies.
The only way the insurance industry can work is if people pay for the coverage before they need it and even if they don't. It has been described as a gamble. The insurance industry is betting for you, and you are betting against you. The odds must favor the house or they don't play.
One intriguing proposal to resolve this problem has been to both require health insurance companies to stop eliminating pre-existing health conditions from coverage and at the same time require everyone to have health insurance. We resist this idea because it means the government intrudes even more upon our lives. Those who are healthy certainly don't like being forced to pay for something that is not providing an immediate benefit. But this proposal could work.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 3, 2007
The biggest question is how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Some people want to completely scrap private health insurance in favor of enrolling everyone in a government run program. The greatest merit to this approach is its apparent simplicity. However, that is totally unfair to those who have invested their capital and labor in health insurance businesses. These people have invested in good faith and would suddenly have the financial rug jerked out from beneath them. I would not want the government doing that to me. Would you?
We have to know that derailing the private health insurance industry is as wrong as condemning someone's house to make way for a highway and providing no compensation except for a tax write off. It screams of injustice. It is unAmerican.
But private health insurance programs have their problems. Their inherent reason for existing is to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. Making money is not a sin, but it does put them at odds with providing the best possible health care. When they pay for prescriptions, doctor visits, hospital stays, medical tests, etc., insurance companies are cutting into their profits. So, naturally, they are going to try to keep these expenditures to a minimum.
One way private health insurers keep their costs down is by refusing to accept people who already have costly health problems. They know these people are going to be spending more money on their medical needs than they would be paying to the insurance company. So, it only makes sense that the company would not want them as customers. Generally, they refuse them. Even when they do take on these people as individuals, the insurance company will charge quite a bit extra for their coverage and may impose high deductibles and exclusions. It's just good business sense.
Even with group insurance, small groups will find their aggregate premiums raised when there are very many claims. Even a single claim for a high cost procedure, such as a liver transplant, can dramatically raise the premiums for the entire small group. The group may seek to reduce this premium increase by raising the deductibles and out of pocket expenses. But this can have the effect of discouraging preventive medicine and creating more costly expenses down the road.
The private health insurers face a dilemma as well. If they pay all the medical claims too readily, they lose money and end up going out of business. If they don't pay the medical claims reasonably well, they will lose their customers and end up going out of business. Under present laws this balancing act can only work to the insurance industry's favor if it is allowed to exclude higher risk customers.
What if a health insurance company acting alone decided to accept everyone regardless of medical history? What if it just decided to raise its premiums enough to stay in business? Two things would happen.
First, those people with no known health problems would leave that insurer to find someone else who had lower premiums. Second, those with serious health problems would rush to get coverage by that insurer. The company would be unable to keep pace with the expenses and would fold. Everyone loses.
What if a law were passed requiring ALL health insurance companies to stop considering pre-existing medical conditions? This would avoid the flight of the healthy to the lower premium companies since all the companies would be in the same situation. However, it would create another problem.
People who are able to get health insurance generally do so to avoid potential devastating out of pocket medical expenses somewhere down the road. If pre-existing medical conditions are excluded from consideration, then more people will wait until they know they are going to need the insurance benefits before they will spend the money on the premiums. This is especially true for those without much disposable income. Unfortunately, this would bankrupt the insurance companies.
The only way the insurance industry can work is if people pay for the coverage before they need it and even if they don't. It has been described as a gamble. The insurance industry is betting for you, and you are betting against you. The odds must favor the house or they don't play.
One intriguing proposal to resolve this problem has been to both require health insurance companies to stop eliminating pre-existing health conditions from coverage and at the same time require everyone to have health insurance. We resist this idea because it means the government intrudes even more upon our lives. Those who are healthy certainly don't like being forced to pay for something that is not providing an immediate benefit. But this proposal could work.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 3, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)