Health Insurance: To Buy or Not to Buy

I just changed my health insurance plan today. I will in all likelihood be changing again in about a year.

Like many individuals and businesses, I am trying to sort out the changes that are coming as Obamacare  will be implemented at about this time next year. So I spent a bit of time grilling my insurance agent today.

The following is my best guess as to my options come next year. I can stick with my plan, which has an $11,000 deductible and costs us (wife and kid too) about $450 per month, though that amount might rise. Or, I can scrap my plan entirely and pay a $750 penalty/tax. That amount is less than two months worth of premiums. Now if I or any family member were to get seriously ill or have an accident such that we needed expensive care, we can sign up for insurance at that time. It would certainly cost more than my current plan, but I could then scrap the plan again once I have received my medical care.

As a math question this is rather easy. It makes no sense to buy insurance for $450 per month when I essentially already have insurance, insofar as I can buy it despite any pre-existing condition. Instead, I merely pay a $750 tax which amounts to less than 2 months worth of worthless insurance coverage. So, from a dollars and good sense perspective, I should drop my coverage and  thereafter buy and scrap insurance as needed.

But is there a moral element that I am missing? Do I have an obligation as a citizen to contribute to the general welfare of others via my participation in an insurance program? Is it OK to be a free rider?

At this point, my answers are no, no and yes, respectively. The government has passed a law which creates huge incentives for me to drop my health insurance, coupled with disincentives, in the form of huge premium increases, for keeping my insurance.  I don't feel a moral obligation to try to prop up a poorly designed system via my participation in a health plan. The system will certainly collapse and I hope that what replaces it is not, as I fear, even worse.

CAR25 - Public Access or Propaganda?

After reading Mayor Dickert's commentary concerning CAR25, Racine's public access cable channel, I have decided to weigh in.

Starting with the commentary's title - CAR25 needs to spread positive news about Racine - Mayor Dickert repeatedly emphasizes the importance of relaying positive news concerning Racine. "I believe we have to provide a great message that demonstrates the positive things going on in Racine" and "I have also worked to steer CAR25 in the direction of positive messaging" and so on.

But all this positivity is being undermined as "some of the programming currently defeats the very purpose of a positive message for our city." And "Unfortunately, the very producers that are opposing change are the ones currently providing programs that speak negatively about Racine."

So no more negativity, right? Here is where the message gets a bit muddled. The mayor then assures the opponents of the proposed changes to CAR25 that "they will still have their access to production equipment and the free broadcast of their content."

Either the city will control content or producers will, but not both. The city will either proceed with an all-positive propaganda program or dissenters will continue to dissent, but not both.

I can't imagine that the Mayor would go to all this trouble just to continue allowing negative programming, so I must conclude that the CAR25 changes are designed to reign in the dissenters. The channel will be "public access" in name only while the mayor will control the information disseminated about Racine.

As a frequent dissenter about Racine politics and an infrequent dissenter on CAR25, I understand that dissenters can be a pain in the buttocks. But we serve a critical role in a free society. We keep or at least attempt to keep elected officials on their toes and honest. We inspire debate. We annoy. We rally. We complain. And sometimes, our insistence prevents elected officials from going too far.

And silencing opposing points of views is going too far.

On Services

Budget time is coming in Racine and other locals, so naturally our "representatives" will stress the importance of the services they generously extend to us with our money.

Lately I have noticed that our "representatives" seem to think that government is the only entity that offers services to people. Of course every business in Racine provides services to its customers. I suppose that since they charge money while seeking profits makes them less important, expendable, perhaps even a bit evil.

It would be nice if, during budget negotiations, just one representative would note the existence of Racine's other service providers, and perhaps wonder aloud the effect that city services and their costs have on our private service providers.

The way I see it, every vacant storefront is evidence that the city hasn't given much thought to the health of our private service providers.

Celebrating Diversity?

Lately I have been exploring college web sites as my son is getting to be about that age. One thing I have noticed is that colleges love diversity. As such, I can't help but wonder whether these colleges and universities celebrate students who disagree with their diversity agenda.

Inherent the Wind

Recent Prairie graduate and Columbia University student Maria Zahn has penned a commentary for the Journal Times, which you can read here, calling for "moral action to develop renewable energy sources."

It seems Maria's parents have been denied a request to build a 54 foot wind turbine in their Racine neighborhood. I might be inclined to support Maria's argument if it were based on property rights, but it was not. Rather, it concerned our moral responsibility to fight global warming.

Rather than get bogged down in the pro and con arguments of global warming, Maria opts for the tried and true method of simply claiming to be correct, citing science and Al Gore as proof. Science of course involves replicating experiments rather than inserting assumptions into computer models, but that point tends to escape many proofers.

I am most intrigued by the following quote from Maria's commentary. "Experts in moral reasoning have concluded that our inherent moral sense results in emotional responses that prompt our actions. When will we feel an emotional connection to the global warming cause and feel inspired to take moral action?"

Assuming that the unnamed experts are correct, we will have little choice in the matter. Since our "moral sense" is "inherent," ie a "permanent characteristic," according to Webster's, we will know, inherently, when moral action is required.

I can't speak for other humans similarly equipped with a moral sense, but mine is unconvinced that global warming should prompt us to fight for backyard wind turbines. That said, my moral sense is aroused concerning the threat posed by the warmist, now climate changist, agenda.  The appeals to emotion and the pseudo science underpinning the argument are detrimental to the intellect of young people like Maria, and the movement threatens to destroy our economy and ultimately our freedom. Other than that, it is a great idea.

Sorry for the emotional outburst readers. My inherent moral sense made me do it.

Philosophy of Death

"Susan Schwartz already drives a Prius and has solar panels on her home. But the 69-year-old Berkeley woman still doesn't think she's doing enough to stop global warming."

I found this quote at the Wall Street Journal. Of course she is not doing enough to stop global warming. In fact, she is advancing global warming by using an electric car and by breathing on earth. To truly do something to slow global warming, she should cause herself to no longer exist. Or, she could end other lives before taking her own. 

So why aren't mass murderers hailed, in part, as an environmental leaders and visionaries?

Granted, it is a sick question, flowing quite logically from a sick philosophy.

Local Cliff Maneuvering

On Monday I was offered an opportunity at my business to sign a petition initiated by Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG) to end "tax dodging" and to support "legislation to stop tax haven abuses."

I declined. For starters, I am reluctant to speak for a business which includes people other than myself. But more importantly, I was uncomfortable with the content of the petition, particularly what I would consider loaded language. For example, tax dodging I would think is already illegal. Or the activity they are concerned with is lawful and as such should not be described as "dodging." Nobody pays taxes unless they are legally obligated to do so and, as such, I think it is wrong to denigrate such people. Also, while I suspect I might find some common ground with WISPIRG on tax haven legislation, I am cognizant of the larger fiscal concerns facing our country and I find WISPIRG's goals insufficient to address our larger problems. I would have been more inclined to sign if dramatic government spending reductions were included in their petition, for example. And lastly, I wouldn't want myself as a business owner or my business name to be used in a political showdown.

My instincts it turns out were correct. The Journal Times local section headline read: A solution to the fiscal cliff? Subtitle read: Shutting tax havens would help, says Mayor Dickert, research group. The article included a local businessman angry at "corporations taking money away from us,"a Parkside student who suggested the money could be used for more student aid, and a WISPIRG associate noting that the money could be used to build 50 commuter rail lines.

But no mention of federal spending levels.

The Quranal Times

The Journal Times today has an article entitled "A sacred text of peace and justice" and subtitled "Quran exhibit tries to debunk stereotypes, build understanding."Read it here if you like.

"The Muslim holy book is a text of peace and justice." "It doesn't support any acts of terrorism." Don't kill blasphemers, just leave their company for a while. Unequal treatment of women is not in accordance with the Quran. Etc...

Remarkably, the article made no mention of any of the more controversial content found in the Quran. Probably just an innocent oversight on the part of the JT.

The event was held at the Bray Center, a public community center. Will this bring out the rabid separation of church and state crowd or is that enmity reserved only for Christianity?

Also interesting is the Journal Times decision to not allow comments. No efforts to debunk the debunking will be tolerated. It is best to just believe everything you read about Islam.

Yes We Can!

I am sure all several of you are ready to move on to another subject, but I have one final observation. It seems the educational message sent to minorities at Racine Unified is "No you can't!" Unless of course the subject is sex education:^)

Failure Explained

Are you ready Sean? The reason for poor academic achievement at Racine Unified is cultural. The cultural problem I am about to describe affects us all to some degree, but is disproportionately more harmful to minorities than whites and to boys than to girls. As such, the people most harmed by the cultural problem are minority boys.

Let us start with birth. We are seeing increasing numbers of out of wedlock births with a far greater occurrence among minorities, particularly blacks. A child born into a single parent family is at a big disadvantage as anyone who has raised children understands that it is a difficult enough undertaking with two parents.

The reasons for the increase in out of wedlock births are many. Immaturity and impulsivity are characteristics of youth naturally that must be drummed out of them by culture. Ideally they would be replaced by maturity, caution, reason, and delayed gratification among other values. Incidentally, these are the things that also lead to academic achievement, success and in many cases wealth.

A child born out of wedlock is therefore more likely to have only one active parent and indeed one demonstrably displaying the characteristics of immaturity and impulsivity rather than the healthier values listed above. A rough start indeed for the future RU scholar.

Such a child will have several years stewing in a culture more likely to embrace prison fashion, misogynistic pop culture, a victim identity and an entitlement mentality etc.. than a more healthy culture that celebrates or values commitment, hard work, deferred gratification, savings and so on.

Now by no means do I think these are problems exclusive to minority communities, only that they are far more pronounced there.

Now with that cultural baggage, they show up at Unified's doorstep at age four or so. And this creates a problem for Racine Unified insofar as it is universally agreed upon that all cultures are equally terrific and healthy and deserving of celebration, except of course conservative America which must be denounced as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... at every opportunity. Thus RU can not and must not challenge the culture of their students.

The result is a school system that does not challenge the negative culture that harms the student and his future. Instead, they become enablers like Sean, making excuses for the poor performance, blaming society and or corporations that refuse to sell free range goat meat in the inner city.

So a child born into a culture as I have described has little chance, on his own, with few role models in or out of school, to reject said culture in favor of a more healthy one.

One more thing. Whites will fare far better at RU in part because the white liberals at RU hold different standards and expectations for white students than they do for minorities. Also, they will be peddling the myth to minorities, and not whites, that society will not give them a fair shake, thus lessening the incentives for minorities to work hard as compared to whites.

A Modest Proposal

Apologies for my recent fixation with what ails our public school system, but I believe I have solved the riddle. As I have proven in my most recent post, it is not poverty that is causing poor academic performance at Racine Unified. This should be rather obvious as RU students receive a world class education for free. So what is it?

Minorities are struggling in RU right? Is it Asians, blacks or Hispanics? Blacks and Hispanics primarily. Is it boys or girls? Both, but boys seem to be faring more poorly, with black boys doing the worst, I suspect.

Of all the students in RU, which are most likely to have their butt cracks showing? Black boys of course!

Now I don't think for a moment that exposed butt cracks cause poor academic achievement, at least not for the exposer. Rather, like poverty, there is merely a correlation. So what is the cause?

It is obvious. Black boys are competing academically with one hand tied behind their back. OK, its not actually tied behind their backs, but it is being used to keep their pants from falling down. They have one less hand to hold a pencil, use a computer, turn a page in a book, conduct a chemistry experiment etc...

They are at a huge disadvantage!

Still don't believe me? Where are the most notable successes found among the black students in RU? On the athletic fields and courts of course. They are on those occasions in uniforms that don't collect at their ankles every few minutes. The playing field is leveled and the black boys are competing just fine.

Obviously, huge academic gains could be had with one simple policy change at RU. Spandex uniforms.

On Money and Education

Racine Unified claims that poverty is the cause of the districts dismal academic record. Let us examine that claim.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the poverty stricken in Racine have $0 to spend on education.

With few or no exceptions,  Racine Unified students live in homes with heat and electricity. They have enough food in their stomaches such that obesity is a big problem, while malnutrition is virtually non existent. They get a free education paid for by the government. For enrichment outside of school, there is a library, within walking distance of many, that offers free access to books and computers.

Everything is free. How can the lack of money be the cause of poor academic achievement?

Cause or Effect?

For years now I have chafed at Racine Unified's poverty excuse. Year after year, Racine Unified ranks as the worst of similarly sized school districts in Wisconsin. You might think this would cause some soul searching.

It doesn't. Rather, as the annual and predictably poor results roll in, it is time to blame poverty once again.

It is no doubt true that poverty presents learning challenges at home and especially at school. I write "especially" because I strongly suspect that the poor are typically stuck with the worst school districts. And crappy schools produce lousy results such as those we see year after year in Racine.

But Racine Unified whines that it is a victim of poverty.

It is too bad there isn't an institution in town tasked with preparing children to function properly as adults in society.

Oh wait, there is such an institution and it has been around for several decades. It is called Racine Unified.

Perhaps it is time to consider to what extent Racine Unified is the cause of the poverty that they now use to excuse their continual and predictable failings. Don't look for Racine Unified to lead the way on that inquiry.

Political and Legal Cliff Ahead

Kudos to Sean for his response to my previous post. He wrote:

"I have to say Denis, although I support affirmative action as a way to try to make up for generation upon generations of slavery, oppression and officially sanctioned discrimination, I'm not able to wrap my mind around that perticular (sic) reasoning either".

Upon further reflection, I realize that Sean and I are both wrong about something. Both of us described the decision as having involved reasoning. It did not. It involved the use of raw political power, nothing more. Anyone with the ability to read, and that should include federally appointed judges, knows full well that there isn't anything remotely resembling a clause in the US Constitution which nullifies amendments or any other law because of the burden imposed on those who would wish to overturn said amendment or law. The judges just made it up, plain and simple. Sean, with respect, I know that you can wrap your mind around this obvious corruption.

I have a stock answer/question to those who say they want nothing to do with politics. I ask them what alternative do they prefer. If reason and votes don't prevail, the alternative is violence, ultimately. If we can't depend on fair play in politics and in our courts, it really is only a matter of time before our disagreements are expressed physically. 

Of course this is not what I want to happen. To avoid this fate, it will take vocal advocates such as Sean and myself to recognize the dangers of partisan hackery. A win at all cost mentality will make losers of us all. 

I am not all that optimistic. These are judges appointed by US presidents. They are supposed to be among our greatest legal minds. But a majority have proven themselves to be partisan hacks. And yet I have heard of no denunciations from prominent conservatives or liberals. This is very dangerous.

Extraordinary BS

A federal appeals court overturned a Michigan amendment banning affirmative action. Their reasoning, paraphrased in the Washington Post, is as follows:

In an 8-7 decision, the court said the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign through the ballot box to protect affirmative action.

By this reasoning, wouldn't any amendment or even any legislation be unconstitutional because of the same "burden?"

Forget for the moment your partisan views on affirmative action or any other legal issue. If you are on the losing side of any legislative change, you can argue, quite compellingly, that you are now faced with an "extraordinary burden" in your attempt to reverse a legitimate decision made by voters, and as such, the legislation is therefor unconstitutional. 

Was Scott Walker's initial election "illegal" because of the "extraordinary burden" it placed on those wishing to recall him? Are the recent gains made by gay marriage advocates or pot smokers unconstitutional by that standard? 

Access Denied

Conservative columnist/talk show host Dennis Prager reacts to the results of the presidential election. Some suggest that Republicans need to become like liberals. Prager instead suggests promoting conservative values to minorities, youth, women etc... He writes:

"The only answer to the "demographic" problem, therefore, is to bring women (single women, to be precise), young people, Hispanics, and blacks to conservative values....."

And:

"Our only hope for America is that every conservative takes upon him or herself the project of learning what American and conservative values are, coming to understand what leftism stands for, and learning how to make the case for those values to women, young people, blacks and Hispanics."

I agree with Mr. Prager. Additionally, I understand conservative values, I understand the left, and I believe I could make a case for those values to women, young people, blacks and Hispanics. So I should just go forth and convert the masses, right? It is not so easy.

If I wanted to promote liberal values, it would be a piece of cake. I could just dust of my MSW degree and get right to work in institutions where liberals dominate, namely schools, government agencies and even private charities. I could get a teaching degree. I might still be writing for the Racine Journal Times. You get the picture.

But try promoting conservative ideas and your access is denied. 

My question to Free Racine readers. Where does one find the women, youth, and minorities to introduce, discuss, debate etc... conservative ideas? I am talking about formal arrangements, not "in the checkout lane" or "at the ball game." Any ideas would be welcome.  

A Teachable Moment Missed

I happened upon a blog called running reflections run by a teacher. I found this:

My sixth grade students leaned forward as I read to them, almost as though they would better be able to capture the words in the book. We were reading “Out of My Mind,” by Sharon Draper. This book is about a bright student named Melody who has cerebral palsy. Melody uses a wheelchair to get around, gets assistance with eating and bathrooming, and relies on a communication board to talk. When we got to page 52, Melody explained that her aids, “do stuff like take us to the bathroom (or change diapers on kids like Ashley and Carl), feed us at lunch, wheel us where we need to go, wipe mouths, and give hugs.  I don’t think they get paid very much, because they never stay very long.  But they should get a million dollars.  What they do is really hard, and I don’t think most folks get that.”

At this point, a sixth grade girl quietly raises her hand and patiently waits to be called on. Encouraging thinking while reading, means stopping to discuss questions and thoughts my students are having. I pause to call on her and she asks her question with concern in her voice, “Does Mrs. Saad get more money than the teachers, because she does a lot of extra work for the students she works with?”

OK then. We have a character in a novel who thinks her teachers aid should earn a million dollars, we have a girl asking questions about the pay of the teachers aid in her school and we have teacher who claims to be "encouraging thinking." What a great teachable moment!

The teacher dodges the question. What a shame.

Should the teachers aid earn a million dollars? If yes, or a lesser amount, where does the money come from? With a little guidance, the students could learn a little something about taxes and school funding. They could learn that the teachers pay is determined by wrangling between politicians, school board members, unions and, one would hope, taxpayers. And they should learn that the desire or need for money or resources will always exceed the supply, a situation that forces some form of rationing. 

I have my doubts that "encouraging thinking" was the objective in the classroom. From the choice of material to the teachers failure, it seems perhaps emoting was the real goal.

But one young girl asked a thoughtful question anyway and was brushed off by her teacher. We can't have children learning meaningful, easily understood economic ideas. That would conflict with the unions goal of producing reliable Democratic voters. It's for the children.

Random Election Thoughts

Random election thoughts in no particular order.

There is an expression that you get the government that you deserve. I worry about what we deserve.

I don't understand how states are called, not that it matters anymore. North Carolina was not called for Romney until he had a 3 point lead with 97% of votes counted, while Ohio was called for Obama despite Romney having closed from a 10 point to a 1 point deficit with some 30% of votes still not counted.

I am used to feeling a sense of alienation after elections, but this is somehow different, worse. Fox News repeatedly mentioned the "browning" of America. Does the rule of law, limited government, fiscal responsibility etc...somehow not appeal to people with darker skin? Yah I'm concerned for our country.

There are more than a few political prognosticators that have lost their credibility.

I will write in Sean Cranley before I ever cast a vote for Chris Christie. If I knew, he had to know that his wet sloppy kiss to Obama's back side would lead every newscast. It wasn't necessary to address the crisis in his state.

Romney went out of his way not to be more aggressive/assertive, lest he lose the woman vote. He lost the woman vote anyway. Could it be that women reward aggressive Democrats while punishing aggressive Republicans? How do they, Republicans,  deal with that?

Romney seems to me a decent, competent, moderate guy. I wasn't excited about him but I can't bring myself to throw him under the bus.

I hope the Republicans in the House don't roll over.

Courting BradK Part 2

BradK, you made a few points that pique my interest. They are:

What I'm typically talking about is the social safety nets. Generally speaking, the liberal position is more favorable to setting up those nets to catch as many people as possible when they need it. I would challenge them that their policies don't provide a way out of them very clearly.

And:

I generally favor policies that give a crap about people and have a slight bleeding heart about it. I draw the line however at policies that invite or create dependency.

I would posit that the vast majority of people in this country would agree with your basic point on the need for safety nets coupled with the dangers of dependency. I certainly do.

On a personal note, as a young adult I was very intent on making a career out of helping people who needed help the most. I earned a MSW (Masters, Social Work) with the idea of working with young people who have had a rough start in life. And for a few years I worked with kids with behavioral or emotional problems. It was assumed by one and all that I was a terrific guy for pursuing this career. I mention this because, while my political philosophy gradually changed, my interest in social problems has not. Yet it was no longer assumed that me heart was in the right place. Liberals hold a huge advantage in assumed motives. I blame articulate liberals and inarticulate conservatives for the current perceptions about the motives of liberals and conservatives.

My point is to challenge the assumption by many that the left are primarily the folks who care about the less fortunate. Certainly many do as do many on the right. And there are bad guys on both sides as well. The left is far better at the PR contest.

Of course at the end of the day, the question of who cares the most is less important than who delivers. We have all heard the phrase that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Good intentions are a good starting point but is not the end all be all as some seem to assume. What matters is results.

On that score I have come to believe that the lefts preferred approach - government interventions -  should be measured for effectiveness. Government schools are a disaster or at least a major disappointment. The war on poverty failed. Welfare marginalized black men. Social Security has been a success but is unsustainable in its current form. Obamacare is a disaster in the making.

It is true that the liberals "don't provide a way out" very easily as you state. Of course, there are huge incentives in place to ensure this remains the case. Dependents become a reliable voting bloc for liberals. Why should liberals foster self reliance, other than it being the right thing to do? They would be creating conservatives and undermining their own power. Real solutions would create real problems for the left. 

My own conclusions that I have come to over the years, in no particular order: The left has done a masterful job of convincing society that their motives are pure and that conservatives are heartless, or greedy, homophobic, Islamphobic, sexist etc.... and that conservatives are far less skilled at advancing their philosophy, in part because they are largely shut out of institutions that promulgate political points of view such as the education system, media, Hollywood and so on. Liberal "solutions" often sound good at first but often fail spectacularly while the opposite is sometimes true of conservative notions. Example, tax breaks often result in revenue increases for government. Government solutions tend to create winners and losers and pit them against one another. The competitive nature of private markets would be more effective in differentiating freeloaders from people truly in need. Generally speaking, the left does not seem to care as much as they claim. If they did, they would embrace school choice. Many inner city black people, but not near enough, are figuring this out. Conservatives are far from perfect, Republicans even less so, but by no means do I conclude that liberals care more, and even less do I think their methods are effective in helping the less fortunate, by and large. 

And to all who made it this far, I apologize for the length of this post.

Courting BradK

BradK noted in our previous discussion that he is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. I won't of course speak for BradK, but that phrase often translates as follows: I would vote for the Republican on fiscal issues but for the Democrat on social issues. Since you can't split your vote, you weigh the relative importance of the issues that matter to you, then you plug your nose and vote. Perhaps this is the quandary that BradK finds himself in as an undecided voter.

But are Democrats really all that socially liberal? I suppose the Dems are labelled as such because of a support for gay marriage and for the liberalization of drug laws. At first glance it would appear that the Dems are more socially liberal than the Pubs. But lets look a bit deeper.

As I stated in the most recent thread, gay marriage would involve a tradeoff with religious liberties. Would religions retain the freedoms of conscience thus far largely unchallenged, that is to fulfill their missions to serve their communities without having to, in effect, endorse behavior that they consider sinful? In a few states, Catholic Charities has gotten out of the adoption/foster care business rather than place children in same sex homes. And lately we have Obamacare which forces religions to violate core beliefs about the sanctity of life. Are the Dems behaving in a live and let live, socially liberal manner towards the major religions in the world?

And about that drug war, I am somewhat conflicted on this one. It is probably true that the Dems would lead the way in legalizing pot and other recreational drugs. But it is certainly true that the Dems have led the way in the assault on tobacco smoking. Businesses -bars and restaurants especially- are no longer free to determine their own policies on smoking. But the Dems don't want to stop there. They want to stop you from smoking in public parks here in Racine. Perhaps you are OK with all of this but this is not social liberalism in action.

And it is and will be the Dems determing the size of your slurpee, the temperature of your house, the brightness of your lightbulb and so on. 

Are the Dems really the more socially liberal party?