Blog #141 – What’s a Limerick anyway?

                        What’s a limerick, anyway>

A poem with  a particular trick

Is called by its friends a lim-er-ick

It needn’t be profound,,

But in  the end, must come around

To its  starting, to make a limerick tick.

The first line has to rhyme,

With the second, all the  time,

The third and fourth can go free

To please you and me, ,

But the fifth must rhyme with the first, we opine.

The best limerick is still the classic:

There once was a lady in Niger

Who smiled as she rode on a tiger

They came back from the ride

With the  lady inside

And the smile on the face of the tiger.

Blog #140 – On the Uses of Limericks

Blog #140 –     On the Uses of Limericks

A Would-be Poet Faces Reality

There once was a poor poet liking to rhyme

Who would do limericks whenever he had time.

But he was told instead  of trivia on  rthe page,

He needed to pick important topics and be  sage

But his smart  stanzas never brought him a dime.

So he decided to do topics of the day,

And see if his rhymed comments would pay,

But the news was always either too grim or untrue,

And the outcomes invariably ones we would rue,

That  he decided to let that  sad effort lay.

So he went back to verses of the heart,

In which each emotion could  play an appropriate part

But before the first line was out of the gate

He couldn’t figure out how  to deal with all of the hate,

And decided he better pick another topic for a start.

So: in Santa  Barbara the weather is always fine.

Of the world’s troubles there need nary be a line.

But: the nice climate may not last.

We might  all be blown up in one nuclear blast,

Better dilute the poems with some wine!

And turn to some more useful occupation while there’s time!

Blog 131 – the Impeachment Trial’s Indigestible Rules

Blog 131 – The  Impeachment Trial’s Undigestible Rules

How to evaluate the rules that  the Republican Senate will  impose on  the impeachment trial of President Trump will look when operational is not yet clear.  How might we evaluate them from what we know of them right  now?

One way might be to do it by  an analogy.

Suppose one tried to evaluate what might happen if the President decided, out of his insecurity in the outcome, to support the establishment of  a new restaurant in  New York, using the same rules that  his party has pushed through the Congress for the Impeachment trial, and named his son Donald Trump Jr. to manage it.  How might it be run, with the Impeachment rules as we know them thus far?

Imagine a visit in the  early weeks of its opening.  We go to  see how it might run, having been told  that  the rules insisted on as fair and efficient for the Impeachment trial will be  applied in a different setting

.*****

We would of course drive there, and be able to see  it already  from a distance, with its glowing neon sign boasting DONALD TRUMP’S HIDEOUT: THE GREATEST NEW RESTAURANT IN  THE USA SINCE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.  

As entered and a waiter showed us our seats, a  waiter brings us a streaming dish of hard-to-identify provenance. Asked what it is, we are told, ”our specialty for the day, selected for your pleasure by Donald Trump himself.”  

We ask, “may we see what else is on the menu?” Certainly,” we are told. “But  our rules provide that  we serve you the dinner of the day first, and show you the menu after you’ve eaten our specialty of the day,  so we can see if you  like it”.”

 “0h, all right , we said, “but what if we don’t like it? May we see the menu then”?

“Certainly , our pleasure,” he replied, and gave us a very large and attractive printed menu.

We considered, selected, and motioned the  waiter back to give him our order.

When we told him  what we wanted, he said, “I’m very sorry, but we don’t have that  dish today.”

“Well, it’s on the menu,” we said.

“ No,” they  said, “that  was yesterday’s menu. What you want isn’t on today’s  menu. And we only keep menus one day, so you can get a fresh one every day. That ’s the rule.”

“So couldn’t  you change the rules, to help folk like us who like to see what we might get  before we order? You can change your own rules, you know.”

“We’d be happy  to. . Just tell us what you’d like changed, and for when.”

“Why, for right a way, or course. We want to see the menu now, so we can order from it.”

 “Sorry, we can’t change rules that  quickly. We have to see  how the existing  rules work first, and that  takes time. Have you  any evidence that  the rules need to be changed?”

“Evidence? Why, yes,, not just everyday observation and personal experience, but also  a mountain of documents, tape recordings, and   witnesses that  can testify to their own preferences and to thee question of whether offerings are digestible or not. ” etc.  Just let us know what witnesses you want called, what  they would testify to, and when you want the witnesses called. We’ll  let you know what’s appropriate, after due deliberation.”

 (Sticking with the  analogy to  the Impeachment rules, of course.)

“It will take some time, however, they say. We don’t want to change rules hurriedly. And having all those witnesses testify, would just delay your dinners even  longer, and we don’t want them to get cold. Better wait for the witnesses till after diner and some debate. . The rules provide for that .  We hope  you all  will enjoy your dinners. We’ll  be in touch with you later. Thank you for your interest.”

“Oh. Well, perhaps we should  go elsewhere then, rather than waiting,“ we said.

“All right “, they said.”  “But before you go, here’s the bill for what you already  ate. Preparing these meals is expensive, you know. And printing new menus every day isn’t cheap either. And it takes time to explore a rule change.””

  “Oh, we said to each other, as we left, “ “the lesson seems to be: we need a new rule on how to change the rules. We better get at it quickly, if we want to have something other than what  Donald Trump has picked out for us. That  seems indigestible to us, so far..

*****

Or maybe the restaurant needs a new owner?

Blog#130 Nobel Economics Intro

Blog 130 – Nobel Prize Economics Introduction

“This research could reduce global poverty” claimed Jakob Svensson, member of the Prize Committee  as the Nobel Prize in Economics was announced. [1] The  only problem is, the work it celebrates can do no such thing. It is substantively myopic, ideologically  conservative,  technically weak, and probably net harmful in dealing with the serious real problems it addresses. wrong and harmful.

The biggest problem — and perhaps it  is a problem as much of the Nobel Prize committee and jury as of the recipients of the prize—is the hoopla that  celebrates  the work for which this prize was offered as making a big contribution to solving a big social  problem, the problem of poverty. The author’s’ work does indeed talk of “alleviating the problem of poverty ,” the problem of poverty the prize was won for [2]for their experimental approach to alleviating global poverty.”-but the work is dealing with it in an extremely superficial way, looking at some of its undesirable effects on its victims , proposing to rationalize ;and make more efficient small steps designed at best to ameliorate the  consequences of poverty, it doe not in any way address its  causes. In announcing the Nobel Prize award in economics, the prize jury said, “This year’s laureates have introduced a new approach to obtaining reliable answers about the best ways to fight global poverty,” the jury said. “The authors found efficient ways of combating poverty by breaking down difficult issues into smaller, more manageable questions, which can then be answered through field experiments, the jury said.”pp 78.

Thus, while doing what it does do may make a relatively small contribution to some minor obstacles to reducing poverty a little, it should not be allowed to detract from the attention needed to tackle the real causes of poverty. To present, as a proposal to alleviate children’s poverty, a proposal to put surveillance cameras in classrooms as a way of reducing teacher absenteeism on the theory that it reduces the effectiveness of their teaching  and thus their students’ ability to cope with poverty, really requires some thought about the other implications such a course might have. Attention to examining teacher’s pay, or  their working conditions, or their  teaching supplies or administrative support, working conditions, should  certainly deserve some thought as well. Is surprising us by proving that deworming children leads to improved attendance at school really “a new approach to obtaining reliable answers about the best ways to fight global poverty?,”

---

[1] Prize announcement. Nobel Prize.org. Nobel Media AB 2019. Tue. 29 Oct 2019. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/prize-announcement/

[2] “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2019 was awarded jointly to Abhijit Banerjee, Esther Duflo and Michael Kremer “

Blog #129 – Medicare and Beyond — For a Secure Health System

Blog #129 MEDICARE AND BEYOND – FOR A SECURE HEALTH SYSTEM

Beyond Medicare. How about a Secure Health System, analogous to the existing Social Security System?

We are a better country than we often want to acknowledge. We have a Social Security system, out of concern that old age should be secure and free of financial worry. We have an Unemployment Insurance system, out of concern that workers unable to find work in the open market should not be left in poverty or indigence. And we have Medicare, which can be seen as a fumbling step towards a health security system. We recognize, though we don’t often say so, that the Declaration of Independence’s call for government to provide for the security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable rights is an appropriate, indeed indispensable function of government, that that means measures guaranteeing all members of society security in having at least minimum access to what it takes to make those rights meaningful.

Wouldn’t a Secure Health Care system fit right into that pattern? Isn’t ill health, like old age, like joblessness, like physical vulnerability, a cause of painful insecurity that  we would like no one to have to suffer from – need we doubt the parallel appropriateness of police protection for all, or environmental protection for all?

Doesn’t every civilized country care, both practically and legally, for the health and welfare of its citizens, and directly implement minimum standards for what that entails?

What, then, would a “Secure Health System” in the United States mean? – a system in which every person can count on the fact that , if  they become ill, they will be taken care of, will receive the  treatment and the care that  they need??  

It would mean the setting of minimum standard of health care to which all are entitled, without regard to incomes or health problems, the treatment, the medications, the comforts, that their condition requires. If individuals are able to provide that for themselves without government assistance, good and fine, let them; do so, but whether or not they can do so on their own,  all are entitled to security in having the minimums, no questions asked. We don’t deny the rich police protection because the can afford private security, nor deny the children of the rich public education because they can afford private schools. Beyond that, if they want and can afford more, more power to them. We don’t ask social security recipients it they have better pensions, children if their parent can afford better schools, home owners if they have private security systems. All members of society are entitled to security in obtaining the benefits of civilization, period.                                                                 

Why should health care be any different? It shouldn’t. Yet it involves one of the few necessities of life in which direct provision by government is now very limited, in which major provision is by private entities and personnel, by and large, by the private sector, with  an interest in high  prices for their  own benefit.

Health care in the U.S. needs fundamental change today.  

What might a system providing Secure Health in the United States look like? It would not deal with insurance companies or facilitators. Doctors and hospitals and drug companies would submit their bills to it, and be paid, verifying only that the services billed for were actually rendered. The plan would be financed by a small tax akin to a payroll tax, levied on all adults. If proceeds were insufficient to cover all claims, the national government would keep it solvent, just like social security.

If necessary, some of Elizabeth Warren’s revenue proposals might be adopted as needed. The savings from eliminating paper-work and enhanced bargaining-power with providers, i.e. pharmaceutical companies, private hospitals, should produce major savings in cost – and annoyances..

              For more limited improvements in the current Medicare system,               see        Pmarcuse.wordpress.com, Blog #128, Solving the Fake Medicare Opt-out problem:    

Blog 128 – Solving the fake Medicare opt-out problem

Solving the fake Medicare opt-out problem,   with a fair health care system.

The debate about letting the healthy and the wealthy opt-out of Medicare is a fake debate. Each component has a pretty simple and feasible answer. The real debate is only as to the profits of insurance companies.

All the issues raised by the question of whether patients should be allowed to opt out of paying the Medicare tax if they buy their own private insurance can be fairly handled, with a little effort. Raising the issue is a booby-trap laid by insurance companies wanting to sell their policies and maximize their profits.

The response requires respecting the basic principle is that it is both morally and socially just and economically sound that the healthy share in covering the health care needs of the ill, that the wealthy share in helping with the needs of the less-well off– principles that are well accepted in core governmental policies, from social security to unemploment insurance public housing to the setting of progressive tax rates and our ddalyl-[too-day relations with each other. .

The basic answer is that in a fundamentally fair economy all should share in the ability to have good quality health care, regardless of their wealth or health. And all should have the same options. Further, the obscene level of paper work and rules and regulations about coverage should be eliminated. The need to worry about coverage, co-pays, prior conditions, time limits, source of coverage, overlapping policies is unnecessary, produces nothing, and is not cost-effective. Having a single payer or Medicare for All, or Universal Coverage, system (beware— “Medicare” means different things to different people) is not hard to structure. . Economically Medicare for all can simply give greater strength to taxpayers as against medical suppliers, when users can bargain collectively in setting rates with providers, preventing pharmaceutical companies and medical providers from taking advantage of their near monopoly position to fix rates. morally, simply requires adjusting tax and reimbursement rates to reflect the extent of need and the availavblity of the parties’ resources to met them. resources to meet them. A class system of medical care, in which the rich get better and faster care at the expense of the less-well-off A system of medical care in which the rich get better and faster care at the expense of the less-well-off is generally accepted as socially undesirable. Helth cares should be considered a necesity of lilfe, not a commondity to be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Such a class system can be avoided by not permitting providers to refuse treatment to patients on the basis of the source patients use for covering their bills, Medicare vs. private insurance. The medical profession as a whole should join in fixing fair reimbursement rates for all providers, bearing in mind a good faith obligation of fairness both to providers and patients. Care can be provided by providers of the user’s choice, not only to the healthy and the wealthy, who are likely to get unfairly favorable treatment from insurance companies and providers if they can pay more for treatment than the less well-off. Options should be equal for all. This is a democracy, and fairness is a core value.

(Elizabeth Warren’s plan recognizes all of the above. On the cost side, see: https://prospect.org/health/warrens-medicare-for-all-plan-includes-no-new-taxes-on-the-middle-class/).

For an even better, but probably today not yet politically feasible solution, see Blog #129, Medicare and Beyond: for a Secure Health Care System.

Blog 127 – Donald Trump the Great Negotiator

Blog #127 Donald Trump the Great Negotiator:

     The Secret of his Model

     Phase One. Have your staff in secret negotiate a meeting with your negotiating opposite number. Select an occasion and a setting that is photogenic.Meet your opposition there, shake hands, and become buddy-buddy with him or her. Tell the world how well you get along together, praise him or her effusively, Make a photo op out of it.

Phase Two. In a private meeting ideally just one to one, find out what your opposite most wants in the negotiations by asking your opposite directly. Tell your opposite that what is wanted is feasible, and promise it will be considered. Tell your opposite a few things you want that are likely easiest for your opposite to give. Forget about it, and move on.

Phase Three. Arrange a cordial handshake while arranging for further negotiations by staff. Announce publicly a complete private agreement with a promise that almost everything your opposite wanted is feasible and will be considered, holding back just enough and fudging key points so it won’t be seen as a complete surrender. In return, get a promise that everything you want is feasible, and a promise it will be considered. Proclaim a success for the negotiations, with a final embrace and warm words towards your opposite, and arrange a suitable photo op.

Phase Four.

Forget about it, and move on. Consider firing anyone in the cabinet or head of a major federal agency who is publicly taking the results of the foregoing negotiations seriously. Or expressing doubts that they should be implemented.

Phase Five.

If further delay becomes politically embarrassing, find something minor but concrete that you and your opposite can do to demonstrate progress, with a written firm commitment to implement if found feasible in detail. Example:  a freeze on any negative changes by either side for a stated time. Announce it publicly, with appropriate photo op.

Phase Six

Forget about it, and move on.  Consider firing anyone in the cabinet or head of major federal agency or acting as an advisor who is publicly taking the results of the foregoing negotiations seriously.

Phase Seven.

When the time for the freeze, for example, runs out, arrange for a further high-level meeting. Find something concrete that you and your opposite can do to demonstrate progress, and put in writing as a commitment, such as establishment for a permanent joint consulting committee between you and your  opposite to work on details. Arrange for a celebratory photo op. Announce the result as a great deal, perhaps one of the greatest deals ever made. In North Korean negotiations, the well developed model, Trump: “the encounter “historic” and “very legendary.” Forget about it, and move on

Phase Eight, Phase Nine, Phase Ten.

Forget about it, and move on. We have good relations. There are other priorities. Any criticism in partisan.