Poverty - Sometimes the Problem, Sometimes a Symptom and Sometime Not an Issue

This whole issue about poverty has lead me to some deep thinking.  What exactly is poverty?  I find it rather odd that poverty seems to be solely defined in economic terms.  The whole thing starts with a materialistic mindset and measures how plugged into consumerism someone is compared to others.  Seems as though when the media is talking about poverty, they are really talking about those who are losing the rat race.

This raises the question, is it bad to be losing the rat race?  I was clearly losing the rat race while putting myself through college but I had some of the best times of my life.  Sure having enough money to eat three meals a day would have been nice but clearly it wasn't essential to my well being.  Looking at other parts of the world we can find entire communities that would classified as poverty stricken.  Do these people necessarily feel deprived?  What is their quality of life?  Are they happy?

I guess my issue with poverty is that it says more about the person collecting the data than it does about the population.  It doesn't identify people who are victims since some in poverty view themselves as rich.  Not being in poverty doesn't really mean anything either.  We as a country have not be able to address poverty because poverty isn't the problem.  Poverty is purely a measure of wealth and we should all know by now that wealth has very little correlation to anything other than having the ability to buy more "stuff".

What we really need to look at is the quality of life.  This includes basic needs such as food and shelter but also touches on the intangibles.  It includes internal values as well as interactions with others.  Poverty might be a useful gauge but only when used along side a full complement of gauges on a dashboard.  Here some gauges I think we need to focus on.

• 1 in 10 Americans is on antidepressants
• 36% of adult Americans are obese
• U.S. Suicide Rate 11.8 per 100,000 a year
• Over 2,000,000 people are incarcerated in the United States

Free Contreception - The Wrong Arguments

The debate over Obama’s requirement that contraceptives be covered by all employer health plans has been raging for a few weeks.  The Democrats have decided to push the issue from a women’s rights perspective while the GOP is trying to frame the debate around religious freedom.  The issue of religious freedom goes straight to the core of our government and no doubt needs to be more fully explored.   As for this being a women’s rights issue, I’m having a hard time making that connection.  What right is being infringed upon?  The issue isn’t about access to birth control, it’s about including birth control as part of a zero co-pay health care plan. 

The logic of this thought process goes to the root-cause of our health care problems in this country.  Does anyone really think that we get free stuff from our health care plan?  The cost of all those mandatory covered health care costs is what goes into that final number that comes out of every paycheck.  It is factored into the overhead costs of employers and impacts employee pay rates.  This debate over access to free birth control highlights the disconnect that has been created between health care utilization and the cost of those services. 

Very few people have true health insurance.  A policy that protects individuals from significant health care costs by spreading the risk over a population.  Think about how auto insurance works.  The only time a claim is submitted is when an unexpected lose occurs.   This is not how health insurance works in this country.  What we have is prepaid health care.  States and now the federal government mandate coverage for specific tests and procedures.  The cost of those services must be recouped through employee and employer health care plan payments.  These services are not free.  The concept may have started out with the best of intensions by making things such as mammograms available to women who couldn’t afford them but when a significant number of participants in a health care plan utilize that service the cost does not get very diluted. 

Let’s go back to auto insurance.  Let’s say that a state requires auto insurance to cover the cost of replacing airbags when the airbag light comes on indicating a problem.  Sounds like a great idea, doesn’t it?  Everyone’s auto insurance would go up a little to spread out the cost of this service.  It works so well that the state then requires insurance to cover the cost of replacement brake pads.  Now things have changed.  This is a big cost since at some point everyone will need to utilize this service.  Of course the idea of free brake pads is supported by everyone until they see the cost reflected in their insurance premiums.  The brake companies love this plan because they can now negotiate with insurance companies to make sure that only their brake pads are covered by a specific plan.  Then the gas companies seize on the opportunity.  Free gas is then rolled into insurance coverage.  Of course there are limitations and requirements but it’s free, right? 

The issue of health care covered contraception is not about women’s rights.  It’s about how we manage health care.  It about how nothing is free.  Sandra Fluke, like many Americans, have come to believe that there are truly free things.  Ms. Fluke testified before Congress on the cost of birth control and how it would be too much to bear for a college student but who then pays?  The woman with 3 kids trying to make ends meet as she sees the cost of her health care spiral out of control because everyone wants something for free.  Our health care system has reached the tipping point with this approach as there is no one left to spread the costs to, we now see a push for the federal government to step in but this is not a permanent solution.  For health care to return to a self-sustaining system, it must revert back to a true “insurance” plan where people are financially insulated from the massive costs of a one-time injury or treatment for a chronic condition.  The cost of birth control, prostate exams and Viagra should be the financial responsibility of the individual utilizing the service.    

We Need a Real Energy Policy

So President Obama has sprinkled the idea of clean energy through many of his proposed policies.  It’s been a cornerstone of his jobs programs and well has the main thrust of his energy policy.  Who wouldn't agree with the general concept?  We are all feeling the effects of our dependency on oil but when we start to talk about the details, that's where the agreement evaporates.  President Obama's plan, as expected, relies heavily on direct government intervention while the GOP would prefer private industry to take the lead.  It would seem easy to knock the GOP approach if it wasn't for Solyndra.  The federal government tends to do a bad job on picking winners.  Usually because of a bias or some unseen agenda that prevents purely object assessments.
 So which way is the correct way?  I’d like to first take a look at what hasn’t worked.  In late 1973 this country was crushed by an oil crisis.  Gas rationing was the norm and Americans were bombarded with government messages to reduce energy consumption.  Nearly 40 years have passed and although we have seen efforts to reduce our dependency on oil, our ever expanding economy has dwarfed those efforts.  We have also seen efforts to reduce the consumption of other forms of energy.  Electricity generation relies primarily on coal, natural gas, and nuclear sources.  Increased consumption has strained our electric grid.  Not just generation but transmission.  Energy star appliances, residential solar, and more efficient light bulbs have not been able to cause a significant slowing of this countries every growing electricity demand.  In fact electric companies in some areas of the country will pay industrial sites to run their back up generators during peak load times to take the strain off of the electric grid.  It’s a stop gap measure but these backup generators were never designed to function in this capacity and typically add cost to the business even after receiving payment from the electric company.
After being made aware 40 years ago of how oil prices can have a massive effect on our economy, we are yet again in the same boat although this time we can wrestle away more oil from other oil consumers around the world but we are paying for it.  So why haven’t all these efforts made a difference?  Because this country lacks a comprehensive energy policy. 
Everything about our modern society depends on energy.  Access and cost of energy is what drives our foreign policy.  It is what our politicians use to manipulate other countries.  It is what other countries use to manipulate the United States.  Shouldn’t this be viewed as the most serious national security threat deserving of a more focused approach?
Everyone can get behind the idea of oil independence but will that really solve our problem?  I propose an even loftier goal, individual energy independence.  That is where each person generates all the energy they consume.  Think about how truly liberating that would be for individuals, for the economy.  How would this look?  The home would be the source of energy generation.  The goal would be to have each home generating the energy needed to heat/cool and run appliances.  It would also generate the energy to power personal transportation. 
A national goal of individual energy independence could be used to drive policy at all levels.  Take a small component of the energy puzzle such as the power management chips in the electronic devices we use.  The government goal would be to have the most efficient power management chipsets designed and manufactured in the United States.  Federal agencies would then have the task of looking at what the government can do to facilitate that.  Not directly intervene but effect conditions that create unnecessary costs such as EPA regulations.  Semiconductor manufacturing creates a lot of hazardous waste but EPA regulations add a significant amount of unnecessary cost.  The regulations could very easily be rewritten to still protect the environment but in a way that reduces the cost of managing the waste. 
A challenge to the country to become individually energy independent would add the focus needed to direct alternate energy research.  It would challenge private industry and government agencies to work toward one goal.  It is something Americans’ could come together on rather than being divided.  It would allow the United States to be a leader and an example to the world of what mankind is capable of. 
 

LIBYA
"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and - more profoundly - our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are," Obama said. "Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action."

 SYRIA
United Nations High Commission for Human Rights estimated that government forces had killed at least 3,500 civilians.

LIBYA
Oil reserves in Libya are the largest in Africa and the eighth largest in the world with 46.4 billion barrels.

SYRIA
Oil reserves in Syria 2.5 billion barrels.

Nice try Obama.  Our foreign policy is still all about the oil.  Time to change course.  Ron Paul is the only candidate we can trust to do the right thing.  Not just say the right things when its convenient. 

PSU Students Hide in Dorms

While many PSU students rallied in support of Joe Paterno other students who were victims of child sex abuse cowered in their dorm rooms feeling victimized once again.  Not only are these students attending a school where several school officials helped facilitate the rape of children, they are also attending a school where the student body is more concerned about a football program than the victims of child sex abuse.

A friend of mine said it best.  "PSU's football program will recover long before any of the victims do."