Sharing Thoughts and Ideas - 2019 and newer

  Many countries around the world levy a Value Added Tax (VAT). Conservatives resist the idea of adding a VAT to our tax burden would balloon government spending and the size of government. (I don’t like the VAT either, but I see no other viable solution to the gigantic national debt that we must find a solution for.) One could look with alarm at the tax burdens of other countries and believe that the VAT is to blame. Source: Revenue Statistics 2018 Tax revenue trends in the OECD , 2018 This graph shows total taxes of all kinds, as a percentage of the countries’ Gross Domestic Product. By comparison, the United States (5 th from the right) at 27.1% looks pretty low. But the graph applies the “bikini principle”: it reveals that which is interesting, but hides what is vital. Different countries do similar things in different ways. Most of the countries with apparently high tax burdens include health care costs in their government spending paid by taxes. In the United States, a large p

  There are no silver bullets. Empirical research has debunked many potentially promising ideas on how to control health care costs. Examples include: ·          The idea that if we insure more Americans, they will get care at a primary care office and not an emergency room, reducing spending overall, because, in fact, those who gain coverage  increase their emergency department use .  ·          Information technology  decreasing service duplication . ·          High deductible health plans  reducing wasteful care while maintaining valuable care . ·          Broad use of preventive care  reducing later spending. ·          Medicare accountable care organizations, where health-care providers have financial incentives to improve quality and reduce spending — greater care management activities were not associated with lower spending or better outcomes.  ·          A  randomized controlled trial  recently found little benefit from a multi-component wellness program in a large

We hear a lot these days about racial injustice, white supremacy and systemic racism. There are many misconceptions and sometimes intentional misinterpretations that perhaps I can help clear up. We all have biases, as what we believe is primarily based on our past experiences. We achieve these biases mostly unconsciously, so that there is no fault or blame to assign here. We have been immersed in a white dominant society. The effect is that we have been exposed to white being considered “normal” without our even realizing it. However, even if we have an unconscious bias against others of another race, religion, national origin or sexual preference, that does not mean we are discriminatory, as we can consciously choose to act discriminatorily or non-discriminatory. Bias, reinforced by the force of law, is the definition of “systemic racism”. Our national history is full of laws that have the intent of discriminating in favor of whites and against blacks and people of color. Some l

  Andrew Yang has proposed a Universal Basic Income of $1,000 per adult per month sent unconditionally, with some of the current welfare programs eliminated. https://2020.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/ https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/   As early as 2011, “CRS identified 83 overlapping federal welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011— more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these 80-plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Importantly, these figures solely refer to means-tested welfare benefits. They exclude entitlement programs to which people contribute (e.g., Social Security and Medicare).” CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget   Thus, at first glance, this looks appealing to help reduce poverty and reduce the bureaucracy of the bloated, complicated welfare system based on qualifying

  What if: ·          there was a way to address climate change where individuals and businesses could choose what climate mitigating options to choose from without the government telling us what to do, based simply on the relative prices of the options? ·          this could be done without most people, and especially lower income people, being any worse off financially? ·          this government policy would induce other countries to do the same so the policy would not disadvantage American businesses? ·          this policy would actually grow the economy, create jobs and leave Americans healthier? ·          And without increasing the federal national debt? Wishful thinking? No. There is a market driven, revenue neutral policy option that conservatives should like. In the last Congress it was H.R. 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act which involved a tax on carbon with all of the proceeds paid back to the people (less a small administrative fee) and a

We, as Americans, need to rededicate ourselves to our American ideals – the ideals of truth, justice and the “American Way”. The ideal of truth would be served by evaluating policy choices based on expert analysis of verified facts, not based on the way we wish the world was or how some fringe elements of our society have painted it based on some concocted theory. Considering what is actually true would help immensely in preparing for the future. Many of us nostalgically look back on the innocent, halcyon days of our youth (well, except for the “duck and cover” and “get to the fallout shelter” drills) and wish to return to those “simpler” times. But the reality is that times have changed. “The future ain’t what it used to be,” Yogi Berra is purported to have said. We need to now make tough choices based on the world as it now is, rather than how we wish it were, while working hard to make it the best we can. The ideal of justice involves not only equal opportunity but also adherenc