universal healthcare

[kandrathe]

Back at the turn of the twentieth century, when people still took care of their own, there was a small town that had a resident who was, as they said in those times, slow. To preserve his pride, the town made up a job for him. There was a brass cannon in front of town hall, and every day he polished it -- and that was his job.

One day, he strode into the mayor's office and announced he was quitting. The mayor asked him how he was going to earn a living. He replied, "I've saved my money and bought my own cannon. I'm going into business for myself." (Thank you, RAH).

:D You got me laughing.

You mean the government that supplies the national defense, the police departments, the fire departments, many of the hospitals, a lot of the schools and universities, emergency medical services, funds much of the basic research (that has no near term payback), sends out cutters to save incompetent yachtsmen (OK, maybe that can be eliminated), etc. etc.?

It's good to point at some of the stuff we really need, and can all agree that we need. I do have issues with our military spending, school spending, health care spending, and some of the risking of lives to rescue death defying fools who should know better. :)

A couple of things you mentioned had me meander off here with some thoughts, so if you'll pardon the diversions...

I'm glad you mentioned hospitals, as I was just discussing the state of rural non-profit hospitals with a friend tonight... In the US, hospitals are about evenly divided between public (mostly urban), non-profit, and private. Public and non-profit rural hospitals form a large part of the health care safety net for the uninsured and poor under insured. I was shocked that Obamacare did not include a substantial investment in re-opening, and building many additional hospitals. This would have actually helped to achieve the stated goal of lowering the price of health care by increasing the supply of services. Similarly, if you want to lower the salaries of doctors, provide incentives to attract more bright minds into the field. I'm not sure how I feel about the economics of it all, but it is worth noting. Think rural electric cooperatives, but instead make it hospitals and elder care.

Also, your mention of basic research got me to wondering what percentage of research funding actually comes from the government. So, I did a little googlefu and this appears to be a good source of the information I was looking for; New NSF Estimates Indicate that U.S. R&D Spending Continued to Grow in 2008 It looks like the feds supply about $42 billion, out of a pool of $397 billion. Granted, its all research and development dollars, so how much of industry research is in "basic science". It seems there is quite a bias in thinking that industry does not invest in basic research, and that in order to get this funding we need to turn to government. Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of Learning, published in 1605 argued that governments had to fund science because no one else would. But, I stumbled upon research done by Zvi Griliches at Harvard who in studying 911 companies found that those that engaged in basic research consistently outperformed those that neglected it. Anecdotally, both my sisters are published scientists, (one is a molecular biologist, and the other a chemist), and both do basic and directed research for industry, and (as far as I know) have never needed or received any federal funding. If fact my younger sister is a bit burned out by the decade of zeal in the new venture bio-tech industry. Her husband, who is also a NAS geneticist, worked with Barbara McClintock at Cold Spring Harbor on a company funded "sabbatical". But, perhaps some sciences are more popular, and that for stuff like particle physics might not attract huge corporate interest.

OK, but what is the basis for an economy? Buying and selling is all very good, paperwork has its place. Services are nice. But none of that generates wealth. Adding value generates wealth. The value that is generated when an ore is brought to the surface. Or when it is smelted and cast, rolled, hammered into useful shapes. Or when those shapes are turned into cars, toasters, airplanes, golf clubs. An individual might run a bodega. Or write software. Perhaps cast skillets and dutch ovens. But he's not going to build a 777. Or a Pentium processor.

True. The things we do need for our economy must add value. I'd say it's imperative we start to transition to a production based economy again. We cannot continue our decline as the worlds largest indebted consumers. I didn't think of Google, and if I had, I wouldn't have considered it a viable business. You can look at some of the most successful entrepreneurs, or some of the most successful corporations and their humble beginnings (e.g. Dell, Cisco Systems, Motorola, Best Buy, 3M). They didn't start out in the Fortune 100, or even necessarily doing then what they are doing now.

Yeah, we can probably go back to 1800 with small family run businesses and farms. After 90% of the population dies from starvation, that model would even work again -- for a while. But we can't even do that for 1900. By then the railroads and other industrial endeavors required more manpower than a family owned business could supply and more capitol than most families had.

I don't think so. I don't think there is enough need for the things a family run business can supply to employ all the steelworkers, autoworkers, stevedores, and seamstresses who's livelihood has been outsourced overseas or to robots. I don't think it is still possible for everyone (or even nearly everyone) to make it by hard work. Too much of the population have no skills, no abilities, no talents. The mindless, repetitive work once on the farm and later in the factory is being done by machines. And the creative, original work, is beyond them. Just what are you going to teach them to fish?

Some of my wife's relatives started Windows Magazine, and sold it to CMP in 1990. They had no idea when they started how to run a magazine business. A local legend here is Earl Bakken, who pretty much stumbled into changing the world.

The new immigrants in Minnesota seem to figure out how to make it work. And, they are doing the things that the native born don't seem to want to do (source).

I might be more of an optimist than you are. :)