The California State University system is in a pinch. Due to budget constraints they’re going to cut freshman enrollment by 10% this year. The state simply can’t afford to lay out more money for the system. There is an alternative, though: raise tuition. Currently the state pays about $2.97 billion versus $1.5 billion paid by students. If the average cost of attending a CSU school is $3,800 would raising it by even 50% deny anyone an education? The real problem is that CA residents have come to expect such low rates and rely on the government to provide the bulk of funding. Note to CA residents: your state is broke. It’s time to move away from that nanny state mentality.
A recent survey indicates that almost half of America’s primary care physicians would leave medicine if they had the opportunity. The main reason given was “red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.” Per the same article another survey shows less than 2% of medical students are going into primary care. Insurance payments are going down and Medicare/Medicaid just don’t pay. The solution to this problem is obviously not to increase the involvement of insurance and government—the plan proposed by our next president—but to reduce it.
One step in the right direction would be to have patients pay more (or all) of the fees for primary care and to reduce (or eliminate) the share paid by insurance. A number of benefits would immediately accrue. First, physicians would receive more immediate payment (increased cash flow) and be encouraged to stay in primary care. This is crucial to avoiding a critical crisis in our health care system. They’d have less paperwork to deal with and be far less dependent on prompt payment by insurance or Medicare/Medicaid. Second, with patients responsible for a higher share of the payments they’d become more cost conscious, generating competition and driving down costs. Additionally, insurance premiums would come down as the industry moves toward plans that cover mainly, if not exclusively, major medical (e.g., surgery, chemotherapy) rather than primary care.
The current system doesn’t work. The fix is not to add more of the same (by making insurance available to everyone) but to make a fundamental change toward individual responsibility.
Are we even seriously considering bailing out the U.S. auto industry? Their financial woes are largely of their own (and unions’) making. Where does this insanity end? You make bad decisions, you suffer the consequences. Every industry has ups and downs. Even in a strong economy it’s a bad idea to prop up poor management. In a downturn it’s disastrous. What’s next? The mining, timber, electronics, and semiconductor industries are hurting as well. I suppose it’s only logical that we should shell out billions to keep them all going as is instead of forcing them to make tough (i.e., good) decisions and restructure their businesses.
At some point we have to make grown up decisions. If the domestic auto industry completely tanks, there will certainly be a lot of people hurt. We must,however, get away from the welfare mentality and ask what’s good for the country. Corporate welfare is not, particularly when it comes at the cost of continually increasing federal debt and placing that burden on future generations (since ours certainly won’t be able to pay it off).
Back to basics, folks. Personal responsibility. Consequences.
Another day another hijacking. This time it’s a Saudi supertanker full of oil. Are we learning anything from these attacks? Apparently not, as there are more than a dozen pirated ships (and crews) still being held for ransom. Here’s the money quote:
Once pirates get aboard, however, the ship is theirs, because crews on commercial vessels are rarely armed, according to Mr. Choong and other maritime experts. “They are not mentally or physically fit enough to handle weapons,” he said.
Nor do many ship owners use armed contractors — seagoing mercenaries — to fight or ward off approaching pirates. Experts said crew safety and insurance liability were overriding concerns of captains and owners.
“We do not advocate this, having armed escorts on board,” said Lee Yin Mui, assistant director of research at the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships at Sea. Known as ReCAAP, the 16-nation network is based in Singapore.
“Armed escorts could only escalate the situation,” she said, “and perhaps trigger off heavy crossfire.”
Um, yeah. Or the rightful termination of said miscreants could persuade others to choose a different line of work. I’d like to see some evidence that ReCAAP is actually doing its job…combating piracy. The current situation indicates they’re encouraging more of the same.
To (reluctantly) quote Dr. Phil, “How’s that workin’ for ya?”
[Update]
Apparently not so well. This time it’s a shipment of wheat.