unemployment

25
Mar
2020

5 Wasteful Things People Buy

In a time of pandemic crisis, here are five semi-tongue-in-cheek suggestions to cut wasteful spending from your budget.

Leaf Blowers

A rake, broom, mulching lawn mower, or vacuum cleaner will do the same work, and most of us who would buy a leaf blower have those anyway. Leaf blowers are expensive, redundant, wasteful, and unnecessary power tools for lazy people who like to wake up their neighbors on Saturday mornings.

Convertibles

Maybe it’s because I live in Minnesota, but I don’t like the idea of spending extra for a car where the entire interior gets wet in the rain or any loose items within it are free for the taking to passersby unless I take the time and effort to put the cloth top up before I leave it. On the plus side, it would likely make for a less trash filled car interior . . .  I also don’t like the fact that the cloth top up is a permanent fixture eight months of the year because it’s too cold to have it down, and four of those months are so cold in Minnesota that the car heater can’t maintain a temperature above 55 degrees underneath the cloth top no matter how much you crank it. It’s also unnerving that if I were to get into a roll-over accident my skull would be the hardest thing between my brain and the ground.

Designer Purses

I have never understood the female obsession with designer purses. I use just one purse – a small black microfiber cross-body one I bought from a travel store that carries only my essentials – I slip it inside a larger tote bag if I need to carry something larger to hold my computer or other extras. I do have a couple of more decorative clutches for special occasions, but they spend most of their time in a drawer in my closet that also holds the pashmina someone got me as a gift that I say I’m going to wear but never do, and a few pairs of pantyhose that I wish I never had to wear but sometimes must. The one purse accessory item on which I will spend money to get just the right one – although I still don’t care what brand it is, nor even what color – is a high quality, small-size bifold wallet that holds my ID, credit cards, and currency yet still fits inside my trusty small black purse. But to have a closet full of designer purses that I constantly have to switch my essentials between in order to “match” my shoes or my outfit, many of which cost more than the monthly payment on my first ever new car? Um, no.

China & Crystal Dishware

On holidays and other special occasions it’s customary for many families to set out the “good china,” and the “crystal glassware,” which otherwise sits unused and displayed in a special piece of dining room furniture called a “china cabinet” or “hutch.” The thing about “good china,” and crystal stemware is that it is so fragile that even if your automatic dishwasher has a “china” wash setting, it is best to wash it by hand. And crystal stem ware will develop unsightly water spots if you don’t hand dry it right away. All of this must be done with extreme care – setting it out, eating & drinking with it, washing and drying it, and putting it back in the china cabinet – so that no piece gets marred by even the slightest chip. It’s a nerve-wracking process that takes much of the joy out of the meal, and I think one reason that there is so often a “kids’ table” at these meals is because children and “good china” simply don’t mix well.

It’s always been this way – pioneer women often packed only two dresses and one pair of shoes to take across the prairie in a rough-hewn wagon. But by gosh, they packed the entire set of china dishware they got as a wedding gift. We can forgive them their obsession because back then they didn’t have as many decorative dishware options as we have now. So – what’s our excuse for continuing to obsess about buying, passing down, storing, and breaking out the “good china?” Why do we even need it anymore? My attitude is that unless it’s a daily use workhorse like a cast iron pan, if it can’t go in my dishwasher it doesn’t belong in my house. I most certainly won’t spend tons of money on expensive dishware that requires its own storage furniture, creates more work for me, and gives me anxiety to use.

Expensive Brand Name Diapers

This should be self-explanatory considering what diapers are used for. Yet people must still buy Pampers Premium and Huggies Supreme diapers for their babies and toddlers or they wouldn’t still be on the shelves. Both of my daughters wore much less expensive Luvs diapers, and they didn’t have any more rashes or leaks than any other child that I knew of. All parents know that there is no diaper – premium, supreme, or otherwise that can handle the “back blow” leak that happens when a child has an explosive bowel movement while sitting in a car seat. And Luvs got smart by the time my second daughter came around and put fun pictures on their diapers too – so then I was even more unsure why people still bought the more expensive ones. In any case – considering the nature of their one-use purpose, it’s amazing how much parents are still willing to pay for the “right” brand of diapers. But then again, because our kids’ disposable diapers will still be sitting, completely intact, in landfills long after their former wearers are dead and gone, maybe it’s a long-term investment?

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Culture, Economics, History, Other, Parenting, Whimsy
24
Mar
2020

How to Make a Public Option Work

Even before the Covid-19 crisis hit the United States, I had been terribly frustrated by the health care debate because it doesn’t focus on the fact that our system of employer-provided private health insurance evolved in the immediate post-World War II era completely by accident. Employers started providing private health insurance to employees as a way to attract and retain workers, and strong unions negotiated health insurance plans as part of their bargaining strategies. It was the failure of the federal government to pass publicly funded health care when it created the Social Security system in 1937 that necessitated this trend, and Congress again missed its chance to provide universal publicly funded health care when it created Medicare in 1967 – it provided Medicare only for senior citizens, and no one else, and Medicaid was added as an option of last resort for the poor and disabled.

But that 75-year-old employer-provided private insurance system has eroded and failed us in the years since 1967, and it is long past time for a switch to universal publicly funded health care. Unfortunately, it likely cannot be done all at once, and it must be done in phases and carefully, because we will only get one shot at it and if we mess it up the backlash will be severe and we will end up with the status quo or worse for another decade or more.

I have studied all of the Democratic candidates’ health care plans, from moderate “public option for those who want it” plans to Bernie’s “Medicare for All, ” and I believe that none of them can realistically achieve publicly funded universal health care as written because they all forget one of two essential considerations.

1. It would be economically disruptive to completely end private insurance all at once. Not just the insurance and pharmaceutical industries will object, but also other businesses and the public will be resistant to radical change being forced upon them with a sudden mandated shift of everyone to Medicare for All.

That is where Bernie Sanders’ plan goes wrong, even though he proposes a phase-in period of a few years. It is still a forcible option that will be resisted strongly by the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, and other business sectors and members of the public will lack the incentive and confidence to support it enough for it to pass into law. It also does not do enough to mitigate the economic disruption and employee displacement created by the rapid dismantling of the private insurance industry.

2. The second essential consideration is that a pathway to universal publicly funded health care must include an extremely good public option that people will want, but the pool of people within it must be large enough to make it as cheap or cheaper than current private plans while still providing high enough provider reimbursements to support specialty care. Just adding a public option while saying all private plans should remain intact if people want them (as suggested by Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar) won’t achieve that. How to create a large enough pool of people while minimizing disruption and mitigating insurance and pharmaceutical industry resistance?

Do this: When rolling out a good, comprehensive public option – even one as generous as the one Sanders proposes – simultaneously release all employers with 1000 employees or less from the ACA obligation to provide insurance to their employees. In exchange, have those small businesses pay a nominal subsidy amount towards their employees’ public option premiums. This group of America’s smallest businesses would jump at the chance to unburden themselves from their current mandated and onerous health insurance and administrative costs. Most would likely not renew current private insurance contracts once they expire and tell their employees to switch to the public option.

If that option is good enough, premiums cheap enough, and providers find its reimbursements to be fair enough, then word will spread and individuals and families currently on more expensive ACA private plans will also switched to the public option. Larger employers will in turn start requesting to allow their own employees to make the switch. So then we could release all employers with 1001 to 5000 employees from the ACA obligations to provide employee insurance, and their employees can then also make the switch. After they are successfully onboarded into the public option system, release employers with 5001 to 10,000 employees, and so on until all employers of all sizes no longer are obligated to offer private health insurance to their employees. And if the public option is good enough and cheap enough, there will be many employees of even larger employers who are guaranteed employer provided plans who will opt out of their employers’ plans in order switch to the public option on their own just to save out of pocket costs for premiums and deductibles.


At first the public option will have to be taxpayer subsidized to keep premiums low enough and provider reimbursements high enough for viability. But as the pool of people opting for the public option grows, subsidy amounts will decrease. Once the pool of people on the public option is large enough, both Medicare and Medicaid can be folded into it and the public option can become a true prenatal to death health care system for all. Private insurance should not be outlawed – employers and individuals could still offer or purchase supplemental private plans if they want to, but the goal should be for the public option to be comprehensive enough that most people would not need supplemental options.

As for provider and manufacturer reimbursements, they should be set at a rate of fair return for what it actually costs to provide any particular service, treatment, or product. Medicaid and Medicare already do this, but reimbursement rates are currently set too low, especially for Medicaid. But these two sub-pools of people tend to be older and sicker than most, and folding them into the younger and healthier general population public option pool will allow for higher reimbursements while still keeping premiums as low as possible.

The Covid-19 pandemic debacle shows that the USA must achieve universal publicly funded health care. But it must be done in a phased manner that minimizes economic disruption and mitigates employee displacement and industry and public resistance to the switch. Phased release of employers from small to large size from their ACA mandates to provide insurance to employees can help facilitate that process as long as the public option is good enough, cheap enough, and its provider and manufacturer reimbursements high enough to make it a viable, if not preferred option for the vast majority of people.

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, Health, History, Politics
22
Mar
2020

Calling for a Coronavirus New Deal

As the US Congress & Senate continue to ponder economic stimulus packages, the sticking points between the parties appear to be direct aid to regular folks and small businesses versus bailout payments and loans to large industries hurt by the pandemic fallout. Pandemic aside, we’ve been here before – crashing markets, sharply reduced demand for many goods and services, and sudden rising unemployment – in 1929.

For three years after the crash, President Herbert Hoover refused to provide any significant stimulus, keeping United States currency on the gold standard and rejecting increased federal deficit spending, and calling on private charities to fill the needs of struggling Americans – charities that were soon overwhelmed as the unemployment crisis spread. It was not until Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933 that the gold standard was abandoned in favor of flexible currency and a massive experimental public jobs program called the New Deal was enacted by Congress. At least we know that after the Covid-19 pandemic subsides, most of those jobs currently lost will come back. FDR in 1933 had no such assurance. We also now have governmental and fiscal measures in place that allow for federal emergency deficit spending to spur and maintain the economy to keep a temporary recession from becoming a full blow depression.

But our current President and Congress remain reluctant to use these measures, and much of what they are willing to do is either insufficient or ill-targeted. Covid-19 has created tremendous pressure to ramp up certain parts of our economy – such as health care services, and the manufacture of health care equipment, groceries, and sanitary supplies – while depressing other parts of the economy such as travel/hospitality, bars & restaurants, and in-person entertainment venues. We need a Coronavirus New Deal jobs program to hire companies and people to fulfill the needs in areas most stressed, while saving unemployment and other direct payments for those least likely to be able to pay any such assistance back. We should provide zero or low interest loans to those who will be fine once the crisis is over and they can get back to work.

For instance, hire current nursing students and medical students to join health care teams and gain valuable experience by working on the front lines. In exchange for putting their educations on hold during the crisis, forgive their student loans and pay for the rest of their educations when they return to school. That would also free up their teachers to join the front lines as well. Hire appropriate companies both small and large who already manufacture similar items and provide funding for them to convert their production to items of shortage, such as ventilators and PPE equipment. After the crisis is over and they have returned to making their usual products, pay them a nominal amount to maintain the ability to convert their manufacturing back to health care products in the future if another pandemic seems eminent. Pay medical research companies to research and pro-actively develop treatments and vaccines for other anticipated pandemic illnesses. Incentivize public benefit over profit. Because if you don’t prioritize and incentivize public interests during normal times, you will be caught woefully behind the curve again and have to mandate it in times of crisis, which is what we are likely facing now.

Hire restaurants to deliver meals to high risk people and families in need who are financially stressed and trips to the grocery store or the food bank are risky or impractical. Hire pharmacies to fill pricey prescriptions for free so that unemployed people don’t have to forego their medications, and courier services to deliver needed medications to at-risk people. Hire counselors to provide free video consults to people who have mental health issues that are exacerbated by the virus and need extra attention and can refer those at high crisis risk to the appropriate local resources. Hire broadband crews to extend high speed internet infrastructure to places currently without it so that remote work and education options become more readily available to all. These are just a few ideas, but the point is that we should pay to hire companies and workers to fill necessary gaps, and save payments and loans for those who simply must ride it out.

In regard to large industries now asking for bailouts – make any taxpayer assistance, both direct payments and loans, dependent on future stock buy-back and executive compensation limits. And then pass comprehensive tax reform that makes large companies pay their fair share of taxes, start enforcing anti-monopoly laws, and enact campaign finance reform to make sure at the very least that there is transparency about exactly who is paying who how much, and for what. When it comes to assistance to the hotel industry, absolutely no payments should be made to Trump properties until a full disclosure of exactly how much taxpayer money has already been spent at those properties due to the Trumps’ own travel. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has refused to disclose the full amount, estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars, until after the November election.

Using a New Deal-like jobs program model to fulfill current societal needs while stimulating the economy is not 21st century rocket science – it’s a method that was improvised during the years 1933-1941, when the CCC, WPA, PWA, & TVA employed millions of Americans to build roads, dams, electric grids, and parks, as well as fight fires, do research, and embark on historical and artistic projects for public benefit. Given what we know now and our progress since then, we could do so much better during this crisis if we applied the same jobs and public need prioritization methods to the Covid-19 health and economic crises. Some of this funding and hiring could be funneled through the states, but we should pay companies and people to make and do the things most currently needed, and subsidize others hurt by the crisis according to their needs both now and projected for a time even after the crisis ends. In short, we need to incentivize the provision of what we need, and subsidize only what has been drastically put on hold according to ability to ride it out until the crisis ends.

Posted by cathythom@mac.com in Community, History, Politics