Benefiting Seniors

I just finished reading a short article at The Weekly Standard, by Gary Andres, about how the new Medicare prescription drug program is going. It's actually looking pretty good, with seniors who were once frustrated at the confusing process of choosing from the myriad of plans now settling in and feeling comfortable with their choices. Andres says that 90 percent of eligible seniors now have prescription drug benefits, and are responding very favorably in opinion polls as to their satisfaction with their coverage. What's more, it's becoming clear that the program is actually going to cost the government considerably less than first predicted, due to private sector involvement and market competition.

Andres focuses on the fact that this good news could help the GOP politically, since it was Republicans who pushed the coverage through, despite objections from both the left and the right. (Libs thought it didn't do enough. Cons thought we didn't need another costly entitlement.) Most Americans think there should be some kind of coverage, so Republicans probably won't lose any political points on this one, especially since it's off to a good start.

That concerns me less than the benefit this is to people I know and love. My mom, for example, has been telling me some of the good results she's had from the program lately, with unexpected prescriptions not creating a burden for her financially. She, like so many others, was somewhat frustrated with the choices involved at the plan's inception, but it's looking like a blessing now. I'm not very fond of entitlement programs, particularly when they push individual social responsibilities off onto government. However, if this continues to be a good thing for seniors, especially if the cost continues to fall under expectations, I'd say this may work out all right. If we're making the decision as a society to value our older citizens, and provide the medication that will keep them with us longer, that's a good indication that, at least in some areas, our values aren't totally off base. I don't care politically whether that benefits the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Friends of Green Leafy Vegetables Party, as long as it benefits our moms.

Update: I felt the need to clarify, because of a comment I received. The comment was in essence that the elderly and young should be guaranteed the necessities of life. I sympathize with the sentiment, but can't agree with it in practicality. People ought to provide for themselves wherever possible. I don't believe that anyone should fail to prepare for their own retirement, and expect other people to foot the bill when they get older, which (human nature being what it is) I fear would be the result of a social assurance that all ones needs would be met at a certain age. That concept would foster irresponsibility on the part of the young, and a selfish perspective, only focused on the now, leading to short-sighted decision making. Further, because most would never save for the future, they would have nothing left to share with others who have less than they do, thus depriving them of the benefit that comes from being a blessing to others instead of a burden.

It is not always possible for well-meaning people to prepare adequately for retirement. Life is full of uncertainties. In an ideal world, everyone would earn their way, and have an abundance to give to others. The world is not ideal, however, and there are true needs that we face as a society. My point in the post was that, as entitlement programs go, this one could end up being less troubling than originally expected, and that it is a good thing that we are showing value for our parents--as long as we can do it without stealing from our children at the same time, by contracting them to pay for programs that are financially unsound and provide insufficient benefit to the elderly they are intended to aid. The prescription drug program looks like the benefit might balance the cost (largely due to private sector involvement and the forces of competition in the market), which makes it much more worthy than many government endeavors. As long as it continues in that direction, it's a noble effort that might fulfill its promise.

Simplified Redistribution Of Wealth

So, how would you feel about the U.S. scrapping our entire welfare system and replacing it with an annual payment of $10,000 to every American citizen of 21 or older? That's the idea being floated in Charles Murray's book, "In Our Hands," as Tim Worstall tells us at TCS Daily.

Here's the gist of it:

The basic plan is so terribly simple. Take all of the money we currently pay out through the tax and benefit system on everything like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps (whatever the current name of that program is) student aid, all the programs which take money from one group to give to another, and abolish those programs. Yes, simply do away with them.

Worstall continues:

Instead of sucking all this money into Washington DC and then allowing the Congresscritters to parcel it out to favored constituencies, along with the heavy tithe taken for the bureaucracies, simply hand it out as a $10,000 a year payment to each and every adult citizen.

There would be, no doubt, myriad objections from left and right in response to so radical an idea. This article is the first of a two part series, answering objections to the plan from both. Worstall's first in the set answers some of the anticipated howling from both the right, and the libertarian schools of thought. The objection boils down to a rejection of the redistribution of wealth as an intrinsic part of our social system. Worstall's response is basically that redistribution of wealth is here to stay. We'd better get used to the idea. He instead focuses on the practicalities.

I'll stick with my basic thought that the reason to oppose statism isn't that redistribution is immoral (although it may be, to your taste) it's rather that the actual way it is done is so hopelessly complicated that it manages not to achieve its stated aims. The Plan, to my mind, neatly sidesteps almost all of these problems. Instead of a web of grants, tax breaks, allowances, subsidies for this or that, there is simply one payment to all. It's not enough to live comfortably on, but it will provide for the basics.

Worstall goes through a number of the pros and cons of reducing the redistribution system to such a basic level, but there was one argument I found particularly intriguing. He noted how, in the current welfare system, marriage can actually be a liability. Women raising kids alone get more money from the state, so men who are not very financially productive are in effect a hindrance to prosperity. On the other hand, when both a father and mother are receiving that same ten grand, suddenly both parents are a financial asset, merely by their existence.

The simple advantage of eliminating massive amounts of bloated government bureaucracy makes the simplification scheme an idea to consider, but the notion of government subsidies actually being an encouragement to stable family life, rather than a deterrent, gives added punch to a concept already holding some natural appeal.

Bombing The Bird Flu?

Dr. Henry I. Miller, writing at TCS Daily, proposes A Bird Flu Manhattan Project. For those of you not up on the latest looming medical calamities, the scientific community is more than a little concerned about the potential of a flu virus that has been killing birds in China for a decade, and is rapidly spreading around the globe via bird migration, to trigger a human influenza pandemic. The H5N1 virus is currently contagious from birds to humans, and the fear is that the virus will mutate into something easily transmitted from human to human. The virus has proven quite deadly to people, so a mutation of that kind would certainly warrant great concern.

I've been watching the development of this story for a while now, and have seen both alarmist viewpoints and cautions against panic. The most reasonable discussions tend to come to the conclusion that whether or not this particular virus turns into a major threat to humans, at some point we are going to face a pandemic of some sort, if history is any indication, especially given the way the globe has shrunk with the ever-increasing ease of transportation. Our potential to create enough vaccine to face any pandemic, by all accounts, is woefully inadequate. Currently, new scientific approaches are hindered by FDA regulation and the lack of financial profitability, and there are nowhere near enough facilities available for the mass production of an effective vaccine, once one is developed. Dr. Miller believes we need to address the problems created by government regulation and financial disincentive that have made vaccine development of all kinds a shrinking field, and prepare for possible pandemic now, while there's still time to develop effective countermeasures.

The Manhattan Project approach seems to be a wise suggestion; let the government spearhead medical advances previously hindered by its own bureaucracy. Dr. Miller's article isn't all negative. Quite the contrary. There is some encouraging progress on the scientific front. Those advances will affect our ability to immunize the world's populations against disease of all sorts, not just the bird flu. That is worth some investment. What the doctor is suggesting is that the government start acting like a conduit for advancement, rather than a bureaucratic roadblock. The whole notion is a little counter-intuitive, and might take a bit of getting used to, but wouldn't that be an adjustment we'd all be happy to make?