Author: Steve

  We decided to take down a tree in the thicket behind the house.  For that we’re using the chainsaw on a stick.   It’s such a cool invention.  It’s battery powered, with the battery being back at the handle, to keep as much weight out of the business end of the saw as possible.   We did this to ourselves.  There wasn’t anything there in the back to begin with when we moved in.  I decided to plant a thicket of native Texas plants.  Everything I planted has flowers or berries that attract native species.  One of the things I planted was a huisachillo tree.  It’s not a husiache; it’s not as big, but still it turns out to be too big for that little space behind the house.  Thus the chainsaw on a stick.   We’ve been at this a week.  We cut off a few branches at a time each day, then lop and clip them up into chunks that will fit into big paper yard bags.  (at a hundred degrees, we’re limited as to how much we can do at a time before we retreat into the outdoor shower or back inside to the air conditioning.)   We’re almost done.    A few more cuts down into manageable chunks.  We think fifteen yard bags altogether will do the job.  

  Outside of Texas you may not have heard of him.  He’s running for Senator against Ted Cruz.  You’ve probably heard of Ted Cruz.   Beto is getting a lot of attention for a recent video.  He was asked a question, by a person not sympathetic to how his answer was going to go, about a controversial topic.  He did a great job of setting the stage for his answer, acknowledging how strongly people feel about it, then actually took a clear position with his answer.  I like the last part the best.  He didn’t duck and dodge, then answer a question that wasn’t even asked, he gave a straight answer!   Beto O’Rourke clip   Beto O’Rourke.  I hope he wins a senate seat.  

So if you like the idea of Medicare for all you present it as a way to lower the overall cost of healthcare and a way to include everyone.  If you don’t like the idea and want to kill it, call it the biggest tax increase ever.  If it becomes a campaign issue in 2018 and 2020, it’ll be interesting to see how it’s presented and opposed.   (I think any implementation issues, like who gets the benefits and who pays the taxes, can be sorted out.  In fact, I think I should be appointed to that task force.)    

    Medicare for all.  Who doesn’t like Medicare?  Judy and I are fine with it.  It’s run by the government, but it doesn’t seem like government intrusion in our lives; it’s just a way to simplify medical care and it works.   The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other developed nation but doesn’t get as good medical outcomes as many other countries do.  It seems like Medicare for all would be such a simple solution:  spend less, get better care, and include everyone.  On a macro scale, it’s hard to argue against it.   But I see a problem with implementing it.  Even if it costs less overall (no profits for insurance companies), it would require a change in who pays and how.  Instead of employers and individuals paying healthcare premiums, the government would cover the cost.  Individuals would no longer have to pay insurance premiums, but they would have to pay taxes to fund the government program.  Paying less additional taxes than the insurance premiums would be a win, but there is another scenario.  Employer paid health insurance.  Plenty of employers still pay health insurance for their employees.  If you take the health care premiums away from the employer, but add the additional taxes to the individual, that’s a problem.  Over time, that differential would sort out, but it could take a while.   On a grand scale, and with a long time-horizon, Medicare for all could be the way to go.  On an individual scale, and in the short term, implementation for some could be awkward.    

  Medicare for all.  Who doesn’t like Medicare?  Judy and I are fine with it.  It’s run by the government, but it doesn’t seem like government intrusion in our lives; it’s just a way to simplify medical care and it works.   The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other developed nation but doesn’t get as good medical outcomes as many other countries do.  It seems like Medicare for all would be such a simple solution:  spend less, get better care, and include everyone.  On a macro scale, it’s hard to argue against it.   But I see a problem with implementing it.  Even if it costs less overall (no profits for insurance companies), it would require a change in who pays and how.  Instead of employers and individuals paying healthcare premiums, the government would cover the cost.  Individuals would no longer have to pay insurance premiums, but they would have to pay taxes to fund the government program.  Paying less additional taxes than the insurance premiums would be a win, but there is another scenario.  Employer paid health insurance.  Plenty of employers still pay health insurance for their employees.  If you take the health care premiums away from the employer, but add the additional taxes to the individual, that’s a problem.  Over time, that differential would sort out, but it could take a while.   On a grand scale, and with a long time-horizon, Medicare for all could be the way to go.  On an individual scale, and in the short term, implementation for some could be awkward.    

    On the Rio Grande.   It’s hot and still.  The river cane is healthy and high.   Overhead, amongst the gray hawks     And Swainson’s Hawk   A swallow-tailed kite drifts into view.