Experience as a guide

It is said that any successful CEO can move to a new line of endeavor completely foreign to his experience and, after learning the details of the new line of activity, do well at it. This seems to be true in some cases but not in others.

Fourteen US Vice-Presidents have become president. Of these, several are considered outstanding--Harry Truman, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson--and the rest are considered to have been more or less average. Thus being vice-president, as the office has been operated up to modern times, has not led automatically to a better presidency. Forty-two different men served as president and twenty-eight of these had no direct experience of the office (were not vice-presidents) until they were inaugurated. The twenty-eight men who had no direct presidential experience did just as well or better on average than the fourteen who served as VPs.

These observations apply directly to the present situation in the Democratic primary race. Hillary claims that her governmental experience will allow her to be a more effective president than Barack Obama. But the historical record as shown by the success of presidents with vice-presidential experience does not bear out this argument. Both are likely to be as successful or unsuccessful as their talents, politics, and chance dictate. The success of either will not be based primarily on their prior governmental experience but on themselves and on factors largely beyond their control.

Believing that Hillary will be a better president than Obama based on her governmental experience is wishful thinking.

Nader and 2008

John McCain and Barack Obama have both endorsed Instant Run Off voting. In this voting scheme you vote for your favorite to win the election and also for your second and third or more choices. If your first choice doesn’t win, this candidate is dropped from contention and your second choice is added to the vote count. This process continues until a winner is found.

Many people agree with Nader’s analysis of the present state of the US political and corporate climate. But we will not vote for Nader because of the danger that wasted votes might elect a Republican. Nader’s belief that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans is clearly and bull-headedly wrong. The Democrats may be not much better than the Republicans but that’s what elections are all about. You try to elect the best candidate, because there are no perfect candidates.

Nader apparently has not come our for IRV but it would be to his advantage to do so, since his supporters could vote for him without fear of ruining the basic election. Whether Nader comes out for it or not, NY State (and other states) should implement the scheme as fast as possible. Maybe some of it can be done in time for the 2008 election.

Health Care 01; Those with no insurance

One way to improve the health of those with no insurance is to set up a special health group. The health group would function something like the microfinance system that's been so successful around the world. Anybody could apply to the Group for financial aid for any health problem, preexisting or new.

If the applicant had no insurance and no significant resources, he would be allocated enough money to begin medical treatment. Payment would be made by the Group to either a doctor, a medical group, hospital, or directly to the applicant if he needed to buy prescriptions or have similar expenses.

If the applicant had inadequate insurance to cover his problem, he would be provided with the additional amount of money needed for his treatment. People with adequate insurance (as determined by the medical treating group) would not be eligible for help from the group.

Any financial help extended to any applicant would be recorded but the applicant would not be required to make any payment, immediately or in the future.

If the applicant regains health and begins to make money, the possibility of repayment arises. If the applicant makes enough to pay income taxes, one of the best ways for such payments to be made would be for the IRS to grant special treatment to those who receive aid from the group. Suppose the applicant had an IRS bill of $500, and suppose he owed $1000 to the Group. Provide that in such a case the IRS would rebate 10% of his IRS bill to the health group. Thus $50 of his IRS tax would go to the health group and $450 to the IRS. The applicant would also be free but not required to make payment to the Health group at any time.

Over time, the Health Group would receive money from donations, from repayments by recipients and by payments from the IRS. The initial funding would come from initial donations.

How much would be needed to set up such a system? Assume a community in which 10,000 people have essentially no health insurance and little resources if a medical problem arises. Assume that an average payment of $1000 per eligible applicant is made. This would be a total advance of $10 million by the Group. In any American community having 10,000 medically insolvent people you are likely to find a number of multimillionaires, and possibly a billionaire or two. A fund drive of the right sort should be able to raise adequate funds fairly easily.

What else is required? Somebody to lead and champion the project.