Recent columns by Dr. Bill Roy

Dr. Bill Roy served in Congress from 1971-1975, representing the Kansas Second District, which at the time included the western half of Wyandotte County. He narrowly lost to Bob Dole in a Senate election in 1974. He also ran for Senator in 1978, in a contest against Nancy Landon Kassenbaum.

Dr. Roy is a retired physician and attorney. He writes a weekly column that is printed in the Topeka Capital-Journal. Here are a few of his recent columns.

Column for week of May 28 - June, 04 2008

Column for week of April 30 - May, 07 2008

Column for week of April 16 - April, 23 2008

Column for week of April 2 - April, 09 2008

Column for week of March 26 - April, 02 2008

Column for week of January 30 - February 6, 2008

Column for week of January 16 - January 23, 2008

Column for week of December 26 - January 2, 2008

Column for week of November 28 - December 5, 2007

Column for week of November 21 - November 28, 2007

Column for week of November 14 - November 21, 2007

Column for week of November 7 - October 14, 2007

Column for week of October 24 - October 31, 2007

Column for week of October 17 - October 24, 2007

Column for week of October 10 - October 17, 2007

Column for week of September 26 - October 3, 2007

Column for week of September 19 - September 26, 2007

Column for week of September 12 - September 19, 2007

Column for week of September 05 - September 12, 2007

Column for week of August 29 - September 05, 2007

Column for week of August 22 - August 29, 2007

Column for week of August 15 - August 22, 2007

Column for week of August 8 - August 15, 2007

Column for week of August 1 - August 8, 2007

Roberts has much to overcome in next bid

Column for week of May 28- June 04 2008

This past week we honored those who perished protecting our nation and our freedom.

The first Memorial Days I remember were in the 1930s, and were called Decoration Days. Those who were to serve in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq were just youngsters, or unborn.

My dad, a World War I veteran, was once commander of our small town American Legion Post. My laughing, Irish mother enjoyed events held at the Legion Hall, a major social center for the less persnickety in our town. They played cards and bingo, and alcohol was available. I read the Legion Magazine.

It followed naturally that several Decoration Days I proudly sold artificial red poppies for a dime. By the time we school children were done, nearly everyone in town had one on their shoulder.

The red poppy was then an American symbol honoring those who died in World War I, although the great war poem, "In Flanders Fields," was written by a Canadian physician, Major John McCrae, at the Second Battle of Ypres (there were four!) on May 3, 1915, nearly two years before we entered the war.

The poem mourns the dead, but urges the living to fight on, indicating the writer, like his compatriots, believed this was the "war to end all wars," and must end victoriously. Because Europe had had no great wars since the Napoleonic wars ended in 1815 a century earlier, they had come to believe indefinite peace would be possible after they gave aggressor Germany a good whipping.

My generation grew up familiar with McCrae’s expression of grief and anguish, but when our turn came, nearly without exception we answered the call to duty.

"In Flanders Fields the poppies blow/ Between the crosses, row on row/ That mark our place; and in the sky/ The larks , still bravely singing, fly/ Scarce heard amid the guns below.

"We are the Dead. Short days ago/ We lived, felt dawn, saw the sunset glow,/ Loved and were loved, and now we lie/ in Flanders fields."

This concludes one of the strongest anti-war messages ever written. But McCrae, like patriots everywhere and ever since, felt the dead’s sacrifice should not be in vain; the war must be fought until the enemy surrendered unconditionally.

"Take up our quarrel with the foe:/ To you from failing hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high./ If ye break the faith with us who die/ We shall not sleep, though poppies grow/ in Flanders fields."

It didn’t work. Not quite 21 years after the Armistice of 11/11/1918, Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, beginning the European portion of the most horrible of all wars.

Like World War I, we fought that war to unconditional surrender. The torch was held high by the surviving until Germany, Japan and their allies capitulated.

These were, by far, the two most deadly wars in history. An estimated 20 million died in WWI, divided about equally between military and civilian deaths. Of the estimated 72 million who died in WWII, 47 million were civilians.

At least three things of immense importance have followed these slaughters.

World War III has not happened. World leaders, at least to this time, realize the 90 million who died in the two early 20th century wars would be miniscule compared to those who would perish in nuclear war.

Two large American wars, one in Korea and the other in Vietnam, were not fought to unconditional surrender. The price of conquering nations on the Asian land mass was considered too high. Nevertheless, to this day, presidents are dishonored for not pursuing these wars further.

Very significantly, twenty-seven European nations have joined the European Union, making it unlikely major war will begin again in Europe. These nearly one-half billion people, who live in the world’s most educationally and technologically advanced nations, have chosen not to teach war again, but to concentrate their resources on the well-being of their citizens, and serve as an example for the world’s other six billion inhabitants.

Will it work? To preserve civilization, it must.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of April 30- May 07 2008

Now or soon, a government "stimulus check" will be deposited in your bank account or placed in your mail box. You may initially cheer, but, sooner or later you will realize this is just one more step in the weakening of the American dollar, and, in fact, represents more debt that must be repaid someday, probably by your children and grandchildren.

Presumably, your only responsibility is to rush our and spend the money, in order to stimulate a lagging economy. And, sure, $600 per adult will help pay the inflated prices you are encountering at the gas pump and grocery counter, but for only a very short time.

While the checks, which will total $130 billion, will be United States Government checks signed by a U. S. Government functionary, they should be signed by a member of the Saud family of Saudi Arabia, or by someone in China, because that’s where the money is coming from, and whence it will return. The return mechanisms are simple, and explain in part the weakening of the American dollar.

The Wall Street Journal published a chart recently showing how much the price barrel of oil has increased in euros and in dollars. For those of us without degrees in economics, they explained, "since 2003 the dollar price of oil has climbed far more rapidly than the euro price--273% in dollars, compared to 146% in euros," much of it in the second half of last year.

They further explained, "it means had the dollar merely retained the same purchasing price as the euro, today’s price of oil would be below $70 a barrel." Devaluation of the dollar does have consequences.

Add the price-pressure on oil by speculators who are betting the dollar will be further devaluated by Republican fiscal policies and Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, and you realize it isn’t the sacred law of supply and demand that explains gasoline heading for $4 a gallon, but government economic malfeasance.

With the dollar depreciating, the world-wide practice of pricing commodities in dollars is at risk, which would be another shock to the American economy. But, you don’t have to be Prince Abdullah or Hugo Chavez to want to avoid being caught holding the bag when the rush on depleted dollars really begins.

Much of the stimulus money that does not leave the country to pay for oil imports, will leave the country (after a pause in Arkansas) to pay for "stuff," which we buy mostly from Asia. In turn, Asian governments will buy more U.S. government bonds and hold our progeny for more ransom.

We bought $763 billion more from abroad in 2006, than we sold abroad. The negative balance of payments is even greater than the negative balance of trade, because we drop dollars abroad by traveling and by military adventurism--have you seen that embassy (city) in Baghdad?

The trade deficit has moderated some recently, in part because of the weak dollar, but the time when we sold more than we bought is a distant memory, predating the Nixon presidency.

If the stimulus package fiasco isn’t enough foolishness, John McCain and Hillary Clinton think calling for a summer-time moratorium on collecting the federal gas tax of 18.4 cents a gallon will buy them votes.

It’s not "let them eat cake, but, "let the government run on fumes." And repair the federal highways and bridges with bubble-gum.

Is there any relief in sight?

Maybe. In 8 months, George W. Bush will no longer be president and subject to Richard B. Cheney’s miserable mantra, "Deficits don’t matter; Reagan proved that."

But to this point, no candidate has given a "blood, sweat and tears" economic message, and none will, unless demanded by the voting public, which is unlikely. Maybe after inauguration.

Meanwhile, enjoy your checks. I know many of you need them for everything from school bills to mortgage payments.

And, yes, I too wish there were a free lunch. But if you think there is, re-think while you’re filling your gas tank with gasoline refined from $113 a barrel oil, the consequence of a weak dollar and other economic foolishness.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of April 16- April 23 2008

It’s all coming together this week at the old family home on Lakeside Drive here in Topeka, a daughter’s love, fifty years of family memories, and the critical two-week annual fundraiser for Topeka’s Every Woman’s Resource Center. The 28th Annual Designers’ Show House will run through May 18th, Monday-Thursday, 10-7, and Friday-Sunday, 10-5.

Not only will thousands visit the greatly remodeled home and see the wares and talents of Topeka’s best known designers and builders, but many will have a catered lunch and enjoy Spring’s greatest glories in a large tent in the small park dissecting Lakeside and Westover Drives across the street from the home.

Tour tickets are $9 in advance and $10 at the door. Lunch is an extra $8. This is far from an all woman’s thing. I visited many of the 27 past show houses, and was always glad I’d gone.

ERC is not a small deal. It has a million dollar budget and 24 full-time and part-time employees, three of whom are in Lawrence, all things I either never learned or forgot during my previous show house visits. It is a 501(c)3 agency, and has 450 members who contribute $25 to $1000 for the privilege of helping out.

In addition, there are corporate sponsors, and ERC is a United Way Agency, all pieces necessary to put together another fine community resource so necessary for a caring and mature society.

What does ERC do? The answer is find resources for women with needs from child care to paying the utility bill, to fleeing an abusive mate. But 75% of their work is in the child care area. Even the state gets in on the action by licensing ERC as a child care resource and referral agency.

They support and consult with child care providers. And how big a job is that? Well, there are 1200 child care providers in the nine-county area served, from small ones caring for up to 10 children in their homes, up to major providers often associated with mothers’ or fathers’ work places. About 500 of these are in Shawnee County.

Also, like any professionally run, quality agency, they have a first class web site, www.ercrefer.org, where you can connect not only with ERC here, but with similar agencies throughout the state.

Back to the house on Lakeside. It was a major child care center unto itself. We moved there in 1958 after purchasing the home for $34,800 with five children, ages nine to three. The following year we had Rise, completing our family of six children, all boys except five.

After 28 years we sold the home to our dentist-daughter Ricki, her husband Clark and their four children. So many a small child has worn a path between that home and Whitson Elementary School, about a quarter of mile away, not to exclude the large backyard, every inch of the house and much of the neighborhood.

I recall my delight once watching our grandchildren scamper across 17th and head home after school, and envisioning our young kids doing that a few fleeting years earlier.

But, after 50 years of a family home, little is yesterday, although walking the halls on Lakeside this week with the kids (all were here) and looking at the family pictures Randy has hung, helps us appreciate both yesterday and today.

For us, and perhaps for others who were on our Christmas card list, Jane’s home-made cards that Randy framed are special. For about a dozen years, I took Polaroid pictures of the kids, and Jane designed cards (before computers) featuring growing kids and something significant from the year.

I have never thought of us as a "well-known Topeka family," but a large family and time have already nearly made it so. Randy’s purchase of the old place from Ricki, and her willingness to put it immediately to good use for a worthy cause, will further erode any anonymity.

I just hope we will be known for giving back to Topeka nearly as much as this community has given to us.

Column for week of April 02- April 09 2008

If you want to confirm that America‘s rich are becoming immensely richer, review Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans, as published over the last 25 years.

I have been aware of the list since its inception, because in 1982, I was serving on a board chaired by David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett Packard. And there, not surprisingly, was the accomplished Packard near the top of the list.

What is startling is how little money Packard had then by today’s standards. Packard and partner Bill Hewlett were among the top five richest Americans with $1.3 billion each.

Number one in 1982 was a little known shipping magnate, Daniel K. Ludwig, with $3 billion--which would today place him at 117th , right along side Boone Pickens, the Amarillo oilman and Oklahoma State graduate who would like to lure KU basketball coach Bill Self to his alma mater. And may.

Last September’s listing was topped by perennial leader Bill Gates (Microsoft) with $59 billion (up nearly 10-fold from $6.7 billion in 2000) and Warren Buffett, the Sage o Omaha, with $52 billion. Their combined $111 billion was nearly three-quarters of the $169 billion held by all 400 on the first list.

A surprise listing is Kansan Phil Ruffin, casino mogul, whom I’d never heard of until he bought former President Bill Clinton’s severed and signed necktie at a February 2007 dinner in Topeka. Ruffin is listed at $2.1 billion, and is said to want to build a destination casino in friendly Sumner County just down the road from Wichita, which said no thanks by ballot.

But Ruffin is nearly impecunious compared with fellow Wichitan Charles Koch who is number nine on the latest Forbes list, and tied with brother David Koch is also listed at $17 billion. The Kochs rival the immensely wealthy Arkansas Waltons, who inherited father Sam’s Wal-Mart fortune. But the Waltons deal in retail, not oil and commodities, so look for the Kochs to surge ahead by next September.

Three other Kansans are among the super-rich There are three Johnson Countians, Taiwanese-born Min Koa, $4.7 billion, and partner Gary Burrell at $3.1 billion. In 1979, they started modestly, but got rich fast by manufacturing and selling Global Positioning Systems for nearly anything that moves and some things that don‘t.

And then there is Kansas City old money, philanthropist Donald Hall, Hallmark heir, with a measly $1.9 billion.

To further illustrate the accelerated movement of wealth to the top, today’s 400 fortunes add up to $1.54 trillion, better than a nine-fold increase in 25 years over the first 400’s $169 billion.

To become so wealthy, people have made good investments. But, the Koch brothers perhaps made the best investment of all. In 1977, Charles co-founded with one Edward Crane the conservative think-tank, the Cato Foundation--and today, David serves on its board.

Something happened to America about 1970 when we stopped building the middle class and started shoving money to the top 1% who today have more wealth than the lower 90%.

If any one thing did it, it was the founding and copious funding of conservative think tanks and propaganda machines by wealthy, highly self-interested people. They did not like objective studies by the universities and foundations of the era. So they paid scholars for hire to obtain results they wanted, and publicized their radical conclusions, like supply side economics, and privatizing Social Security, widely.

Three institutes lead the rest. The Heritage Foundation that was begun in 1973, the Cato Institute begun in 1977 and a re-financed American Enterprise Institute. When their operatives get on cable television, particularly Fox, you know what they are going to say, just not how they will say it.

The Kochs are also backing the Pacific Research Institute whose president, Sally C. Pipes, is telling Americans why they cannot have universal health care.

But, when you fill‘er up for $50, you’ll know, at least figuratively, some of your money is going to friendly Koch Industries in Wichita--and from them to don’t-tax-the-rich think tanks wherever they exist.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of March 26- April 02 2008

Tax Day is coming!

And most Americans have been convinced this is a bad thing. To the extent that taxes are levied unfairly and spent wastefully and foolishly, it is a bad thing. By these criteria, we have had seven consecutive years of increasingly bad tax days.

But Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famed jurist, put another face on taxes, saying "Taxes are the price of civilization."

As far as I know, he didn’t say the more taxes we pay the more civilized we are, but reading Paul Krugman’s "The Conscience of a Liberal," I realized our country’s very best years, 1947 to 1972, were the years of high marginal income taxes, a fact that destroys today’s prevalent myth, "supply-side economics" that holds the less we tax the immensely rich, the better off we all are.

We have lower taxes than any other industrialized democracy, particularly our federal tax take of 19-21% is lower than that of most central governments in similar nations. But this is because we do not have universal health insurance, which routes about 10% more of the gross national product through government.

And not having universal health insurance is indeed uncivilized because a minimum of 18,000 Americans die each year because they do not have financial access to medical care. But that’s another sad story, not unlike the tax inequities quantified in Krugman’s book.

After a horrendous world war following the Great Depression, this nation found itself flat on its back with a deteriorating infrastructure, a war-oriented industrial base and a not very well educated populace. Conversely, world-wide we were the king of the hill, albeit a very low hill, because other nations were worse off than we.

Nevertheless, after a hesitation during two years of Republican congressional majorities, this nation launched a program to rebuild our nation, reduce our war-time debt, and to assist rebuilding Europe in order to stem communist infiltration and discourage Soviet aggression.

These were the tasks for the Greatest Generation which came marching home from a war that placed in uniform 14 million of 120 million Americans. They again performed well, supporting a two-party consensus to distribute fairly the fruits of a rapidly growing economy.

Further, we paid as we went with high marginal income taxes, high taxes on income from capital, and high estate taxes, the kind of taxes which today we are told would ruin the nation.

Marginal income taxes reached 91% by the mid-fifties, the Eisenhower years, when Krugman tells us "the United States faced the expenses of the Cold War." What a unique idea to pay as we went!

Marginal income taxes were still 70% when Reagan became president. Today they are 35%, not enough to finance our government and forcing us to borrow money from oil-producing countries and China to pay our bills. As a result, the national debt is $30,000 for each American ($90,000 for each household), and interest on the debt is the federal government’s third largest expenditure.

In our best days, capital income was decreased by a 55% corporate income tax (McCain wants to cut it from 35% to 25%), and estate taxes that reached a maximum of 77%. By the mid-fifties the wealthy 0.1% of Americans owned only about 10% of the nation’s wealth compared with 20% in 1929, and again today.

Heavy taxes on high income Americans propelled our nation into its greatest period of growth, and a more equitable distribution of income and wealth than at any other time in modern history. Median income doubled from 1947-1973.

Adam Smith, Scot economist, who published "Wealth of Nations" in 1776, is often cited for his support of the economic efficiencies of free markets.

But Smith also wrote, "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

By refusing to fairly tax the rich, Republicans are destroying America’s middle class, destroying the value of our currency and threatening us with financial chaos.

Dr. Roy can be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of January 30- February 06 2008

Dick Runge has spells of loneliness. His wife Barb takes off a week or two every once in a while to do good things for good people. This month she was in Beaumont, Texas in an all-women church project to build a Habitat for Humanity home for a mother and two daughters who have lived in sub-standard housing since Hurricane Rita hit the Texan Gulf Coast over two years ago.

Last October, she and her fellow church members met in Bosnia and Croatia with women left impoverished by the Balkan wars. Dick has made construction trips to the southern Gulf Coast and Greensburg.

Barb’s church did not receive money from the faith-based initiatives President George W. Bush began within days after his first inauguration. But they were eligible for subsidies by their fellow taxpayers in the traditional American way. The tax codes permit deductions for contributions in cash or in kind for charitable church work. For Kansans in the highest brackets, that means 40 cents in government tax expenditure and 60 cents private contribution.

I like tax deductions for charitable works by churches and other religious and qualified entities. It is likely money well spent, and does not require a government bureaucracy to oversee it. That is why Jane and I have given to our church, the Salvation Army, and to Barry Feaker’s exemplary Topeka Rescue Mission. And taken tax deductions on an itemized return.

In Monday’s State of the Union message, the president asked Congress to permanently extend federal laws permitting religious nonprofit organizations to compete for federal grants. The following day, John J. DiIulio, Jr., the 2001 director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and David Kuo, the deputy director in 2002-2003, wrote a New York Times op-ed requesting congressional action, while, paradoxically, explaining the failure on their watch.

They confessed, "Every nonpartisan study has concluded the initiatives have not delivered the grants, vouchers, tax initiatives and other support…that the president originally promised."

For explanation, they used the words of Michael Gerson, former Bush speechwriter, in a recent book: "The faith-based initiative was not tried and found wanting. It was tried and found difficult--then tried with less and less energy."

David Kuo explained one great big difficulty in his book, "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction." He said he could not do his work because he was directed to provide money to Bush political allies, and his every move was checked to assure favoritism. Surprised?

The writers celebrate court approval of funneling government money to churches and religious organizations "as long as they do not proselytize or engage in sectarian instructions; serve all persons without regard to religion; follow applicable federal anti-discrimination laws; and use public monies only to serve grant-specified secular purposes."

Telling evangelicals and other believers "not to proselytize or engage in sectarian instructions" is like telling a fish not to swim--to both the evangelicals’ and fishes’ credit. And, knowing the enthusiasm of the reverend Phill Kline, former Kansas Attorney General, and many black ministers for their religious political brethren, would make it necessary to provide a government chaperone with each grant or tax-credit. And, one more time, money is fungible.

But DiIulio and Kuo think they, or their successors, deserve another chance. They find each presidential candidate has had something favorable to say about federal money for churches’ welfare efforts.

Hillary Clinton’s Jan. 19, 2005 statement provoked their closing "amen."

"But I ask you, who is more likely to go onto a street to some poor, at-risk child from the community, someone who believes in the divinity of every person, who sees God at work in the lives of even the most hopeless and left behind of our children? And that’s why we need to not have false division or debate about the role of faith-based institutions, we need to just do it and provide the support that is needed on an ongoing basis."

I don’t want George Bush, Phill Kline, or Hillary Clinton ear-marking money for churches.. Nor, in the long run, should the churches.

Let’s thank Barb and Dick for helping the old-fashioned American way.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of December 26- January 2 2008

I wanted it for Christmas. And, sure enough, good friends gave me the book entitled “The American Idea” that contains 78 essays written over the 150-year history of The Atlantic Monthly--an eternity for a serious magazine and a span covering nearly two-thirds of our nation’s history.

Its founders, among whom were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and James Russell Lowell, pledged the magazine would be “the organ of no party or clique.” Nevertheless, they, antislavery all and abolitionists some, found themselves in three short years on the eve of the election of 1860, the most important in our nation’s history, before or since.

Lowell, the brilliant 41 year-old editor, wrote “November Election,” a strongly partisan pitch for Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the new Republican Party, whose chief strength Lowell found to be its “moral aversion to slavery as a great wrong.”

I can hardly make a case that we are knowingly facing an election likely to have such serious consequences as the election of 1860. Today’s issues are too diverse, and barring a nuclear disaster we are unlikely to engage in a war that kills one in 50 Americans.

But the consequences of an undeclared, eternal war against the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, voracious consumption of the world’s resources, and unsettled economic times are neither clear nor trivial.

Sounding alarms that are familiar today, Lowell wrote, “The very government itself seems an organized scramble, and Congress a boys’ debating club (we‘ve fixed that by adding 86 women to the mix), with the disadvantage of being reported.” And, “As our party-creeds are commonly represented less by ideas and more by persons (who are assumed, without too close a scrutiny, to be exponents of certain ideas), our politics become personal and narrow to a degree never paralleled, unless in ancient Athens or medieval Florence.”

Also like today, the next president was highly uncertain. In the end, Lincoln defeated three other candidates with 39.8% of the vote in the general election. Today, with caucuses and primaries hard upon us, Republicans have four very viable candidates, and Democrats have three potential winners.

Lowell’s first lines provide assurances for current Republicans who fear Hillary Clinton, and for others who are uneasy with putting a real Baptist minister or a Mormon chameleon into the oval office.

“It is a proverb, that to turn a radical into a conservative there needs only to put him into office, because then the license of speculation or sentiment is limited by the sense of responsibility,--then for the first time he becomes capable of the comparative view which sees principles and measures, not in the narrow abstract, but in the full breadth of their relation to each other and to political consequences.”

But, that may be hard to sell post George W. Bush.

Endorsing Lincoln, Lowell came up with plausible lines Barack Obama partisans should adopt with alacrity: “he has had enough experience in public affairs to make him a statesman, and not enough to make him a politician.”

Lowell writes, “That he has not more (experience) will be no objection to him in the eyes of those who have seen the administration of the experienced public functionary (President James Buchanan) whose term of office is just growing to a close.”

If four terms in the Illinois House and two years (1847-49) in the U. S. House, plus a series of brilliant debates were enough experience for president for the voters of 147 years ago when they were knowingly nearing a national crisis, than seven years in the Illinois Senate and four years in the U. S. Senate, plus three personally written books including the exceptional “Dreams from My Father,” should meet the all-important experience test for Obama.

If that is our country’s decision, there will come a miraculous symmetry between the election of the Great Emancipator and the redemptive election of an African American, a result unthinkable 50 years ago. And, there are enough unresolved issues for him to become the second greatest president in American history.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of January 16- January 23 2008

I knew from our friendship that Ramon Powers is from Gove, Kansas, that Gove is the smallest county seat among our state’s 105 county seats, and, above all, that the six-foot four-inch Powers has happy memories of playing on the 1956-57 Gove basketball team that won 23 of 24 games. So I was pleased when he handed me one of 20 copies of his recently completed “SENIOR SEASON: Gove Rural High School and the 1956-57 Basketball Season.”

I did not lay the 173 page book down once I began reading it. My rural high school years, although more than a decade earlier and enveloped by World War II, were more like than unlike Ramon’s days at Gove. And nearly all of us enjoy remembering those days of discovery called high school.

Powers, a PhD historian and retired Executive Director of the Kansas State Historical Society, puts himself and his extraordinary teammates (another 6’4” and one 6’5,” all playing fast breaking basketball) in the context of community, church and family, past, present, and finally future in an epilogue--without which the story would have come up a little empty--he tells what has happened to teammates, cheerleaders and faculty over the last 50 years.

The kids of winter, ‘56-‘57, have done well. But not the school and community. Gove high was gone in six years, becoming, along with two other schools, a school called Wheatland, 10 miles up the road at the junction of route 23 and I-70.

Today, as a result of the steady depopulation of the short grass, semi-arid High Plains, Wheatland is a school too small with 54 students in March, 2007. Powers lets us know education cost approximately $13,300 per pupil this past school year, and provides us with the formula that authorizes the state to pay $11,000 of that amount.

In contrast, Powers’ senior year each student of the 36 students--24 boys and 12 girls--cost the taxpayers $728.87.

The population of the town of Gove has dropped from 300 in Ramon‘s time to 100 today. It is probably fair to say it‘s not quite a ghost town because it remains the county seat of Gove County, located in the third tier of counties, about 90 miles east from the Kansas-Colorado border.

Gove in the 50’s had nearly one of everything, and two gas stations. Today, you can get gasoline in Gove at an unattended honor pump.

Among the “one of every thing” in Gove was the hardware store, the grocery, the newspaper, the proverbial former serviceman who sent his poker winnings home and bought one of the gas stations, the war hero (in this case the high school principal), someone lost in combat, the popular young man who died in a car accident, an original settler, and last, but not least, the young, charismatic preacher who got a young parishioner pregnant and stole away in the night.

Ramon knew his teammates, how they happened to be in Gove, and where they are now.

We learn Richard Anderson was “a natural athlete..handsome, self assured, and possessed of great social skills,” and also that he was a 6’3” Swede, and “his mother was a Benson, part of the Swedish settlement that arrived in the region in 1885 (Gove was founded in 1886), and settled in eastern Lewis Township and western Jerome Township.

Powers does not leave us dangling. In effectively an epilogue, we learn Richard is a dentist with wife, children and grandchildren living in Colorado Springs, closer to Gove than Topeka.

You may think township locations a bit much, but I found that Powers--while always focused on the basketball team--gave enough information on each pertinent subject--town, churches, schools, families, and the world about them, from farm subsidies, state politics, flickering television to Sputnik--to provide a full picture of that glorious year in the history of Ramon and Gove.

It is not “Hoosiers”; Gove lost in the regional finals by a single point. Nor is it “PrairyErth,“ William Least Heat Moon’s best-selling epic that describes each blade of grass in Chase County, Kansas. But neither is it meant to be.

Rather it is an easy read that will stimulate happy memories for anyone who attended a small rural high school--and a book that I hope will appear in more than 20 copies.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of November 28- December 5 2007

In case you missed it, Warren Buffett, America’s second wealthiest man--and someone very good with figures--told the Senate Finance Committee on November 14th, he pays 18% of his income for taxes, and his receptionist and other office employees, with incomes from $60 thousand to $750 thousand, pay an average of 33% of their incomes for taxes. And he doesn’t think that’s fair taxation.

Buffett, whose fortune is measured at $52.4 billion, and whose recent annual income was $44.6 million, told the senators, “Frankly, an economy where my receptionist pays a lot higher tax rate than I do does not strike me as a just economy."

He followed with "I see nothing wrong with those who have been blessed by this society to give a larger portion of their income to the society than somebody that's working very, very hard to make ends meet."

The Sage of Omaha sweetened the pot and assured the embarrassment of his fellow billionaires (if billionaires can be embarrassed) by offering to give $1,000,000 to his/her favorite charity if he/she can prove his tax rates are higher than his secretary‘s.

No billionaire came forward, so ABC-TV called 25 people on the Forbes 400 list (American billionaires all), “Turner to Murdock, Bloomberg to Cuban.” All wisely chose not to comment. What could they say?

However, some could not resist talking to sympathetic Forbes Magazine. As anticipated, they didn’t cover themselves with glory. One suggested Buffett “stick to his area of expertise;” another, that “his thesis seems grossly simplistic;” and still another speculated, “maybe Buffett is going senile.”

The senate committee’s primary focus was the federal estate tax that was recently reduced, like all taxes on the wealthy, during the Bush administration. That law provides decreased taxes each year until 2010 when for that one year there is to be no estate tax (the so-called “throw grandma under the train” year). In 2011, the tax is scheduled to revert to levels existing before annual decreases were legislated!

Buffett was consistent. Not only does he support the wealthy paying higher income taxes, he also supports continuation of the estate tax..

He testified a person would have to attend 200 funerals in order to attend one whose estate would be subject to the estate tax. As with the progressive income tax, Buffett believes those who have been favored by society owe some back.

The result of lower taxes for the wealthy is higher taxes for the rest of us. Why do we tolerate it?

First of all, some Republican operative, in a moment of sheer genius, labeled the federal estate tax the “death tax.”

Members of congress (anxious to repay wealthy sponsors), chambers of commerce, farm organizations and others have used this rhetorical weapon to frighten ordinary people into believing this tax will wipe out everything they have worked to leave their widows and children. Few realize this tax applies only to the big winners in the lottery of life, even though no one can find the family that sold the farm to pay the nasty death tax.

Then there is the reinforcing myth that in our capitalistic-market society we must create and cherish the wealthy few because their capital (money) creates businesses and jobs. Somehow, in the minds of too many, one-thousand one-thousand dollar investments does not provide the same capital kick as a rich man’s one million dollars.

Our unfair tax system has pushed enough money to the top that one percent of Americans possess as much wealth as the combined lower 90%. Both Buffett and richest-man Bill Gates, Jr. recognize our tax policies and untaxed inherited wealth will create a dynastic plutocracy, wherein a few families can control America into perpetuity.

And that’s not good for anyone, especially the rest of us who pay the taxes the wealthiest are not paying, and will soon- live--or are living (it‘s subtle)--in a nation controlled by a few monied families. Thanks, Mr. Buffett, for saying so.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of November 21- November 28 2007

Henry J. Aaron, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, is among the health care gurus and Washington observers who have concluded you can’t get there from here going the Washington route.

It’s hard to argue with Aaron’s conclusion, because history is on his side. For decades, proposals for universal health care have been defeated or ignored by the United States Congress. We alone among residents of the world’s industrialized democracies refuse to provide health care security for each other.

Nevertheless, I became agitated when I read Aaron’s September testimony to the US, Senate Committee on the Budget, which, said in essence, “Let the states do it,” because you cannot do it.

Aaron, an economist who provided expert testimony when I served on the health subcommittee over 30 years ago, piled on by reviewing reasons for past failures in the November Brookings bulletin. He led with the observation we are of three minds (re legislation)--and one-third is not a majority.

He explained, “Solid and stubborn minorities favor enrolling everyone in a nationally administered system financed largely by taxes, shoring up the current employment-based system for workers and their families, or extending tax incentives to encourage individuals to buy insurance themselves. Supporters of each approach prefer the status quo to the alternatives, so doing nothing wins.”

That alone may be enough, but he adds,

* Eighty-five percent of Americans are insured and fear change. (And may I observe two television actors telling untruths over coffee can play that fear.)

* Large-scale health reform is large-scale income redistribution, and the politics of redistribution is the politics of trench warfare.

* Healthcare reform involves huge financial stakes. When Clinton proposed his reform, the U.S. healthcare system spent as much as the gross domestic product of France. Now it spends as much as the combined GDPs of France and Spain.

* The U.S. political system is exquisitely structured to frustrate action on large and controversial matters on which there is not overwhelming agreement. Party discipline is an oxymoron.

* Healthcare varies greatly across the United States, making consensus hard to come by. In Texas, 24% of the population is uninsured; in three Midwestern states and Hawaii, fewer than 10% are uninsured. Massachusetts spends 70% more per person on healthcare than Utah does.

Good facts, real reasons, and I hope interesting to concerned newspaper readers. But I am more interested in how we can, just maybe, get there from here. So I circulated Aaron’s wisdom to front-line health care administrators and other valued thinkers.

Not surprisingly, the answer I liked best came from Kansas-born, Kansas-educated, personal friend Dr. Brian Biles, professor of health policy at George Washington University.

Biles has staffed Chairman Henry Waxman, Chairman Pete Stark, Senator Ted Kennedy and their respective health committees. He knows health care policy and legislation.

His response: “History shows that opponents of broader health insurance coverage seem to fight just as hard against small proposals as they do against large ones: e.g. the current S-CHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program) fight.

I think the only way that anything will happen is a president who will do health care in the first 9 months to get it through the Senate with a simple majority.

President Clinton did this to balance the budget rather than for health care coverage. Had he made the reverse decision, we could have close to universal coverage today.

If the economy is headed toward a recession, as some predict, people--especially women with children--will become even more anxious about their employment-based health insurance, making comprehensive legislation more likely. Brian”

Come to think of it, Henry and Brian may not be that far apart. Aaron did observe “None of this means that sweeping transformation is impossible. Seismic political events do sometimes occur.”

A recession--or some undefined “seismic political event“--is not a price anyone wants to pay. But a Bush Recession next year paradoxically could be Bush’s “gift that keeps giving” to the American people, universal health care.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of November 14- November 21 2007

President Richard M. Nixon used to say, particularly when under fire, “Let’s talk about what’s good about America.”

It is easy to say good things about David A. Nichols‘ new book, “A Matter of Justice, Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution,” published this year by Simon and Schuster.

Nichols, former professor and academic dean at Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas, objectively found Dwight David Eisenhower--both as general and president--played a strong, affirmative role in our nation’s most important 20th century domestic achievement, the establishment of the civil and voting rights of America’s Negroes.

Most historians, and many of us who lived during the era, will pick up Nichols’ book somewhat conflicted about Ike’s civil rights’ role. This book, written by a self-confessed liberal Democrat, should help establish that Ike played a quiet, but very positive role, grounded in his strong beliefs in the Constitution and separation of powers.

Before I read this book, I could recall essentially two things about Ike and civil rights. One positive, he had the courage to send federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce a federal court order to admit nine black youngsters to that city’s Central High School, over strong objections of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus.

But, I also recalled Ike had said his greatest mistake was appointing Governor Earl Warren of California Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This could imply Ike disagreed with the Warren court’s unanimous decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka that “separate but equal schools“ were unconstitutional.

After reading Nichols’ book, I found the first recollection pretty much on target--although the Eisenhower administration certainly would have liked to keep the 101st airborne out of the South. It smacked too much of the 1865-1876 Reconstruction period when federal troops occupied the South, and reflected an awareness that the South under school integration orders was a tinder-box that might be ignited by the presence of federal troops.

But, I found Eisenhower’s and Warren’s mutual dislike may have been more about presidential politics than Warren Court decisions, although Ike did privately express irritation with some decisions.

Ike, the popular general, had stepped ahead of Warren in Republican presidential succession. Warren’s presidential virus was reactivated when Ike’s September, 1955 heart attack could have precluded him from seeking a second term. So Warren was disappointed again when Ike chose to run for a second term.

But, there is still respected Eisenhower biographer Stephen E. Ambrose writing Ike said his greatest mistake as president was “The appointment of that S.O.B. Earl Warren,” and brother Milton Eisenhower writing that with more years of experience “(Ike) might not have appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice.” Some things are not meant to be settled permanently.

Nichols summarizes, “Dwight Eisenhower had acted resolutely in desegregating the District of Columbia and the armed forces, combating discrimination in employment, and in appointing two progressive justices to the Supreme Court.”

Ike also defied segregationist southern Democratic senators by appointing openly anti-segregationist judges to southern U.S. Courts of Appeal and federal district courts, without whom integration, “with all deliberate speed,” may not have occurred at all.

Ike and his liberal attorney general and prime confidant Herbert Brownell of New York carefully studied court candidates to find the most qualified judges (what a unique idea!). They also introduced the 1957 civil rights bill, the first in 87 years. The bill expanded voting rights and was passed with the aid of Senate Majority Leader and presidential hopeful Lyndon B. Johnson.

This is an unusually informative book because it deals with one subject, Ike and civil rights. This subject has been addressed in part in thousands of books and articles, but probably never as comprehensively as by this unbiased Kansas scholar, who traveled to Abilene to spend months studying the multitude of relevant papers there--some perhaps for the first time.

It’s an entertaining book because it is well organized, well written and addresses the role of a modest 20th century giant, Kansan Eisenhower, in the second emancipation of America’s African Americans. It has a happy ending.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of November 07- November 14 2007

The term “Theocons,” the title of Damon Linker’s book, has been around since the mid-90s. But the doctrines they support have been around much longer, many dating back to the early days of the Catholic Church. The movement first appeared in force in modern American public life immediately after a Supreme Court handed down Roe v Wade, the 1973 decision making abortion legal and safe. And, after millions of words, much of its momentum is still fed by abortion controversy.

Linker describes a less visible, but very influential component of the Religious Right that is conservative Catholic in its origins, beliefs, and leadership. They have combined with Protestant conservatives and, on occasion, with Orthodox Jews, to achieve substantial success--but may have reached their high-water mark with the presidency of George W. Bush.

Theocons have not been hiding in the shadows the last 40 years, only to burst forth recently. Rather several are highly respected scholars who have written scores of books and hundreds of articles illuminating their thoughts, and have held high academic posts. However, today, they are likely to be found in subsidized conservative “think tanks,” such as the American Enterprise Institute.

Linker is well positioned to tell their story. He is former editor of “First Things,” the political, intellectual journal of the theocons. He served two older leaders, Richard John Neuhaus (1936-) and Michael Novak (1933-), and George Weigel (1951-), biographer of Pope Paul II, “Witness to Hope” (1008 pages).

Of significance, Neuhaus and Novak--like their most of their secular brothers, the neoconservatives--arose from the far-left nascent revolutionaries of the 1960s. But, unlike others, their revolutionary aspirations were quietly rooted in a deep piety. And, when they saw cherished causes peter out, they looked elsewhere, eventually to hook up with the far-right ideologues that spawned the Reagan administrations.

Neuhaus became a Lutheran pastor, and, in 1990, a Catholic priest, ordained with his friend John Cardinal O’Connor at his side. He was positioned to accelerate his task of “re-politicizing” the Catholic Church in America, instilling Christian influence into the political arena, overcoming what he called” Naked in the Public Square,” his 1986 seminal work conceiving theoconservatism.

For interested Kansans, Neuhaus’ religious journey preceded but paralleled that of Senator Sam Brownback‘s, who went from main-stream protestant to evangelical Christian to right-wing Catholicism in three quick jumps. Brownback is one of the prime promoters of theocon concepts,” the culture of death,” and ’the culture of life.“

Editor-author Damon Linker relates he accepted the editorship of “First Things” because he opposed apparent restrictions on the political participation of serious believers in politics and government. But soon he saw the bigger picture, and was spooked.

He realized the theocons’ ultimate purpose is for America to adopt an orthodox Christian governing philosophy, including reaffirming the Church’s insistence that Catholic public figures must uphold the teachings of the Church. With this self-revelation, he found it time to go--and sound the alarm.

But, as evidence of the influence of theocons in and out of the Church, Catholic bishops attempted to intimidate and embarrass Catholics office-holders who favored abortion choice by denying them the Sacrament of Communion. Fortunately, a few local priests failed to get the message. In the year 2000, preparation met opportunity with the election of George W. Bush, and the theocons began having their way.

They, like neocons, cheered Bush on in attacking Iraq. Weigel wrote the amazing phrase that “all constitutionally elected public authorities enjoy ‘a charism of political discernment,’ ” a gift of the holy spirit that aids him in his decision-making. This supplemented their “just war” belief that America must assume its providential role in enforcing divinely sanctioned order in the world. Try that one for size.

But war was not their only product. With Bush, they could advance the sexually-inspired doctrines of the Church with regard to marriage, abortion and contraception.

The president and “Father Richard” (Richard John Neuhaus) became Oval Office confidants. Neuhaus is personally credited with convincing Bush to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Oh yes, 52% of Catholics voted for Bush in 2004, which may have been the earthly purpose of it all.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of October 24-October 31 2007

I have watched about half the presidential debates so far, and I like them. After these debates and the head to head debates following the nominations, no American can legitimately mumble, “I didn’t vote; I just didn’t know enough about the candidates.”

If you have limited your TV watching to Soprano re-runs, don‘t fret. The second portion of the Democrats’ 19 debates and the Republicans’ 18 debates are still to come. They wind up the last two days of January in California, just before Super-Saturday when enough big states vote to decide the major party candidates.

I have watched the Republican debates carefully and with the eternal hope that they produce someone who can be a great president because we need one. And I am aware 7 of the last 10 presidential elections have been won by Republicans.

I have thought since 2000 we could live with a President John McCain. He has taken (nearly unspoken) right-wing social positions, but has never pushed them, perhaps aware they are minority positions outside GOP primaries.

And, he did enter politics after the modern Republican party was found either at the August, 1974 Right to Life meeting in Hays, Kansas, or when the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade in January, 1973 Take your choice..

McCain passed the litmus test of opposing abortions earlier than other Republicans. But, if you missed the first debates, you may have missed most speeches on abortion because they have pretty well exhausted that subject with total orthodoxy and unanimity, minus one.

McCain has been right on the Iraq War. Either you fight the damn thing, or you don’t. The one thing you don’t do is feed kids into a sausage grinder of death one by one. And, McCain has had reasonable and courageous positions (for a Republican) on immigration and election reform.

But McCain is not going to be the nominee. He’s too old. His chance to be president went up in the flames of racial prejudice when Bush-Rove put on the telephone campaign in South Carolina claiming he is father of a black, illegitimate child

That leaves Giuliani and Romney.

Giuliani supports gun control, abortion rights and gay rights. And he is from Queens. Let’s face it, for many traditional Republicans, New York City is Gomorrah. Once-Democrat Rudy Giuliani would make a good Democratic candidate, which is why he will not be the Republican nominee.

I keep seeing Mitt Romney as the next president. Only he and Bill Clinton are perfect for the television age.

And, while Clinton parsed his words, “It depends on what your definition of “is” is, Romney is either politics’ greatest flip-flopper, or he possesses the most evolving (or, is it revolving, or even revolting?) political positions in modern American politics.

He takes opposing positions with the greatest of ease; he flies through the truth with the greatest of ease--just like the man on the flying trapeze in the song of yore.

Either Republican primary voters will be there to catch him as he comes out of his triple somersault with three full twists smiling, or, they will have tired of his dishonesty and let him fall. I’m betting on the former.

Every time I think of Romney and his handsome family, I immediately envision his presentation to the convention before his acceptance speech.

He and his wife Anne have five very masculine sons--also right out of central casting--ages 26-37. And, while, not unlike other children of privilege, none has been in the military service (Dad says they are doing their patriotic duty by helping him become president), they would look magnificent in military uniforms--something dad, grandpa and great grandpa Romney have not worn.

I see a Romney sons’ military tableau honoring all Americans who have served in our country‘s wars. From left to right, the five Romney’s are in dress uniforms--the Coast Guard. Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force--with flags waving, proper choreography and deafening band music. Wow!

War-like Republicans will go into patriotic frenzy when Mitt’s boys march onto stage. Hillary will never lead in the polls again. Finis.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of October 17-October 24 2007
Two diverse groups are getting the same message this week: it costs a great deal more for health care if private health insurance companies run it. But never mind, people are programmed to believe anything but private health insurance is “socialized medicine” or “government medicine,” both un-American.

In the first instance, 37 million senior citizens and 7 million totally and permanently disabled Medicare recipients are getting notice of their 2008 increases for their share of Medicare costs (totally about $7000 for Jane and me), both on the publicly-administered side (3% increase) and on the private insurance side (15% increases).

In the second instance, staff of the Kansas Health Policy Authority, are telling their board members if you want all Kansans to have health care coverage, it will cost 10-15% more--a billion dollars, give or take a couple of hundred million--if you want them enrolled in private health insurance plans. And, anticipating that for reasons of ideological purity, board members, legislators and the governor will choose the billion dollar more expensive private programs.

Likewise, Medicare recipients are learning 2008 increases for two private insurance programs are fives times the public program increase.

We had some idea what was coming. Wall Street Journal reported that Medicare Part D drug insurance premiums, which are supposed to be held down by the gods of competition, will go up 21%.

That may be a national average, but a retired insurance executive e-mails me his wife’s premiums increased 77%, and the son of a deceased physician tells me his mother’s premiums went up 170%. So much for averages.

On the home front, Jane’s Part D drug premium went up 28%, achieving a near-doubling in two years, during which Humana also decreased coverage by no longer providing any insurance for drugs after $2,510 is spent, until total costs then exceed $4,050.

That’s the Republicans’ infamous, arbitrary “donut hole.” Jane originally chose Humana in 2006 because it provided coverage during that hiatus. But, it turned out Humana was marketing a “bait and switch” policy.

Medicare recipients, who can afford it, buy “Medigap” policies to cover deductibles, coinsurance and other expenses Medicare has never covered. As good Kansans and Topekans, we bought Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan 65 when we went on Medicare.

Plan 65 is up 11.8% for 2008. That’s four times its original cost.

In dramatic contrast, governmentally-administered Medicare Part B coverage for physician services, will increase 3% in 2008, well within the range of inflation and cost of living increases.

(In fact, I would like to see larger increases in Part B premiums, because pre-2006 Republican congresses passed laws decreasing physicians’ Medicare fees by nearly 30% over three years. Their specific objective was to force seniors into private insurers’ managed care programs by making it uneconomic for doctors to accept Medicare patients. That way, they also ended patient choice of doctor, in spite their prevarications to the contrary.)

There it is, as it always has been, and always will be. Private insurers have increased premiums an average of 15 percent for 2008; public coverage increases 3 percent.

Meanwhile, back at the state office building, KHPA staff presented a publicly-administered health care program (no private insurance companies) that would cost the state $7.375 billion for the 2.4 million Kansans who do not receive Medicare, military or other government health benefits.

That’s a lot of money, but it‘s $1.375 billion less than the $8.732 billion universal private health insurance model, and $866 million less than least expensive private insurance program modeled by their consultants.

To give an idea how big these numbers are, state taxes--sales, income, corporate, excise and other taxes-- this year will bring into the state general fund less than $6 billion. Federal monies about double that amount--e.g. by paying 60% of the $2 billion Medicaid bill--for total state budget of about $12 billion.

Or, to get up close and personal, people who know tell us private health insurance is $360-$560 per person per year ($1,440-$2,240 for family of four) more expensive than publicly-administered health insurance.

Is it worth a couple thousand a year to remain ideologically pure?

Column for week of October 10-October 17 2007
Newt Gingrich once called Senator Bob Dole “Tax collector for the welfare state.”

At the time, Dole, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was trying (unsuccessfully) to avoid huge federal budget deficits and a rising national debt by repealing the more egregious tax cuts for the rich enacted during the first heady months of the Reagan administration.

Crazy as it may seem, Dole’s successors in federal and state government have become, “Premium collectors for health insurance companies.” It is entirely the function of privatizing publicly financed health-care programs.

There is a lot more money involved in government health care programs than there ever was in welfare-- presently $304 billion in Medicaid and $374 billion in Medicare. Much of this money is run through private insurors which siphon off money that could be used to provide medical care for many more Americans.

And the privatization of taxpayer-financed public programs is accelerating. Designated beneficiaries of federal and state health programs, namely children, the poor, the elderly and the totally and permanently disabled, are being auctioned like chattels to health insurance companies that subsequently decide how much care their charges receive, and from whom.

The companies, within the loose, inexact parameters of competition, determine their own expenses, and profits which they happily distribute among executives, board members and stockholders.

For example, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), the size of which Congress and the president are fussing about now, is an expanded Medicaid program that too often--like in Kansas--provides health insurance for children of low-income families, when precious tax-payer dollars should be providing health care for children.

What are the differences between providing health insurance and providing health care? Immense, at least ten cents on the dollar, plus choice of doctor and hospital.

To illustrate, the well-established, single-payer portion of the 40-year old Medicare program is administered for 1.5 cents on the dollar. The best of private insurers, usually not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield programs, administer their programs for 10-15%, and typical for-profit insurers spend up to 30%.

Health insurance companies spend billions to advertise, to avoid insuring poor risks, to avoid paying unwarranted claims, to avoid or delay paying some warranted claims, to pay immense executive salaries and to show growth that justifies ever-increasing stock prices. They are equal opportunity exploiters which means employer-employee programs pay the same unnecessary costs.

And, more often than not, insurors tell their insurees from whom and where they must seek services. Ironically, and contrary to slick, fraudulent advertising campaigns, traditional Medicaid and Medicare patients are the ones who may choose their doctor and hospital.

Highly coveted patient choice is going by the boards as Medicare patients “voluntarily” join Medicare Advantage, the managed care programs of United, Wellpoint, Humana and others, lured by AARP (which receives billions in “royalties” from United) and the momentary or illusory extra benefits made possible by the federal government overpaying private insurance companies to the tune of 112% of average regional costs per recipient in publicly administered Medicare.

It’s working. Republicans are well on their way to privatizing Medicare. And Democrats don’t have the filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate necessary to shut down this GOP giveaway before it’s irretrievable.

Add the 2003 Medicare D drug program for seniors which was deliberately written by a Republican congress as a gravy-train for health insurance companies. Bingo, hidden deep in a recent Wall Street Journal was notice Medicare drug insurance premiums are expected to increase 21% in 2008.

But why are states placing their Medicaid and S-CHIP patients in the hands of health insurance companies?

They probably know they are wasting money, but, by paying $8,172 per patient per year to private insurors, Kansan administrators have established predictable costs (no supplementary appropriations). And, they have pretty much washed their hands of finding providers and monitoring quality of care (they recently, belatedly, perhaps embarrassingly, hired an inspector general).

Kansas will pay over $2 billion, 16% of total state expenditures, for health insurance for about 250,000 Medicaid recipients. It’s not the best way, but recipients will get some care and providers some pay.

Column for week of September 26-October 3 2007
The ambient sound you heard this past week was the sonorous voice of Alan Greenspan, who recently retired after 18 ½ years as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, decider of our nation’s (and much of the world’s) monetary policy.

Greenspan is using his book, “The Age of Turbulence“ (for which he received an $8.5 million advance) and a series of high-profile interviews to try to extricate himself in advance from our nation’s onrushing economic storms, which were put in place by disastrous Republican fiscal policy following Greenspan’s nod or testimonial approval.

He has put Republican teeth on edge by quantifying the cumulative fiscal irresponsibility of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Unlike many others, Greenspan let’s us know the national debt was $700 billion at the beginning of Reagan’s term and $2 trillion when he handed the sinking financial ship over to George H. W. Bush--who had unwisely kow-towed to Republican tax-cutters at the 1988 convention by uttering, “Read my lips; no new taxes,” thus guaranteeing growing deficits.

But it is the reckless deficit spending of the current Bush that leads Greenspan to babble nearly incoherently in an effort to disassociate himself from Bush’s deficit-driving 2001 tax cuts for the rich; and from his utterances in 2006 that the tax cuts be made permanent.

Greenspan now says he feared projected Clinton surpluses would pay off the national debt! And leave government a surplus that would have to be invested in private markets--something, he concludes, we must prevent at all costs

(I agree. Bush’s idea of investing one-quarter of social security taxes in private markets would have made the federal government Wall Street‘s number one player, opening the door for endless political mischief.)

Greenspan also claims he supported Bush’s tax cuts only with a trigger that would repeal the cuts in event of runaway deficits. It was sorta, “I advised against it before I advised for it.” He wisely has not attempted to explain his 2006 election-year endorsement to make the cuts permanent.

The Wall Street Journal gave up some of their op-ed page space usually used for bad-mouthing “government medicine” (like medical care for children, veterans, the elderly and totally and permanently disabled) to let Vice President Dick Cheney spin his objections to “longtime friend” Greenspan‘s obloquy.

Bush deficits, Cheney tells us, are mostly the result of 9/11, like every other disaster he and George have presided over. Besides, Congress failed to act on Social Security reforms (see above), and Medicare and Medicaid reforms, as advised.

Cheney adds, “no other president has spent more time…trying to avert a fiscal disaster everyone knows is coming.”

There you have it, “a fiscal disaster everyone knows is coming,” but for which no one is to blame, not Bush, not Greenspan, not the Republican congresses that Greenspan states gave up principles for political gain, and were left with neither principles or political gain.

The Reagan-Bush-Bush fiscal storm is building to hurricane proportions. The dollar has weakened rapidly.

The euro, once less than a dollar, has exceeded $1.40 (making it likely oil-trading will take place in euros, making it impossible for us to print dollars to obtain oil). The British pound is over $2; the Canadian dollar (universal health insurance and all) is worth more than ours, and oil over $80 a barrel.

The national debt is $9 trillion, $30,000 for every man, woman and child; over $24,000 placed on your children’s and grandchildren’s accounts by RBB. Cheney and Greenspan can write a check for their family’s share of the deficit tomorrow, and never notice it. But can you?

Throw in ordinary American’s low saving rate and consequently low net worth. And that we are buying $900 billion ($3 thousand per person per year, and growing) more from abroad than we are selling abroad.

Yes, I blame Bush for his total fiscal irresponsibility. But perhaps he’s more to be pitied than censored.

Not so, the talented Greenspan, a confessed social climber. He willingly and knowingly served as a shill for George Bush’s fiscal recklessness. In turn, he gained coveted social rank and international notoriety. Only you and I are losers.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Citizenship Day? Constitution Week?

I do not recall hearing of them until I was invited to appear on a panel at Washburn University to discuss war-making powers in a symposium entitled, “Congress, the President and War.”

I started looking around and found that Citizenship Day, September 17th, and Constitution Week, September 17-23, were established by Congressional Joint Resolutions, the former on February 19, 1952, and the latter on August 2, 1956.

The Congress instructed the president to proclaim annually such days and weeks, and presidents have quietly done without exception on each of the 50-plus years since.

Certainly, American citizenship and our Constitution are important enough landmarks for vigorous and ubiquitous celebration, but the designated days have never caught on like presidential birthdays that got on the calendar first, and today have the advantage of providing a Monday holiday for federal employees and school children.

I am told Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia--a U.S. Senator of 49 years who has carried the Constitution with him each of these many days--thought someone should notice; and he introduced legislation that requires colleges receiving federal funds to recognize these days--hence Washburn’s celebration, its fourth.

There is much to be gained by re-reading the preamble of the Constitution, that remarkable, durable document cobbled together 220 years ago by extraordinary men who wanted their newly founded Republic to live into perpetuity. Remember?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Our Founders put “provide for the common defense” fourth, but after 220 years, we know no presidential and congressional responsibility has loomed larger. Presidents nearly always find our nation to be endangered by enemies, formidable or less formidable, real or imagined.

Our early wars (the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II) were declared by Congress in a timely manner as provided in Article I, section 8, which gives to Congress the following war powers.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article II, section 2 is sparse. It provides: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States“--nothing more.

Since WWII, presidential aggression and earlier or later congressional resolutions have legitimized our less successful and more contentious wars in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.

The president’s authority for continuing the Iraq War into its fifth year is the October 2, 2002. “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq“--a blank check that preceded invasion by 166 days.

As long as Congress provides funds and does not restrict or dictate their use, the president as commander in chief may continue the war limited only by international law.

Today’s Congress cannot stop or modify the war by restricting or limiting funding because it does not have a veto-proof majority.

Congressional restrictions on use of funds were instrumental in (slowly) ending the 12-year Vietnam War. The Iraq War may end by unilateral congressional action, unless we elect a president and Congress of the same mind in 2008.

Column for week of September 12 - September 19, 2007 from Bill Roy

Forbes.com, a venue not unfriendly to business, features the new CEO of Wellpoint, the giant Indianapolis-based health insurance company that insures one of nine Americans, and makes billions for its executives and stock investors.

(Warren Buffett--indubitably noting Wellpoint earnings (including acquisitions) have risen 55% per year since 2000, to $3 billion, while revenues have grown 37% a year--recently quadrupled Berkshire-Hathaway holdings to 4 million shares.)

After the perplexing headline, “This Won’t Hurt a Bit,” the subhead line says it all: “No company benefits more than Wellpoint from the current health care mess.” And adds, “New executive Angela Braly is trying to put a kind face on this controversial business.”

Yes, Wellpoint is the successor company to Anthem (they combined), which nearly succeeded in “buying” Kansas Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2002 with the Kansas’ company own money, and walking away with the company’s millions in surplus, its reserves, its plant, employees and book of business which included nearly one-half of insured Kansans.

Of course, successive numbers are also brutal, including $180 million in stock for dismissed vice-chairman David Colby who was allegedly dating 12 women--simultaneously and at the same time too--including a company employee--which in part explains why Anthem has a woman CEO.

Wellpoint-Anthem has taken over Blue Cross Blue Shield plans of 14 states (but not Kansas!) and has sales of $56 billion, the highest in the “controversial business“. Wellpoint also has gained infamy for canceling coverage for the ill with allegations of pre-existing conditions, and for fighting suits by doctors who claim delayed or refused payment.

Wellpoint’s kind face, as projected by Ms. Braly who has been at the helm just two months, includes opposition to federal reform and opposition (alone among California health insurance companies) to Governor Arne Schwartzenegger’s plan to insure all Californians, mostly with private insurance.

Ms. Braly’s own six-point program to insure the 47 million Americans without insurance can best be summarized as “let us do it.” She knows United HealthGroup CEO William McQuire personally acquired one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven million dollars ($1.767 billion) in negotiable stock options--and she may too..

Yes, America’s health insurance companies are in a “controversial business“, as stated by Forbes, one of our America’s leading business magazines.

Controversial because they consume $250 billion more each year than public administration in sales and administrative costs, profits and dividends--twice the supposed $9 billion per month cost in Iraq.

Controversial because insurance companies oppose health care reform on the federal and state level with scores of lobbyists and millions of dollars, including campaign contributions to political allies who respond by not only defeating reform legislation, but pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into insurance company coffers by the means of the Medicare drug law and Medicare Advantage, a program that for privatizing Medicare, the Republican way.

Controversial because the current private health insurance system leaves out 47 million Americans, who easily could be insured for less than the excess costs and profits of private health insurers.

Controversial because not having insurance kills people. The Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences estimates 18,000 lives (another Iraqi-like number) are lost each year because one of seven Americans do not financial access to health care.

Controversial because America’s employers (see William Clay Ford., former Ford CEO) cannot control of the health care costs of their employees. And are becoming less internationally competitive.

Controversial because unpaid health care bills are a factor in 50% of all bankruptcies.

Controversial because insurance company HMOs and PPOs dictate what doctors you see and what hospitals you use.

Controversial because Americans are spending enough money to have the best health care in the world for everyone, not just the momentarily fortunate.

But reform is not going to happen as long as the Bill McQuires of United HealthGroups and the Angela Bralys of Wellpoints of the world are running their (and your) for-profit health care system.

The first step in correcting what Forbes recognizes as “the current health care mess” is to replace private insurers with public administration of patient-choice private services.

Dr Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of September 05 - September 12, 2007 from Bill Roy

Sixty years ago I was a boy groom. While I am no longer a boy, I am still Jane Twining Osterhoudt’s groom, and very happy I am. (You can see why the three-letter surname attracted her.)

There’s one flaw with a sixtieth wedding anniversary. Many more have gone by than lie ahead. But there are so many glorious memories. And, we are our memories--which of course makes for an immense tragedy when one partner’s memory goes, and the other’s memory remains. So far, so good.

If only every marriage could be like ours...but then, you might not want it our way.

As an obstetrician-gynecologist, I know three things destroy marriages. For many years--too much my first years in practice--I asked tearful patients (I’m a sucker for women’s tears) to bring their willing husbands in after office hours. And I gratuitously tried to help, completely ignoring my limited qualifications or available time.

I tapered off because Jane reminded me she was home with a passel of kids. I chose my marriage, not theirs, but only after a few years when I wondered what was wrong. Not years of totally wine and roses.

Jane and I met in September 1943, married in 1947. We had our first child in December 1949. And our first car in 1951. We waited, and everything turned out so well, I am a believer in delayed gratification. And have probably praised it too often to others.

Yes, there was a time when nearly every one expected to have many children. That’s where Baby Boomers came from.

So a second child came in 14 months, another in 16 months, a fourth in 23 months, and a fifth 19 months later. Yes, our eldest was five when our fifth child was born. Ridiculous? Maybe, but it seemed to work so well.

As an obstetrician, shouldn’t I have known better? Without asking others’ opinions, we mutually proceeded because Jane seemed to thrive. She wore the same knit dress home after each of our first five children, and returned to her prenatal weight nearly immediately.

In 1959 Rise showed up, a long 41 months later, and leading to the repeated statement, “We have all boys, except five.” I ask her where she would be if we had had only six children. She looks at me like I’m nuts.

Oh yes, the three hitches in matrimonial bliss that I noted fifty years ago are still the big three today--I find by talking to many married and near-married college students today. The problem areas seem epidemic today, only endemic then.

In not any particular order, but closely related, they are money, drugs and sex.

Jane wrote advertising and her good salaries carried us through our first years (1945-1950). After babies began coming, with M.D. in hand I moonlighted nights as an emergency room physician for $30 a night.

From my first Air Force officer’s check until now, our “needs” have not exceeded our pocketbooks. We were lucky to live in years when a rising tide raised nearly everyone’s standard of living. Because the marginal federal income tax was 70%, the economy flourished

Today, kids and families work their butts off--two and three jobs--to get better educations, better jobs and better incomes. But it is getting harder and harder to do with taxes skewed to reward the upper 10% of earners.

Drugs and alcohol are pretty obvious marriage and life destroyers. People drink because of money and sex problems, compounding unhappiness. But drink and drugs may come first. Part is cultural; part may be genetic.

Finally, sex. We seldom see testimonials for monogamy. Not serial monogamy, but lifetime monogamy. Well, here is one. I suspect certain predatory sexual transgressions are addictive. But I know if you never start, you will never have to stop.

Or maybe, the two swans floating gently on an idyllic pond in a New Yorker cartoon had it right. Caption: “Do you think we are monogamous just because we are lazy?”

Whatever, monogamy can work--for eternity. We omitted “until death do us part,” from our wedding vows September 7 1947.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of August 29 - September 05, 2007 from Bill Roy

The summer is winding down, as always more quickly than we expect. Our final fling was centered around going back to the land of my birth and youth.--and making a speech!

I told an Illinois audience I would use the opening line their Senator Barack Obama used in Topeka a few months ago. Obama, referring to his Kansas-born mother and her parents who substantially reared him, said simply, “I am home again.”

I mused I never expected to talk to 300 Democrats in (notoriously Republican) McLean County. “Not that I expected I wouldn’t. I just never gave it a thought.”

Our trip began with son Bill insisting I see a ball game en route in new Busch Stadium. After all, I had taken him and the Dolan or Cornish boys to St. Louis for a ball game nearly every summer of the 60s.

We began watching aging Cardinal Stan Musial aiming for the short porch in old Sportsman’s Park. And to Bill it seemed only right and symmetrical that I should watch games in all three parks, Sportsman‘s, Busch one and Busch two.

There are more than physical differences. Tickets used to be $2. Our mediocre seats were $48. In the 60s people watched the ball game. Today, they make trips to the refreshment stands for $8.50 beers and other overpriced items. Oh yes, hotel room was $288, and an entree at Mike Shannon’s Grill is $45.

Thanks, kids. I will understand if this is my last complimentary ball game in St. Louis.

Back in the 50s, Musial and I drew about the same salaries each year. I compared. Today, as toys of billionaires and wards of cities, mediocre ballplayers make more in a season than a clinic of cardiologists.

But, it was a well known Bloomington-Normal family, the Penns, who were responsible for my speaking burden. My cousin June, on the Irish side, is matriarch. Her husband Paul was a union leader, and their three sons have succeeded Paul in union work.

I introduced our daughter Randy as Democratic National Committee Woman for Kansas, adding, “as was her mother.“ I then observed nepotism is okay as long as you keep it in the family“--Kennedy humor and Penn reality.

But even deep in the magnificent cornfields of Central Illinois, labor lives on, perhaps not as robust as formerly, but alive and kicking all the same. And the Penns are the face of it.

My sister Marian, also a former Republican, lives in Bloomington and is acutely aware of the community boards, community projects and other important roles labor plays in her community.

Even the local Mitsubishi auto plant is unionized. When they chose McLean County the Japanese signed a contract with the United Auto Workers and Illinois Republican Governor Jim Thompson to be a union plant.

When I expressed my surprise to Don Paxson, who is seeing Jane and me to the Stratford, Ontario Shakespeare Festival, Don put it cryptically, “Bill, Bloomington is north of the Mason Dixon Line.” (where non-union Japanese auto plants thrive with lower-paid workers who have never known any better.)

Everyone from Jim Cates to Lou Dobbs is bemoaning the rapid disappearance of the American Middle Class, that great, happy but short-lived phenomenon that began with the GI Bill after WWII and thrived until arrival of the Great Communicator in the White House.

President Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, and politically dominant Republicans have been systematically and successfully destroying organized labor and the American Middle class ever since. In McLean County you can see the corn, but you cannot see the healthy infrastructure that includes organized labor and makes that area the fastest growing in the great Blue State of Illinois.

(Bloomington’s huge State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, whose management has chosen to retain policy-holder ownership, helps.)

The punctuation mark on good American jobs came when we crossed into Canada at Port Huron, Michigan-Sarnia, Ontario.

Seven plus miles (11 kilometers) of trucks, parked bumper to bumper, were waiting to clear U.S. customs; Not a single truck was waiting to enter Canada. How much longer can we legitimately call the end-of-summer holiday Labor Day?

Dr. Roy may be reached at wiroy@aol.com

Column for week of August 22 - August 29, 2007 from Bill Roy

We are in the untenable position of having a private health insurance system that we cannot live with in the long run, and we cannot live without in the short run.

But we are stuck with it for indefinite future as indicated by Democratic presidential candidates incorporating it as a component in their schemes to insure all Americans, including today’s 45 million without health insurance.

But only a component, because for-profit private insurers will forever leave many uninsured by refusing to insure those with preexisting conditions and the ill and elderly. Or, offering to insure them at premiums only Buffett and Gates can afford.

And, in the process of insuring currently about one-half of Americans, mostly through employer-based insurance, commercial insurers will continue to take a big hunk of premiums for administration and profits.

This 15-30 percent commercials not used to pay for medical care is estimated to cost Americans $250-$300 billion each year, certainly enough money--about $6000 per capita--to insure the 45 million uninsured. (This is based on Medicare’s administrative costs of less than 5%.}

And, no, commercial health insurance does not guarantee choice of physician and hospital. Their HMOs, PPOs and other schemes usually limit patient choice to designated doctors and hospitals.

Only traditional Medicare (not Medicare Advantage) and most state Medicaid programs--not private insurers--provide choice of doctor and hospital.

This week three of the nation’s largest commercial health insurance companies, Wellpoint, Aetna and Humana, announced new products to insure two groups prominent among the uninsured, young adults and early retirees, ages 50-64, “who because of buyouts and company cutbacks in retirement benefits are increasingly caught in the gap between stopping work and Medicare eligibility,” observes the Wall Street Journal

Undoubtedly, the companies are doing it for the dual purposes of making money and relieving some of the pressure from one in six Americans being uninsured. However, in the process they reveal two intractable weaknesses of private health insurance.

First of all, it costs money to sell policies to individuals, underwrite individuals as risks, and properly price these products. In fact, a spokesperson for Wellpoint brags 70 cents on the dollar will be spent for health care--in contrast to as much as 97 cents of the Medicare dollar paying for health care.

And secondly, some sick or near-sick people are simply not insurable. An insurance trade group reports “on average 11% of the applicants who complete the process (italics mine) for individual plans in the 18-24 year old age group are rejected; but 30% of 60-64 year olds are rejected.” And hung out to dry.

Private insurance companies make money by skimming the market for the young and well, and skimping on paying claims. We can never get near to universal coverage by depending on companies to insure all Americans. And, we can ill afford to spend the $250-300 billion bite they take out of the $2.2 trillion spent annually for health care,

Conversely, we cannot do without commercial companies immediately, or probably piece-meal, because their policy-holders are picking up the tab for hospital and other care for the uninsured and for underpaying by Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor.

Medicare, a federal universal program for 44 million elderly and totally and permanently disabled, pays costs. Medicaid, a federal-stae program which covers care for 43 million poor Americans, often does not.

Why the difference in payment by the two government programs? Programs for the poor--who don’t vote and have little voice in government--are poor programs, inevitably under funded by legislatures.

In contrast, Medicare covers all seniors, who vote and make their voices heard. Congress knows if Medicare underpays doctors, they will quit seeing Medicare patients--and they will hear about it. Only means-testing threatens to make Medicare a poor program.

For the moment, we are burdened with a medical care system that will cost each American $7,100 this year. With continuing 9-10% per year cost increases, the system must be changed before it crowds out nearly everything else. When that happens look for private health insurance to go the way of the do-do bird, replaced by publicly financed universal care, privately delivered.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of August 15 - August 22, 2007 from Bill Roy

Many of our state governments, Republicans and Democrats alike, are trying to provide health insurance for the 10-20 percent of their residents who have none. They have accepted this increased role because they know what they have isn‘t working--and because their voters and health care providers are letting them know it.

Also, most governors and state legislators believe they can do a better job of providing health care access to their residents than the federal government. And, finally, because they believe, with cause, that as long as there are Republicans in Congress, we will not have a national system.

State efforts deserve praise, but I believe they are outbound on an impossible journey. First and foremost, they have very little chance of raising the big bucks they need because of a fact of life inherent in a system of 48 contiguous states.

To provide universal access to health care, states have limited choices. To do it they would have to enact employer or individual mandates or levy taxes so severe they would drive businesses and residents from their state. Kansans in the absence of similar taxes and mandates in Missouri would be heading east.

(Only Hawaii has successfully mandated employers provide employees with health insurance. But to flee, they have to walk a long way on water.)

States are also in trouble because they not trying to establish a universal system for all their residents, but rather they are trying to just plug holes. They intend to buy or supplement the cost of private health insurance for the poor and near-poor.

This is an immediate administrative nightmare, because those eligible for help this month may not be next month. Incomes change, particularly among the near poor..

Also, most states intend to turn millions of people over to often poorly regulated private insurance companies that are in fact beyond their regulation because of a 1974 federal law called ERISA limiting state regulation, and a 1940s law requiring state, not federal, regulation.

Sending more money to private health insurance companies is like pouring gasoline on an already raging fire. Private companies have at least three times the administrative costs of public administration. Throw in high profits and immensely excessive executive salaries, and state money will not go far.

But that does not mean states should give up, nor we should not be happy about their sensitivity to the problem of our nation‘s miserable health insurance system. States can be effective administrators more responsive to people’s needs than the more distant federal government.

And with something so critical as medical care, one size does not fit all. Some people in Kansas will always be farther from even the best planned emergency medical services than anyone in Rhode Island.

If we didn’t have states, we would have to invent them. So let’s take advantage of their present enthusiasm to bring American health care into the 20th and 21 st century by establishing the federal financing and regulation necessary to make a state-based system work.

What’s needed for a state-federal system?

First of all, there must be federal financing dependent on participating states meeting legislated basic requirements. Federal money can also help poorer states to achieve systems comparable to those of wealthier states. Medicaid already works this way.

Along with substantial national financing, there would need to be regulations defining a benefit package, accessibility, portability and other factors necessary in the federal system of a nation with a 14th Amendment.

I recognize “Medicare for All,” an all federal program, is a reasonable alternative. What is not reasonable is to continue what we are doing, or any minimal modification of this failed system.

For example, if we continue our historical increases in health care costs of 9% each year (for 30 years), and our gross national product increases an ordinary 3 % per annum, in 24 years we will be spending $16 trillion for health care out to a GNP of $24 trillion, just two of every three dollars.

And we may still be 42nd among nations in longevity.

Dr. Roy may be reached at wirroy@aol.com

Column for week of August 8 - August 15, 2007 from Bill RoyThe citizens of every other industrialized democracy in the world have expressed their concern for the well-being, health and lives of others by providing them access to health care. Somehow, the United States, richest nation of all, has not done so.

To some Americans denying health care seems barbaric and inhuman; to others it is simply good business--so good we spend one and one-half times more on health care than any other nation.

Our country made a belated start by international standards in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson, with a largest-ever election mandate and a two to one Democratic Congress, passed Medicaid and Medicare. But, except for nibbling at the edges, nothing more has been done for over 40 years.

We remain passive and paralyzed although the number of medically uninsured has increased by about one million a year since the advent of Reagan in 1981. And, we are doing little about health care expenditures continuing to increase at an unsustainable two-three times the growth of the economy.

Concerned Americans and health-policy veterans, who once believed universal access to care would follow Medicaid and Medicare in a decade or less, are now frustrated and uncertain about when, if ever, we will provide basic medical care for everyone.

Some say we must await a perfect storm, a catastrophic war or another Great Depression. Others think a lesser phenomenon like the one-party control of the mid-60s can make possible the necessary legislation.

A minority believe just simple compassion and reason may prevail. People someday may realize prompt treatment of a child’s infected ear to prevent deafness is more important than paying one greedy United Health Group executive over $1.5 billion in one lump sum.

Fortunately, two very strong currents are identifiable and growing among the eddies and whirlpools of health care confusion.

One is states--Massachusetts, California, Wisconsin and, to a degree, nearly every other state--are trying to find health insurance for everyone in their state.

They can’t do it, because state universality would require high state taxes and/or mandatory play or pay requirements of employers. And only Hawaii, and perhaps Alaska, can maintain a satisfactory business climate with costly mandates or taxes, and nearby state lines.

The other growing current is generated by employers who want to rid themselves of the smothering costs of health insurance for employees and retirees. At each opportunity, they are pushing costs off on employees, or simply discontinuing health insurance. They must act because health care costs are diminishing their competitiveness, domestically and internationally.

So, any new ideas? Perhaps old ideas repackaged.

Let’s make states responsible for health care. Excepting for sharing costs, setting minimal national standards and discharging obvious federal responsibilities, let’s get Washington out of way.

You may call it a blow for federalism, or even for states’ rights; but it’s a good conservative way to deliver health care that liberals can buy into. One size does not fit all. Competition does not work between United Health Group and Wellpoint; it may among 50 states each with new ideas and trying to do a better job.

Initiation of state responsibility for universal health care can be done simply and with minimal disruptions the present system.

The feds can simply say to the states you do A, B, C, and D, and we, the feds, will send you a variable percentage of costs, not unlike federal Medicaid reimbursement which includes greater support for poorer states.

For federally-assisted, universal state health insurance to work, America must get rid of two huge roadblocks that distort the cost and delivery of health care.

One is employer based health insurance, stop-gap measure of WWII that has out-lived its usefulness. Get rid of it, and we will stop the migration of automobile assembly plants to Ontario and other industries elsewhere.

The other is private “health insurance,” also a recent happening. The insurance concept never fit health care. Insurance is for unforeseeable catastrophes, not paying for aspirin. Their overhead, distorted risk pools and intrusions into medical practice make their continuation unwise and intolerable.

More later on A, B, C and D.

Column for week of August 1 - August 8, 2007 from Bill Roy

When I wrote last week supporting renewal and expansion the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), I had no idea how determined President George W. Bush and many congressional Republicans are to stop subsidized health care for poor children and to privatize Medicare, the highly successful 40-year program that help seniors and the disabled get medical services. But I learned when the Republican-sponsored megaphones opened up.

For example, the Wall Street Journal op-ed and editorial pages published five articles in six days warning Americans against expanding “government medicine,” and/or “Hillary-care,“ by helping states insure kids. And shouting the praises of Medical Advantage, a taxpayer subsidized program to lure Medicare recipients into private insurance programs.

The propagandists suffered a temporary set-back when health insurance company Humana announced 19% quarterly income gains, mostly from their growing Medicare Advantage program.

Today’s Medicare Advantage was passed in 2003 as part of Medicare D legislation that helps some seniors--and many pharmaceutical and health insurance companies--with expensive American drugs.

Explaining how insidious Medicare Advantage is requires some figures.

We Americans are paying an average of $7,100 each for health care, a total of $2.2 trillion, nearly one-sixth of the gross national product. Yes, that’s right, a family of four is paying an average of $28,000 each year for health care.

A part of this large pie is Medicare, which costs more per person because it covers 44 million seniors and permanently and totally disabled, about one in seven Americans. In 2006, Medicare cost $374 billion, 12% of the federal budget. In addition, Medicare recipients pay several thousand dollars out of pocket each year for physician insurance, supplementary insurance, deductibles and co-pays.

Per person cost of Medicare’s decades-old, traditional fee-for-service program varies across the country. For our example, we’ll use an about-right figure of $8,000 per recipient for region A.

But Medicare Advantage pays insurance companies in region A $9,000, a $1,000, 12 percent (unconscionable) subsidy intended to be used to seduce Medicare patients into becoming wards of private insurance companies.

The insurance companies place their new profit centers into company-structured HMOs, PPOs, or fee-for-service arrangements.

They also selectively market, avoiding sick people and finding younger and healthier enrollees. Some companies are being investigated for aggressive marketing and misleading advertising that have resulted in confused purchasers who have to pay bills they never expected.

But, with 12 percent subsidies and time-tested tactics, it is no surprise Humana is reporting great profits--and a 1.2% stock price increase for its recent reporting day alone. And with subsidies, insurance companies can ignore administrative costs and profits that average 15%, ten times traditional Medicare’s administrative costs.

(If companies lose subsidies, they’ll cut benefits to pay administrative costs and profits. By that time, it will be too late for enrollees--but not for many retired multimillionaire executives.)

However, if you are just now becoming aware that Republicans intend to privatize Medicare, let me tell you while we slept, they have successfully privatized 70% of Medicaid, the other similarly-sized government health program.

Medicaid is a state-federal program for the poor that cost $304 billion and covered 47 million people in 2006. States determine eligibility and administer programs--at least until they turn enrollees over to private insurance companies. (SCHIP builds on state Medicaid programs by adding previously ineligible children.)

What we think of as government programs (add military, VA, etc.) pay for some health care for about one in three Americans, or 100 million people. Add 155 million with employer-based health insurance or individual private insurance, and 45 million with no health insurance, and you have us all, just over 300 million.

But federal and state governments are making suckers of taxpayers by turning their 100 million designated beneficiaries over to private insurance companies that take a 10-30% administrative-profit slice (versus 1.5% traditional Medicare administrative costs).

Government willingness to act as premium-collector for private insurance companies--who then do as they see fit with Medicaid and Medicare enrollees and health care providers--explains in part why we pay about one and one-half times as much for health care as anyone else in the world, but don’t get any more of it.

Dr. Roy may be reached ar wirroy@aol.com

Roberts has much to overcome in next bid

By Bill Roy

Special to The Capital-Journal

Published Saturday, June 30, 2007

I know Sen. Pat Roberts is vigorously raising money; I get frequent invitations to participate, probably because Republicans believe all doctors are Republicans. I agree it's worth betting a stamp on.

Why raise money so early?

Because Roberts is too politically savvy to not know that he and any of 20 other GOP senators up for election next year are in some degree of jeopardy due to the sad performance of the all-Republican Bush administration.

And, that even in reddest of red Kansas, there are those who remember that Roberts' Freedom to Farm Act, when he chaired the House Ag Committee, was a disaster. It was quickly dubbed the Freedom to Go Fail Act - unless you were a favored corporate farmer.

Many regard Roberts' performance as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee as worse - and farther-reaching - because it helped take Bush, the neocons and the entire nation into a disastrous war. He failed to ask the right questions before the war, during the war and in further investigations of the war.

In fact, Roberts gets perhaps more than his deserved credit for his failure to convene a timely investigation about what went wrong with our nation's intelligence apparatus, and what is still wrong with it. He is a team player and will be hard-put to not be seen as an intricate part of the team that is blowing up more and more Iraqis and American service men and women.

Unfortunately, for those who would like to retire Roberts before his 78th birthday, his most potent opponents have other things to do. Jim Slattery or Dan Glickman or Kathleen Sebelius would be not just good, but nearly certainly great senators.

Slattery, the former six-term congressman, has remained in Washington and successfully practiced law while cordially keeping his Kansas fences mended. He likes what he is doing. And, I can still remember him saying with a wry smile, "Losing (the 1994 governor's race to 'Pack 'em high and tight,' harmless Bill Graves) 2-to-1 makes a guy pretty humble."

That happened to many Democrats in 1994. And 2008 may be the mirror image of that fatal year.

Slattery would love to be senator; he is an Irish political animal in the best sense of the term.

The smiling, congenial Glickman, who served 18 years in the House and four years as secretary of agriculture, is, like Slattery, superbly qualified to serve in the Senate or nearly anywhere else. And that's the kicker. Glickman is president of the Motion Picture Academy of America, a highly paid position occupied from the demise of the Johnson administration until just recently by rainmaker Jack Valenti. For the versatile Glickman, there is hardly a better "job" than that. With his people and administrative talents, it must be a breeze.

Then there's the governor. She likes her job and does it well. Most importantly, her husband, Gary's, dad, Congressman Keith Sebelius, was well served by his chief aide, Pat Roberts. As far as I know, Roberts is, and will always be, a Sebelius family friend. Not only the cowmen and farmers, but also the Democrats and Republicans can be friends - believe it or not in this period of political nastiness and malignant talk radio.

I like Roberts, too. He and Congressman Sebelius were just down the hall from my congressional office, and we mixed well. In many ways, he has served his state and country well, which is good, because he has hardly ever drawn a paycheck from anyone else.

(Whenever Pat and my administrative aide, the late Paul Pendergast, got together, we all knew some hilarious political ideas were soon to be heard, if not implemented. A good time was had by all.)

Roberts is a Marine; there are no former Marines. He bleeds purple, but can find Lawrence. All I'm suggesting is we gratuitously help the soon-to-be 72-year-old retire in a timely manner.

Because, let's face it, he has been running around with a bad crowd - which he probably recognizes by his early, near-frantic political activity.

Dr. Bill Roy is a retired physician and former member of Congress. He has a law degree and lives in Topeka. He may be reached at wirroy@aol.com.

Wyandotte County Democrats

Navigation

End of Bush

User login