Taxes, Public Flogging, and the public option

I have three separate issues to discuss in this post.

1. Another example of how refusing to pay taxes costs us all indirectly
Recently a local crime involving a convicted criminal who was sentenced to eight years in prison less than three years ago renewed questions about sentencing rules. The Nashville Chief of Police held a news conference during which he expressed his extreme disgust with the judicial system. The convicted criminal had been sentenced to eight years in prison for a violent crime, only to be released after only 30 percent of the sentence. The police chief said he had been told it was a money issue but he was convinced the justice system was at fault.
I see this as a money issue related to one of my favorite complaints. In our self-centered focus on taxes we continue to strangle our local governments. Local news reports are regularly populated with stories about the extreme efforts local school boards make to keep schools open with inadequate funding. Incarceration of state and local criminals is funded by state and local taxes just like the schools. Prison overcrowding forces early releases and we all know prisons rarely provide effective rehabilitation. The only way to protect citizens is to keep the criminals separated from law-abiding citizens as long as possible. The way to do this is to provide funding for prisons to keep these criminals away from us. Every time local voters vote down a legitimate tax increase the repercussions are broad and long lasting. Inadequate school funding creates more young people being unprepared for life. Unprepared young people are more likely to become involved in criminal activity. Underfunded prisons are forced to release un-rehabilitated criminals early into a society under-protected by under-funded police departments. The root cause is self-centered greed on the part of local taxpayers.

2: Discipline and punishment
As noted above, current punishments for criminal activity are largely ineffective and unnecessarily costly. I have a solution to propose: public flogging. This should be the second-level punishment for non-violent crimes like burglary. More serious crimes with violence against victims should get this as first-level punishment. The public aspect would serve as a graphic example of the consequences of doing a crime. It just might be a better incentive to obey the law than a few months in jail. To take this a bit further, we could provide for combination punishments where a weekly public flogging was part of a reduced prison sentence. Saves money and maybe reduces recidivism.

3: Why health care reform is in trouble
The heavily funded private insurance companies are using their “influence” to buy opposition to the public option in an effort to maintain their un-defensible profit margins. This protection of profits comes at the cost of some poor, uninsured sick people dying. The connection is unverifiable but the motive is certainly there. The Democrats who are apparently being paid off with some promise of wealth and power should be exposed. If you know the facts about why a Democrat opposed the public option, please let the world know. Maybe I’m wrong. If I am wrong I need to be corrected publicly. Do it here.

DRP

Senator Edward Kennedy's passing

There are opponents of health care reform who are breathing a secret sigh of relief. With the passing of Senator Kennedy the most powerful and long-lived voice for reform has been quieted. Kennedy was a proponent of health care reform many years before the stance became sexy. He sincerely believed all Americans had a right to health care and he did not like the way health care had become a privilege based on one's financial status.

I don't necessarily believe it is a right but at today's rising costs it is rapidly becoming a privilege of the wealthy. My view of reform requires insurance companies to limit the practices that place adequate coverage to sick people far below profit on their corporate plans. I want a plan that provides basic coverage for pre-existing conditions (does not exclude pre-existing from coverage). My recommendation for the public option is based on using the public option to supplement the insurance options available from the private sector. A private sector insurer will always have the right to establish its own coverage system and include any exclusions it sees fit. To have this right the insurer must be willing to pay a surcharge on the premiums it collects from members. This surcharge will help offset the public cost of subsidizing the people who cannot afford to pay for coverage. The public option will provide coverage for anyone. The cost of coverage for the individual will depend on that individual's ability to pay. The private insurers can provide lower premiums by continuing the exclusion practices that reduce their costs but they will have to pay for that privilege with the aforementioned surcharge. This actually seems fair to all and a good, non-controversial option to the status-quo.
Post your comments to tell me what you think!
DRP

ps: I must apologize for the insensitivity of using Senator Kennedy's passing as an opportunity to mount my soapbox but it is a common political practice is it not.