A Return to Feudalism?

In the days of yore in Europe when feudalism reigned we had kings, dukes, earls, counts, viscounts, barons or more basically: kings, Lord and peasants (or serfs). In a kingdom there would be only one king, several Lords and a lot of peasants (90%) who did all the work. It was a system that lasted a very long time; much longer than the American system of democracy. In this system there were free peasants who had independent businesses like carpenters, blacksmiths, bakers, and weavers. These free peasants had plots of land that the paid the Lord rent for their use. The unfree peasants just worked the land earning the right just to live there. What the feudal system did was provide security at the hands of the Lords and the serfs gave up their freedom for that security.

We fought a war to be free of such a system. And we live in a republic, a democracy which is to value the rights and freedoms of all its citizens on an equal basis. At least that was what the founding fathers attempted to create and hand down to ensuing generations.

So, how has that worked out? Today less that 2% of the country own half the wealth of a prosperous country and live lives like, shall we say, Kings/Lords? Many of us are free people believe we own homes and business for which we pay taxes upon; if you don’t pay those taxes you don’t have them; just call it what it is - rent. A great deal of that tax/rent money goes to the upper 2% of the country which is why they have most of the money. With that money they have folk to ensure this system continues, they can be called congressmen or if you please Lords of the land.

Some of these Lords of the land, supposedly elected by the overall populace, believe they are public servants and recall the dreams of the founding fathers and they try create a system to distribute the wealth of the land more equitably. But they lack enough power and money to effectively accomplish those dreams. Most appear to accede the way it goes in politics and just accept the rewards of being a Lord’s vassel.

Supply side economics, brought into our democracy by the Reagan administration and then was furthered by Bush administrations. And thus began the transfer of funds to the Lords of the land via subsidies, tax loopholes, regressive taxes and the lot. And the tradesmen and the tenants began to see their income diminish.

Have we returned to feudalism? Not really, but we have gone a far cry from the vision of the founding fathers and demand side economics that grew this country.

‘Tis it any wonder we have such a fascination with the British royals. But the poor Queen is a mere pauper in today’s world of multi billionaires susch as Bill Gates with 56 Billion and Warren Buffet with $50 billion, with an estimated value of only $420 million.

Divine Evidence Found

I have mentioned before that I am a believing agnostic. I don’t believe there is any tangible proof for the existence of God. You cannot walk into your local church, synagogue, mosque or the like and order up 5 lbs of god, or 2 quarts of divine essence or the like. With that said, I do believe there is considerable symbolic evidence for the existence of God.

For some that might be the works of nature, the orderliness of the universe, a certain internal emptiness inside that only a belief system seems to fill, or the like. Puppy dogs, baby toes, cat purrs, gazelle grace, all may lend credence to such feelings.

But perhaps not as well known, I have found evidence of the presence of deity in our midst. In LeMars, Iowa there is a Blue Bunny ice cream company. Since 1913 they have been makers of what some call the world’s best ice cream, the name came in 1935. One of the 500 flavors they make is Chocolate Carmel Commotion. I have it on good authority that the deity inspired the creation of this delectable delicacy.

After two agonizing weeks out being out of said nectar of the God, today, at last I retrieved the last remained cartoon from our local grocery. Ah happiness. God is in her heaven, the CCC is in our freezer, and all is right with the world.

Pie Politics

Rupert Murdock gets hit with a pie in the face. What a superb idea. Murdock is one of the ultra rich that I keep complaining about for not paying their fair share of taxes and getting government entitlements. He’s confusing in that he seems like a nice man but controls both the Wall Street Journal and FOX news. He’s an American who lives in England. He is a capitalist in a highly socialized country. Who he is?

And apparently the guy who smacked him in the face with the pie didn’t have a clue as to who was either. He was just a guy who thought it would be funny to smack somebody with a pie.

We know some of the ultra rich in this country, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet even complain how unfair it is that they pay less taxes than their employees. But most of the ultra rich are unknown faces that control over half the wealth of the nation and possess the power that goes with it. And the government apparently represents these unknown folk.

Solution, let’s buy pies and start smacking people with them. There is a remote possibility that you might actually hit one of the ultra rich. As for the rest, if it’s a tasty pie, no real loss. Or how about political candidates instead of “doing their little sidesteps” during the televised debates, just smack each other with pies. Then the populace can vote on the best pie smacker. Why do I have the feeling the outcome wouldn’t be much different that it is in our present system?

The pie was a foam pie, about as weighty as the issues discussed anyway.

I Wonder

       

 I wonder when Tina Fey will start working up her Michelle Bachmann impersonation. Just wonderin'. Fox news couldn't tell the difference between Palin and Fey in one of their newscasts. Will the trend continue. Perhaps the Republicans should just run Tina Fey, she has more appeal than the others.

From the Good News site

Alabama Cuts Medicaid Costs by $30 Million by Examining Drug Receipts

By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Civics and World - General

Three years ago, Carol Steckel, Alabama’s Medicaid director, sent a national alert to all of her counterparts around the country. She asked them to join her in uncovering fraudulent prices published by major drug makers — prices that she said inflated the amount all states were paying to pharmacies.

At the time, Alabama had won three lawsuits against drug manufacturers on the grounds that published prices were artificially high. Steckel was working on an entirely new way to set drug prices for Medicaid beneficiaries, one that aimed to lower Alabama’s overall costs, but also remain sensitive to the needs of local pharmacies to make a profit.

Last September, Alabama won federal approval for the change Steckel sought. Since then, the state has launched its new pricing method, and expects to shave 6 percent off its prescription drug bill this year.

In January, Oregon received federal approval to do the same thing.

Now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is urging other states to add Alabama’s pricing model to their toolbox of methods to cut Medicaid costs. Last week, the federal agency announced it had hired a contractor to build a national drug pricing database that would help other states use the same strategy Alabama is employing.

The fiscal crisis states have been facing runs so deep that they have no choice but to look for savings wherever they can find them. According to a survey by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, every state is taking steps to curb payments to pharmacies. Those payments account for about 10 percent of all Medicaid spending, or roughly $37 billion a year out of state budgets.

A decade ago, states began pushing cheaper generic medicines for their Medicaid populations as a way to curb what was a small but fast-growing slice of their budgets. And it worked: Drug costs aren’t rising as steeply now.

Using Alabama Model to Crack Down on Inflated Drug Prices

Nearly all states base their drug prices on the wholesale prices published by manufacturers. This method is called the “average wholesale price,” and it’s the benchmark states have used for decades to figure out what to pay pharmacies dispensing drugs to Medicaid beneficiaries.

Alabama decided to verify that the prices pharmacies pay for drugs actually were what the drug companies said they were. What it found was that pharmacies typically paid less than the published wholesale price. Not only that, but state Medicaid programs generally pay more than private insurers do. Even among states, prices vary widely for the same name-brand and generic drugs. Court cases in Alabama and elsewhere have generally upheld claims that drug maker price lists were inaccurate.

Alabama’s new pricing method, known as “average acquisition cost,” is based on what the pharmacies actually pay. To find out that information, Alabama hired a contractor to conduct a twice-yearly random-sample survey of about 350 of the state’s 1,350 drug stores. Over the course of two years, every pharmacy will be sampled. They are asked to hand over one month’s worth of receipts for all of their drug purchases and file updates to those prices weekly. The federal government has hired the same contractor and has committed to a similar survey schedule.

Pharmacies — particularly small independent ones — had doubts about Alabama’s new pricing scheme because it might squeeze their profit margins. To get pharmacists to support the change, Alabama raised the so-called “dispensing fee” it pays from $5.40 for each prescription to $10.64. “They let their concerns be known and we addressed them,” says Alabama’s pharmacy director, Kelli Littlejohn. “People are surprised that we could cut $30 million and still have the support of all of our pharmacies. It’s strictly because they were engaged from day one.”

Oregon also nearly doubled its dispensing fee when it decided to switch to the new pricing scheme. Any state looking to follow Alabama’s lead would have to. Without higher dispensing fees states will see their network of pharmacies disappear, particularly in rural and low-income urban communities.

States don’t want to squeeze the pharmacies too hard. While they want to keep their drug bills as low as possible, they also must ensure that enough pharmacies survive to supply Medicaid beneficiaries with the drugs they need.

For brand-name drugs, it’s relatively easy to estimate what pharmacies pay—the prices are listed. But for generics — which now make up more than 80 percent of all drugs dispensed — it’s much more difficult. Generic drugs are a commodity, with prices that vary regionally and fluctuate daily. Multiple drug makers produce generics and they charge different prices to different pharmacists, depending on volume, special promotions and other factors. Without asking drug stores to hand over their receipts, states would have no idea what they’re actually paying.

The effort put into developing the Alabama program — plus the $170,000 per year the state pays the contractor to look at pharmacy receipts — is a small price to pay for $30 million in savings.

The next step for Alabama is a voluntary program in which community pharmacies will get an extra fee starting January 1 for dispensing a 90-day supply of certain drugs; currently, there’s a monthly limit. The change is designed to cut costs by allowing bulk purchases and make it easier for patients to keep taking their prescribed medicines. Together, Alabama’s Medicaid agency expects the programs to not only save about $9 million, but also improve outcomes for patients.

(First published in Stateline.org)

A Little Sidestep

The following link from "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas" seems somehow prophetic.

http://youtu.be/NJG75FJkjr8

Faith Based Politics

Unfortunately, when we used the term “faith based”, images of conservative Christians who want to jam their particular religious values down the throats of all with the aid of government, come to mind. This drives me absolutely crazy (some of you believe that may be a short drive.) I am further irked that when religious arguments in general are invoked they do not represent the reasoned religious thinkers of the past and present that have benefited society. Without the church and other religious institutions during the dark ages, we’d all be stumbling around as ignorant boobs and most of past intellectual work would not exist.

When I think of “faith based politics” it means to me that people of faith, all faiths, actively using their religious belief systems to inform their political understanding. The phrase, trite as it is, “What would Jesus do?” would be helpful in debating today political issues. Where would Jesus, or Mohammed, or Confucius, or Buddha, the eternal Atman and the like bear witness in the political arena? Do you believe these folk would be all for cutting social welfare programs? Do you think that they would go along with skewing the truth or just plain lying is justified in making your position appealing? Do you think they would condemn the poor for being poor and stupid? Do you think they would praise the rich and wealthy, who got rich and wealthy at the expense of others as heroic? Do you think they would believe that slander is perfectly alright as long as it is used about public figures?

I believe in the separation of church and state. And I think that churches have no business telling you what party you should belong to or which politician you should vote for. But churches, synagogues, mosques and their leaders do have the responsibility of encouraging their followers to use their religious beliefs in engaging in political debate. The founding fathers did and most political leaders in history have used their belief systems for good or ill. I believe that when we use our belief systems to inform ourselves we make better decisions. I respect those who stand up for their religious beliefs and inform the public of them without trying to make them wishy washy platitudes.

Unfortunately, today, I see a lot of functionally atheistic, amoral pundits who have sold their souls for the better poll results.