Green Energy Will Be Driven By Green Money

For those who want to change the world into a better place, do it with dollars. The world will become environmentally friendly when there's money in it. For example:

The wind turbines that recently went up on Louis Brooks’s ranch are twice as high as the Statue of Liberty, with blades that span as wide as the wingspan of a jumbo jet. More important from his point of view, he is paid $500 a month apiece to permit 78 of them on his land, with 76 more on the way.

“That’s just money you’re hearing,” he said as they hummed in a brisk breeze recently.

Texas, once the oil capital of North America, is rapidly turning into the capital of wind power. After breakneck growth the last three years, Texas has reached the point that more than 3 percent of its electricity, enough to supply power to one million homes, comes from wind turbines.

Texans are even turning tapped-out oil fields into wind farms, and no less an oilman than Boone Pickens is getting into alternative energy.

“I have the same feelings about wind,” Mr. Pickens said in an interview, “as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” He is planning to build the biggest wind farm in the world, a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself.

And money, more than insipid moralizing, will drive green energy. And that's the best way. The American Way.

Contain Health Care Costs, Pay Cash

Dr. Sanity pointed me to a piece by John Stossel about controlling health care costs by putting the consumer and the service provider in contact. In essence, by paying cash, patients cut out the big, bloated, fat, obnoxious middle man--the insurance company.

Over the years, our practice has morphed from 80% insurance to now about 5%, and I'm eager to get rid of that 5%. Insurance companies' reason for existence is not to facilitate a patient's health. Their existence is to make money. And do they ever! I've written about this before as you all know. This is what a cash-based doctor must do:

He has to compete for his patients' business. One result of that is lower prices. And while the procedure got cheaper, it also got better. Today's lasers are faster and more precise.

Prices have fallen and quality has risen in other medical fields where most people pay for care themselves, like cosmetic surgery. Consumer power works -- even in medicine.

Here's another thing: cash offices aren't always the cheapest. Ours isn't. In fact, those with insurance can go to a myriad of doctors offices and receive cheaper services. More power to them! But they can't get the services we provide at our office. So while some doctors are being assaulted by the insurance company--trapped in a situation where reimbursement is embarrassingly inadequate but fearful the patients will bail if they give up that company--we are charging fair fees. The fees may make some people decide not to come in, but that's okay with us. Our patients chose our care, get better faster, and ultimately spend less money. And, we don't feel taken advantage of because we're being paid less than a Value Meal at McDonalds for our care. (One company reimbursed $5 of the fee with the patient paying a $5 co-pay. It cost more to bill the insurance company.)

If the medical profession were more cash-based, paying attention to the doctor's track record would matter a lot more. The guys who are bad surgeons or physicians would be more exposed. They wouldn't be able to hide in group practices and bury their dismal statistics. Likewise, excellent doctors, doctors who seem to have the magic touch could charge higher fees. And why not? They have better outcomes and are better skilled.

Many professions where the care seems voluntary like dental, chiropractic, cosmetic, eye surgery have changed to be primarily cash. It's a win-win for patients and doctors. The relationship is more pure. Doctors are more responsive. (Yes, we get calls at night and on weekends at times.) Patients heal faster. They are an active participant in their own healing. The stakes are high--they pay more if they don't follow the doc's instructions. When it's out-of-pocket, people are very motivated.

What about the poor people, you ask. Well, we've never turned anyone away for financial reasons. We have a specific percentage of our practice that is charity. Most doctors do the same. In addition, old-fashioned bartering can fill the bill, too. I know doctors who've been paid in blueberry pies. There's worse ways to be paid.

Stossel concludes:

When consumers pay for medicine themselves, saving insurance for the big things, and doctors deal directly with consumers, doctors begin to compete. They start posting prices and work to keep them low.

And consumers gain more control of their health care. Instead of governments and insurance companies deciding for patients, patients decide.

Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government.

Absolutely. Getting cash back into the whole endeavor would create a cheaper, more honest system. When my son burned his hand and we took a trip to the hospital, since our insurance is high-deductible, it was all out of pocket. The hospital and doctor over-billed. With insurance, it would never have been questioned. Why would the consumer care? They're not paying (oh, but they are, just not right then). But my husband talked with both offices and got the bill re-coded. He has a great motivation to keep the institution and doctor honest: it's his money. Every patient would do well to hold their health care providers accountable--insured or not.

Dr. Sanity said, "The free market? What a concept!" In medicine, it's a foreign one, but one that doctors and patients should become reacquainted with. The alternatives are frightening.

Capitalism, It's Personal, Socialism, It's the DMV

The day before yesterday, the dance school my kids belong to asked me to get the printing done for their end-of-year performance. So, I did what all capitalist consumers do: called nearly a dozen print shops to see if I could get the product I wanted in the time I needed for the price I could pay. A couple shops were backed up and had no way of helping. A couple had equipment that didn't quite meet the needs of the project which drove up the cost. One of these places had a woman answer, "Ms. Clouthier?"

Yes.

"Your husband is my doctor! He is soooooo awesome. My husband and I love, LOVE him!" She then proceeded to tell me her current health concerns and chided herself for not going to see The Doctor. Anyway, she couldn't help me, but she referred me to her friend who tried, but quoted me about five times the most competitive price.

All in all, seven different companies gave me bids. Most of the time I was talking to the business owner. Each person carefully assessed the projects needs. I received a couple immediate bids. A couple other businesses emailed me quotes within minutes. Finally, there were two business choices and one was Office Depot. Yes, that big, bad business offered personalized, eager service, gave me one of the best prices, but most of all, could turn around the job the fastest (probably because they were the least busy.) And, without asking, they threw in an extra service for free.

The kindness, efficiency, and knowledge of the printers made me think about.......Venezuela. How long will it take for all the incentives to serve, learn, and achieve be driven out of the people there? My guess? Not long.

We already know what the service will be like in a socialist system. Just visit the DMV and be snarled at by the workers there. Or, like happened to me twice, with a line out of the place about 25 people deep, one of the workers said, "Okay, I'm leaving on my break!" Can you imagine a business doing this? Of course not! When business is hot, they hire workers and serve the customers. They ramp up output. They certainly don't go on break--not if they want to be in business long.

The people of Venezuela are in for a lot of long lines, indifferent service and expense. Their choices will diminish. The skills and expertise that people work hard to obtain won't be rewarded. People will see that their ambition won't be rewarded--unless they are a Chavez sycophant. And Chavez only needs a few thousand of those. The rest of the people will "phone it in". The economy will crumble piece by piece. The spirit and will of the people will be broken by government thugs and the military (who get paid most and fed best). The intelligentsia will leave the country. Anyone who values their investments will leave.

Venezuela will be propped up by foreign governments intent on installing sympathetic tyrants on every corner of the earth in hopes of dragging down the legit members of the world society. The money won't trickle down. A mafia of overlords and oligarchs will prop up Hugo Chavez. Free thought, competition, science and the arts will be squelched. In their places, big pictures of Chavez's enormous noggin will replace it. In desperation, as the government crumbles, Chavez will strengthen the military.

It's all predictable. And still, people like Hillary Clinton use collectivist rhetoric. It's soothing. It's enticing. The lazy, the short-sighted, the weak, the unsophisticated are lulled by sweet words. The Anchoress notes:

There is an enormous difference between a few dozen people voluntarily giving up their worldly goods for communal living, and forcing people to participate in such a society against their will. The first brings freedom for those who choose it. The second, historically, has brought tyranny, poverty, slaughter and the gulag. When Hillary said, a few years ago,
“Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
I and many others (and I am not a particularly materialistic person, mind you) felt that old chill wind Tim Robbins keeps warning us about blow and blow.

Taking things away from those richer sounds so good to those who have less. Socialism is like a drug. Why, it's like an opiate for the masses. Here's what Marx said:

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

But I think it should be substituted thusly:

Socialist suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Socialism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Those who suffer look for an easy way out. They look for earthly solutions and find them in very human people willing to exploit their desires to their own dictatorial ends.

Venezuelans will find that their hope would have been better put in God and their own work ethic. Chavez is a poor replacement for either. Hillary Clinton is no better than any other human saying sweet words hoping to entice enough people to empower her.

Perfect Totalitarianism

Freedom and capitalism account for human nature's base proclivities and channels them productively. In contrast, totalitarianism attempts to suppress man's base nature--except, of course, the supreme leader and his oligarchy. They are free to express all aspects of themselves. Totalitarian fantasies abound among those who are convinced that their way would be best for everyone--if only everyone would submit to their betters.

Dr. Sanity has the best essay on the genesis of totalitarianism. She finds a seed being sown in Seattle by public school teachers removing Legos from the classroom. Here's just a tidbit:

Human nature is what it is. This is not at all tragic; it is a simple truth. The biological fantasies of the leftist utopians; and the delusional fantasies of communists and socialists and all their 21st century heirs, have lead to incalculable levels of human suffering all over the world, as the proponents of these theories have tried to force humans to evolve into some sort of "ideal" state.
All such systems have failed the real-world tests in the last century; and all current versions of these ideologies will also eventually fail and fade away. To the extent that they attempt to incorporate some aspects of "human nature" into their failing system, they may last a bit longer as they slowly chip away at the human spirit and work to extinguish it; but it is actually much more likely that human nature will transform the perverse ideology than that the reverse will happen.