Healthcare, Education: Two Reasons to Worry About America's Future 21 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It was only last October when Warren Buffett penned his now famous op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Buy America. I Am.” It feels like an eternity ago based on everything that has happened in the financial markets.
In the article, Buffett discussed his reasons for being bullish on the US for the long run. True to form, he claimed no prescience when it came to timing the markets, but clearly stated that despite near term uncertainly the index averages were destined to move high over time:
Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up… Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.
For the most part I agree with Buffett about taking advantage of distressed stock prices. I consider myself a contrarian investor and hope that in my career I have opportunities to be greedy when others are fearful and cautious when others are exuberant. The enormous wealth that has been built up in the US over the last 100 years is absolutely extraordinary and it is abundantly clear that unexpected innovations can emerge that drive prosperity and productivity.
In response to these facts, Buffett optimistically says that he expects his grandkids to live a better life than even he did and therefore we should continue to invest in America. Skeptics may say that this is an example of Buffett talking his book. Being such a large shareholder in US equities, he has a vested interest in seeing stocks go higher.
But I actually think that his motives are much less nefarious. I believe he is looking at the past as a relatively good predictor of the future, at least when it comes to our ability to make it through tumultuous times and create wealth despite numerous headwinds.
It is within this context (and being justifiably fearful of getting struck by lightning for disagreeing with The Oracle) that I want to highlight two concerns that I just can’t shake no matter how hard I try. These concerns were exacerbated by a recent article I read on the Prudent Bear website.
In this piece, a gentleman named James Quinn aggregated some troubling stats when it comes to health care and education issues in the US. Now, I can’t confirm all of his sources, but what I have done is supplemented his research with my own so that I can verify that the astonishing trends he highlights are accurate, even if the numbers are not necessarily verifiable.
Let’s start with health care. There are dozens of different topics within health care that I could have tackled, but inspired by Quinn’s analysis I chose to focus on obesity. Specifically, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) definition of someone who is overweight or obese is as follows:
For adults, overweight and obesity ranges are determined by using weight and height to calculate a number called the "body mass index" (BMI). BMI is used because, for most people, it correlates with their amount of body fat.
- An adult who has a BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight.
- An adult who has a BMI of 30 or higher is considered obese.
According to CDC statistics sited by Quinn, 66% of Americans over the age of 20 are either overweight or obese. Let that sink in for a second. That is an extraordinary statistic. While I haven’t been able to find the source of that exact figure, I did come across this CDC study that indicates that more than 1/3rd of American adults were obese in 2005-06:
No significant difference in obesity existed between men and women. Adults 40–59 years of age were more likely to be obese compared with younger and older individuals. Approximately 40% of men 40–59 years of age were obese compared with 28.1% of 20–39 year-olds and 32.2% of those aged 60 years and older. Among women, 41.1% of those 40–59 years of age were obese, whereas 30.5% of younger women 20–39 years of age were obese.
Now those obesity stats are disturbing their own right. More than 1 out of 3 American adults can be classified as obese? The severe health problems that can result from being overweight or obese, ranging from heart disease to diabetes to hypertension cannot be ignored.
More importantly though, from a broader social perspective, is the immense future cost of providing these people with the expensive health care they will need. If what Obama says about health care being the key driver of budget deficits, this data indicates that our current fiscal deficits may only grow in the future.
Specifically, in a 2003 study by Finkelstein, Fiebelkorn, and Wang, the researchers estimated that health care expenses related to obesity made up 9.1% of total expenditures in 1998. I can only imagine that this percentage will only rise (if it hasn’t already) in the future.
I guess my lasting concern is that no matter what kind of health care reform is achieved by Obama or future administrations, the costs of providing health care to these individuals will be borne by consumers and employers through higher taxes and insurance costs.
Plus, I am worried about long term productivity. If being overweight leads people to be sick more often, to miss more days of work, and/or inhibits their ability to do their jobs efficiently, aggregate productivity may be negatively impacted.
Unfortunately, these are the facts. Is this problem worse than climate change or the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Probably not. If we made it through the Cold War and we make it through the Great Recession, isn’t it logical to believe that we can overcome this? For sure. But, to me this is just another incremental headwind that I do not believe can be overlooked, especially when we asses the cumulative impact of all of the major concerns out there about the future of the US.
Now to the more troubling issue that I think actually threatens to de-thrown the US from being the world’s best incubator for innovation. Of course my concern has to do with the state of our education system. In determining if the US can continue to produce some of the world’s best scientists, engineers and doctors, we need to assess the educational resources that these individuals will need in order to excel. Let’s start off by looking at literacy.
According to the UN Human Development Report for 2007-08, the US was tied for 17th in the world in terms of literacy rate, behind notable titans such as Estonia, Belarus and Uzbekistan. Even more troubling, among OECD countries, the US had the 3rd highest rate of people between 16 and 65 without functional literacy skills. That rate, an amazing 20%, was well above that of countries such as Sweden and Denmark that have rates in the single digits.
Furthermore, the main problem with these figures is that not only are our outcomes nowhere near the top, but we also spend the most trying to achieve those outcomes. (Where have you heard that before? Oh yeah, health care.) According to an OECD study from 2003 highlighted in USA Today (note: this data differs somewhat from Quinn’s data):
The United States spends more public and private money on education than other major countries, but its performance doesn't measure up in areas ranging from high-school graduation rates to test scores in math, reading and science, a new report shows.
The United States spent $10,240 per student from elementary school through college in 2000, according to the report. The average was $6,361 among more than 25 nations.
As for the United States, it finished in the middle of the pack in its 15-year-olds' performance on math, reading and science in 2000, and its high-school graduation rate was below the international average in 2001…
This means that from kindergarten to senior year in high school (13 years, assuming a student makes it through), the US spends over $133K per student on education. That is quite an investment in a student’s future. In all honestly, I have no problem with the magnitude of the expenditure as long as we are developing literate and productive members of society. However, that does not look to be the case: From Quinn:
A study of public school students from 1991 to 2002 by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research generated disturbing results: <
- Nationally, the percentage of all students who left high school with the skills and qualifications necessary to attend college was 34% in 2002.
- The states with the lowest graduation rate in the nation were South Carolina (53%), followed by Georgia (56%), Tennessee (57%), and Alabama (58%).
- About 40% of white students, 23% of African-American students, and 20% of Hispanic students who started public high school graduated college-ready in 2002.
After all that time, money, and effort, only 1 in 5 Hispanic and less than 1 in 4 African American students graduate with the skills needed to go to college? Yikes. So the US spends the most per child and achieves what I would call mediocre results.
What is the lasting impact of this? Here is some more data from Quinn:
Of the approximately 111 million households in the United States, only 5.6 million earn more than $167,000. On the other end of the scale, 36.6 million make less than $30,000. The bottom is occupied by high school graduates or dropouts. The top is occupied solely by college graduates.
The result is an increased stratification between the haves and have-nots that increasingly is making the US look like a developing country in which there is an entrenched elite class, a disillusioned poor class and no middle class whatsoever. Without some kind of major education reform the trend toward the haves attending private schools that provide an excellent education while everyone else is left helplessly behind will only accelerate.
As Quinn suggests, a lot of this inequality stems for graduation rates. What does the data look like on that front? Check out this great chart from EducationWeek.org that presents data from sources funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the data from 2005-06, on average only 69.2% of people in this country graduated from high school.
While that is up from 66.4% in 1995-96, the percentage is actually down from 70.6% from the 2004-05. This is the most recent data I can find but it sure doesn’t look like things are moving the correct direction as costs continue to climb. How much more does it cost? In 1991, the US spent 5.1% of GDP on education.
As the data from the table shows, that percentage went up to 5.9% in the 2002-2005 period. In contrast, Finland, which is highlighted by Quinn as a success story when it comes to education, spent 6.5% of its GDP on education in 1991 and in the 2002-05 period and attained the highest standards of literacy in the world for 15 year olds.
Getting into why the US spends so much on education in relation to other countries is for the most part beyond the scope of this analysis. Quinn argues that teachers unions, tenure arrangements, and what he feels is exorbitant teacher pay in relation to other professions are the main determinants of the high cost of education. My concern is more about the potential impact of the combination of such large expenditures per student and flat to declining results. First, Quinn offers the conspiracy theory-like argument that the less educated people are, the less curious they are and the less likely they are to try to rise up to change the status quo:
The dumbing down of America has allowed the intelligentsia to retain power and increase their control over the country. Lack of educational achievement doesn’t automatically mean you are easily manipulated, but it sure increases the odds. If you weren’t motivated enough to do well in school, you are unlikely to take your civic duties of voting, understanding national issues, and getting involved in your community seriously.
This is a little bit extreme for my tastes so I will let the reader evaluate Quinn’s conclusion on his or her own. Instead I focus on questions such as where are those engineers that are going to lead a green energy revolution going to come from? Or, coming from this educational backdrop, who is going to develop the next technology that changes our lives as much as the Internet has? Maybe most importantly, how are people in the workforce going to be able to support others who are not only uneducated, but also obese?
I think the answers to those respective questions are from abroad, a foreigner, and through much higher taxes. In the long run what we have to worry about is that eventually the US may not be the destination of choice for talented foreigners and that innovation will increasingly be achieved at foreign universities and within non-US companies.
While this new technology or process may eventually benefit Americans, the breakthrough may not emanate from the US. In other words, as a result of an underperforming, expensive educational system and uncompetitive tax rates, the US could lose its seat as the world’s leader in innovation.
This is the crux of the argument that makes me hesitant to immediately agree with Buffett’s undeniably optimistic outlook for the US.
Finally, I think I should briefly discuss what this could mean for stocks. The following are not particular purchase recommendations. They are just suggestions that are meant to inspire more research. When it comes to obesity, after looking at the data it is hard to imagine that health care costs are going to go down no matter what type of reform is on its way. When obesity trends are combined with an ageing baby boomer population, what the health care and drug companies may lose on margins they may make up for in volume.
So I would say that the drug companies, health service organizations and the device makers have to be interesting on the long side, especially considering that the recent reform debate and current recession has hurt their share prices.
For investors who don’t want to bet on individual companies, iShares offers ETFs such as IHF (for health providers), IHI (for medical devices) and IHE (for pharmaceuticals).
Turning to the education issue, I see two potential ways to profit. On the innovation front, maybe it is time to start looking for multi-national or foreign companies that will no longer lose their homegrown talent to the US and subsequently benefit through further technological breakthroughs.
Off the top of my head companies such as ABB Ltd. (ABB), Siemens AG (SI), Charlie Munger’s favorite BYD Company, and possibly even Sony (SNE) could be compelling at the right valuation. Finally, on the demand for better education front, there are a number of for profit education companies such as Apollo Group (APOL) and Strayer Education (STRA) that offer post-secondary diplomas.
I am a bit cautious on these companies due to lofty valuations and not particularly good graduation rates, but in the future they could play a major role in educating Americans.
In any case I think it is important for investors to analyze these secular trends and figure out ways to protect their portfolios from the potentially negative derivative effects.
Disclosure: No positions
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 21 comments:
1. No more smoking
2. No more fast food
3. No excessive drinking
4. You will eat vegetables
5. No more junk food
If you don't like my rules, then you don't have to accept them. Pay for the bill yourself. If you don't like me or the government having control over you, then take control of yourself. If your eating habits/drinking habits/drug choices are "private" or personal, then you will understand that my money choices are "private" or personal.
I spent over an hour standing on a crowded and poorly run government subway system this morning. I don't know why anybody on earth would want THEM of all people in control over your health and livelihood.
A free market would allow people the personal freedom to make unhealthy choices, but in the past we've had more freedoms and people weren't as fat.
The interesting thing is that the lower class/lower income are the most obese portion of the population. It isn't a "starving poor" population, it's an overweight poor population.
I once heard a dirty poor new immigrant to America claim it's a great country. Why? " In America the poorest people are the fattest". That just wasn't the case in his home land. In all reality being born in America rather than the developing world is like winning the lottery.
I think we will find, as deflation sets in, that obesity will slowly disappear. Self-indulgence and deflation don't go together. (The cost of higher education and health care will also shrink.) Everything shrinks in a deflationary environment.
Speaking metaphorically, going deflationary is a society 'going back to seed' before it starts expanding again.
On Aug 27 09:26 AM John Galt wrote:
> You want me to pay for your free health care? Fine, but if I am
> the responsible adult paying the bill, I get a say over my subordinates
> behavior ( Hey I'm paying for it right?).
>
> 1. No more smoking
> 2. No more fast food
> 3. No excessive drinking
> 4. You will eat vegetables
> 5. No more junk food
>
> If you don't like my rules, then you don't have to accept them.
> Pay for the bill yourself. If you don't like me or the government
> having control over you, then take control of yourself. If your
> eating habits/drinking habits/drug choices are "private" or personal,
> then you will understand that my money choices are "private" or personal.
>
>
> I spent over an hour standing on a crowded and poorly run government
> subway system this morning. I don't know why anybody on earth would
> want THEM of all people in control over your health and livelihood.
>
Morality, freedom, liberty, rights, health, and efficiency have nothing to do with it.
Speaking of heath and health care, the problem isn't too little access to health care, but too much. Health care insurance should only cover catastrophic injury or chronic illness and not cover every doctor's appointment, shot, etc. Auto insurance doesn't cover oil changes, gasoline, washer fluid or even engine overhaul. Why not? Because it isn't cost effective to do so.
Same logic applies to health care. If everyone were to bear the cost of "routine health maintenance" then they would be more critical when deciding if professional care were required and be more aware of the costs for that care.
Education is the two of the one-two economic punch knocking out the country and many states, particularly California. In the education debate there are many questions that are never asked, like: Why should the government pay for education? Why is public education better than private? Is it?
I recently viewed a documentary on the CATO website about private vs. public education in Nigeria. One of the people interviewed in the program was a fisherman that paid for his children to go to a private school. The fee was $10 per month of his $50 per month income. Twenty percent of his income was dedicated to sending his children to private school, even though he could have sent his children to the government school for free.
Why would he do this? Because, in his opinion, the government schools were a waste of his children's time. The don't learn anything there. But in the private school the children learn something every day. If the children aren't learning, the parent takes them to a new school. There is competition between schools and the parents are involved.
The bottom line is that the fisherman wanted his children to get an education and become a doctor or a lawyer and he was willing to dedicate a substantial amount of his income in furtherance of this goal. Why is it that people in Nigeria have figured out that private schools work and public schools don't, but we can't seem to understand this in America?
I'll write again in 2019 with astronishing rates of American weightloss despite less exercising. Walking is the key to weight loss.
Ben is tossing matter from his helicopter straight into a blackhole. When matter approaches the black hole it disintegrates.
Can't inflate a dead cat no matter how much tuna you stuff in its mouth.
On Aug 27 10:29 AM John Galt wrote:
> 6. Exercise 3-4 days per week
> 7. Have the car back by curfew at 11 ( oppps)
>
> Michael Clark. The point is that you probably don't want me or a
> government bureaucrat managing your life and personal choices. I
> don't want you or a government bureaucrat with your hand on my wallet
> managing my money.
>
> I do believe in deflation at least in the short-mid term but it hard
> to ignore Ben Bernake with both hands on the on the printing presses.
> I'll believe in lower HC Education and obesity rates when I see them.
I went thru Soviet public school system in the post-Stalin times. It was very good. We did not have anything free (no books, no food, no buses to schools, no summer schools, etc., our parents had to pay for it!) except free & good education. Most of our teachers were highly educated and dedicated to their jobs, otherwise, they were just fired (that meant the end of your career for life). One more thing, our teachers did not have unions and were paid close to nothing.
90% of our high school pupils went to and graduated from universities (not going so meant being drafted to the army - a very strong incentive to graduate).
This how the post-WWII Soviets became a superpower. Later, without a dictatorship and with limited democracy and unions, the entire system fell apart.
The bottom line: one can have a very good education system without large sums of money spent/wasted. Again, trust me. I know what I am talking about. I went thru Soviet education system, and ended with PhD from MIT.
The solution would be to stop giving subsidies for food and let the "free market" sort things out. Of course ADM...er, I mean, the senators from a lot of big flat states would not allow that to happen.
As far as public education problem, the teacher's unions need to be broken somehow (not sure how that could be done). Does anybody else get tenure and summer's off for their jobs? I know I don't. Teachers continually complain about not being paid enough. Well, that's because of the summer off and tenure. If the dead-wood could get fired easier like the rest of us and worked the whole year (because parents could pay more to the school instead of having to pay for day-care for the summer), then they would be better compensated for making a better product. In this case a better educated student.
On Aug 27 09:34 AM enigmaman wrote:
> on one hand you have a problem where the free market have caused
> a weight problem in America because they have the right to choose
> and they have chosen to be fat, on the other hand you have a dumbed
> down populace due to our poor Public School system because in America
> most dont have the ability to choose because the Gov has chosen for
> you. You imply to worry about our future because of these but then
> focus on how to profit from its failure, maybe thats exactly why
> we have the problems we have today and thats why we see the erosion
> of our free market system being orchestrated by the Administration,
> now nobody wins
(2)Much of the causes of obesity aren't fully discussed in the media--ever noticed how big the ADM-induced chicken breasts are at your supermarket? How do you think these evil people get them that way? What do you think that is doing to human fatty and muscle tissue? Steroids people--we can walk and stop eating fats all day, but steroids make you bigger no matter what you do.
Unfortunately, steroids don't make your heart bigger or pump stronger to compensate for this.
(3)Are you making money investing in the food industry? You are part of the healthcare problem.
(4)Ethics--sooner or later we have to confront the "right" to have the medical/science establishment keep us alive as long as they can. Its not a cost issue, its a common sense and quality of life issue.
(5)Economics will solve this problem. Bankruptcy stops everything. You will go bankrupt if you buy $10 gasoline and work 20 miles from home. You will go bankrupt buying food produced 3,000 miles from home when fuel is cost out-of-sight. Living where you work keeps you in shape--eating food produced in your community (or your back yard) is healthier. Companies will go bankrupt paying for the "outcomes" of misallocated resources.
People will be thin again, it'll be forced economically. There is no point in chasing obesity with today's dollars. Let this "fix" happen naturally.
And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg's lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the "Audit The Fed" measures are actually implemented.
As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.
In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.
The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court's Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed's Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.
Our members have accessed the New York Fed's Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank's financial condition - even completely unfounded rumors - have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.
Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.
And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:
If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank's customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls - which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds - has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution's customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.
Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?
The Banks' racketeering has gone on for far too long.
And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks' letter:
In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:
* The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not "speculative," but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
* The disclosure does not involve mere "embarassing publicity" but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
* The disclosure would not merely "stigmatize [ ]"the institution or make it "look [ ] weak," but goes to its very viability.
* The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an "inherent risk" of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
* Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don't need emergency funding.
In a nutshell - the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by your, taxpayers.
On Aug 27 09:47 AM John Galt wrote:
> Enigmaman: The freemarket didn't cause the weight problem in America.
> It's over indulgent, over worked, people lacking the care and will
> power who are getting fat. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
> see that if you take in more calories than you burn, you gain weight.
>
>
> A free market would allow people the personal freedom to make unhealthy
> choices, but in the past we've had more freedoms and people weren't
> as fat.
>
> The interesting thing is that the lower class/lower income are the
> most obese portion of the population. It isn't a "starving poor"
> population, it's an overweight poor population.
>
> I once heard a dirty poor new immigrant to America claim it's a great
> country. Why? " In America the poorest people are the fattest".
> That just wasn't the case in his home land. In all reality being
> born in America rather than the developing world is like winning
> the lottery.
The problem is worse for school-age kids. If you don't pack a lunch for your kid, he or she eats in the cafeteria. What rational kid opts for the fresh green salad over the pizza slice? With two working parents, nobody is home in the afternoon, so the kid is turned over to an after school program. Here there is more "baby sitting", but little of the "how was your day, what did you talk about in school, do you have any homework, do you need help" sort of interaction between parent and child. Today, mom or dad picks the kid up from the day care or after school program, hurries home, parks the kid in front of the great electronic brain numbing machine, and proceeds to defrost dinner. After dinner in some households there might be an hour or two for "family time", but it isn't a guarantee, what with mom or dad's meetings, social gatherings, or the kids' athletic practices or other such lessons.
Teachers no longer have the time to work with kids after school. They are now burdened with paperwork, progress reporting, updating their qualification statements, and taking mandatory training. Staying after school for the kids, either for disciplinary reasons or to get extra work done, is not possible in areas where the children are bused over any distance. Once the bus is gone, you are on your own for transportation. Mom or dad can't come get you; they can't take the time off. In my youth the teachers would sometimes offer a ride home to the kids. Try that now, and teacher is being disciplined for some potential dire harm that could come to the child.
My wife works in special education, and I hear the stories daily from just her one elementary school. They usually leave me shaking my head in sorrow or disbelief, but occasionally leave me shaking with anger at the stupidity of the bureaucracy or the negligent attitudes of the parents.
Let's face it; our entire culture has changed in the past half-century. The "good, old days" are not coming back. Until you can come up with solutions to the things I have ranted about above, you will not cure the problems of poor health maintenance and education. Oh, by the way, don't let the Federal Government anywhere near the problem. Give the cities and towns more leeway in fixing their own problems, reward them for good performance, and see where this might take us. Above all, get private industry involved. I don't have any answers, but I'm sure that there are many who do.
"Let's face it; our entire culture has changed in the past half-century. The "good, old days" are not coming back."
There was a tremendous change in America from the Roaring 20's to the end of the Great Depression. You went from over consumption, speculation in real estate, specualtion in the stock market, to "Cash is king", and WW2 where people were happy to just appreciate life itself and start a family ( baby boom). Maybe our overconsumption will end after this mess? Do you think we are anywhere close to changing our ways? Will nature run it's course?
Enigmaman: I was going to add it in my last post, but if you walk around the city in the morning Monday-Friday you can just spot out the have's and have nots. The Haves are more often than not wearing suits/business attire, they are in better physical shape, and more educated on average. The Have Nots are all too often in some sort of a blue collar uniform and they are disproportionatly obese on average.
Who is John Galt? $
I think we will change -- because each generation has a different destiny, fate and challenge, based upon the reality they confront.
I think each generation gets a light and a dark half. Our parents (my parents, I'm not sure your age -- you sound about my age) had a dark first half, and a light second half. Baby boomers? Light first half, dark second half.
The 50% divorce rate will vanish when men and women need each other to survive, really need each other, not just needing each other's paycheck in order to keep up with credit card payments each month.
We actually have been living through a material bounty but enduring a spiritual nightmare, with divorce and crime and children killing each other at school and rampant drug abuse. On one hand we've had it all; but on the other hand, we've got a lot of problems associated with our wealth.
On Aug 27 04:44 PM John Galt wrote:
> HowardT: Nice rant but first of all you assume both parents are
> still together. Look at the 50% divorce rate in this country and
> many kids aren't even as lucky to have the grim picture you paint.
>
>
> "Let's face it; our entire culture has changed in the past half-century.
> The "good, old days" are not coming back."
>
> There was a tremendous change in America from the Roaring 20's to
> the end of the Great Depression. You went from over consumption,
> speculation in real estate, specualtion in the stock market, to "Cash
> is king", and WW2 where people were happy to just appreciate life
> itself and start a family ( baby boom). Maybe our overconsumption
> will end after this mess? Do you think we are anywhere close to
> changing our ways? Will nature run it's course?
>
> Enigmaman: I was going to add it in my last post, but if you walk
> around the city in the morning Monday-Friday you can just spot out
> the have's and have nots. The Haves are more often than not wearing
> suits/business attire, they are in better physical shape, and more
> educated on average. The Have Nots are all too often in some sort
> of a blue collar uniform and they are disproportionatly obese on
> average.
>
> Who is John Galt? $
John Galt: I agree. We are expected to pay for "elective" surgeries. We need to consider obesity an "elective" condition. If you choose to not to take care of yourself, you should then choose to pay for the consequences.
Right now, the system is working completely opposite. My special needs son, who did not ask to be born this way, is not covered by any insurance policy. He has a "pre-existing" condition. Yet my 300-pound face-stuffing father gets all his medications, knee surgeries, and other effects of his BAD HABITS paid for by his gold-plated state insurance plan PLUS Medicaid. THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
GeminiAtlas: You are spot on. Our food supply has been raped. Corn syrup in its many forms is in EVERYTHING. Steriod-pumped meats. Pesticide-laced fruits and vegetables. Sodium, preservatives in canned items. No wonder we're fat and sick.
HOWEVER - we still have choices to make. I have not seen ONE obese person who is also not stuffing their face with a high QUANTITY of food that is OBVIOUSLY bad for them. So I can't blame the obese person for having to eat a steriod-laced chicken breast with a can of salty corn for dinner.
But this is not what makes them fat. It's the bag of cookies afterwards, followed by the 3 hours sitting in front of the television with a bag of popcorn. DON'T TELL ME THEY DON'T KNOW THIS IS MAKING THEM FAT. They do it because THEY WANT TO, it feels good, and Medicaid covers their cholesterol and heart medicines.
As for Howard_T: I am a working mom. Men have NO CLUE how difficult our lives are. Economics have forced us to change, but MEN, for the most part, have not. Husbands STILL expect women to do MOST OF THE COOKING AND CLEANING, even if their wives also work a full time job.
So I will not be lectured by ANY man on this issue. Perhaps if men actually DID something in the kitchen or around the house to help out, men would have less to gripe about.