How big is too big?
For better or worse, I live in one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country. I say "for better or worse" because for years now I've been looking for that sweet spot that's big enough to have everything I need/want, but not too big to be overwhelmingly congested. Everywhere I look these days all I see is more construction. I'm losing ground to "overwhelmingly congested"!
Smaller towns love growth. More people means more grocery stores, and retailers, and more tax revenue to support filling potholes and building new, state-of-the-art schools. More restaurants and theaters and maybe a few more doctors and even a new hospital, too. The improving "quality of life" in turn entices companies looking to relocate or expand to move in, and the cycle repeats itself.
My DF/W Metroplex is now pushing 7.2 million residents. Houston has 6.7M, Chicago has 9.5M, LA has 13M, NY has 20M, London has 18M, and Tokyo has 38M (metropolitan areas in total). Which begs the question: How big is TOO big?
At what point does growth stop being a positive and become a negative? How many steak houses or burger joints do you need? Or pediatricians and 24-hour corner urgent care clinics? Or AMC theaters? However many you might think appropriate, ask yourself if it's worth the traffic congestion, and road rage, and crime, and the daily frustrations that tie us in knots? At some point are we really just taking one step forward and two steps backward?
Who benefits, really, from all this growth? The landowners and developers, for sure. And the select few contractors who can build all those highways and mid-high rise buildings. And of course the bureaucracy. More people means more tax revenues, and higher salaries for those who hustle new businesses and make more rules for the rest of us to follow.
It seems like it's all just a giant ego trip. "My city is bigger than yours. My airport handles more flights. My skyline is more dramatic." Virtually everyone benefits a little I suppose, but IMO most of us are just treading water at best.
My fear now is that someday I might actually be able to move to my dream destination, some comfortable mid-size town in Colorado, only to be run over by a stampede of people fleeing Dallas and LA and Chicago who are following my lead.
Umm, now that I think about it....I didn't write this. You never read this. Nice not talking to you. Bye-bye. ;)
S
Yep, it's almost here. October 1st is tomorrow, the date Obamacare goes into effect. Some are dancing in the streets, some are jumping out of windows. So where does 'ol Lowandslow stand on this, you're asking?
I think it's gonna be an absolute mess. Here's why: Anything that comes with a 2,700 page users manual, written hastily by a bunch of bureaucrats (who probably have a government job only because they were too inept to get a job in the private sector) and industry lobbyists (who you know are making damn sure their clients are protected one way or another), is doomed to fail. This is going to be a cluster f__k of epic proportions!
So then I'm for the status quo, right? Nope, not at all. The status quo is a runaway train carrying us all in slow motion straight over a 1,000' cliff. I firmly believe we need some sort of, for lack of a better term, "universal health care". Consider this:
Only 51% of US businesses (pre-Obamacare) offer health care coverage to their employees. That is down roughly 10% in a decade. And of those who do have employer paid / subsidized coverage, more and more are seeing higher deductibles / cash-out-of-pocket maximums ($5K-$10K is not uncommon) and co-pays.
Private insurance? Fuggetaboutit. One middle aged friend of mine, for example, who has had two back surgeries and a wife who is a breast cancer survivor, is paying $1,500 per month for just himself and his spouse. And that's with a $10,000 deductible. Another friend (with insurance) told me if his wife has any more issues, their only recourse will be bankruptcy.
Speaking of: There are 1.7 million personal bankruptcies +/- filed in the US each year. Medical bills and lost income due to illness are responsible for 62% (or roughly 1 million) of those. That's more than due to crushing credit card debt or unaffordable mortgages. And of those 1 million filings, 78% HAD HEALTH INSURANCE.
When the average working / insured American has an income of about $50K and gets a medical bill for $5-10K, they're screwed. Unless it's for use to cover a catastrophic accident or illness, do they really even have insurance? If they can't afford to use it, is it really there?
And talk about inefficient....somebody explain to me why there are 50 state insurance commissions with 50 different sets of rules and 50 different insurance company and state bureaucracies? Why aren't insurance companies organized around one giant nationwide group policy with one set of standards?
Pharmaceutical costs are out of control, too. Consider this: In all countries I'm aware of with some form of national insurance, the government determines how much drug makers can charge, and it's always just enough to cover the cost to manufacture the drug.
All the costs to cover R&D, which can run up towards a billion dollars, are charged to AMERICAN consumers. That's because our "free market" allows Big Pharma to charge anything they want here. This is true. I've had it confirmed to me by a friend in the pharma bidness. *you're welcome world*
And how about all those not-so-visible costs we pay to cover the uninsured? Several years ago I heard a spokesman for the Baylor Hospital System admit they charge 150% of cost to INSURED patients in order to cover the write-offs for those who couldn't / wouldn't pay.
Just last week I heard the Dallas County Judge say the County spends more supporting their county (charity) hospital than it does on ALL other county functions combined. This would include running the jail system, the sheriff's office, the courts, the road and bridge districts, etc. (I haven't researched that, but I take him at his word.)
So then doctors make too much, right? IMO, no. Consider this: Docs go through 10 or more years of college, med school, internship, residency, etc, and usually accrue $250K or more in school debts, before they can enter practice. For our best and brightest, I don't think their income is unreasonable. (Compare this to a Wall Street banker who might make 10-times as much selling fraudulent securities.)
Oh, here's a thought....how about getting all the blood-sucking trial lawyers out of the game? Bad docs need to be removed, no doubt. But in waaaaay too many malpractice cases it's just a money grab. The legal profession has become a parasite on the medical profession. Why are they allowed to do that? (Because trial lawyers as a group are among the largest political campaign contributors, that's why.)
I could go on and on, and maybe I will at a later time, but suffice it to say the status quo is becoming less and less workable, even for those of us who are fortunate to have insurance and can afford to cover high deductibles and co-pays. Long term the status quo is simply unsustainable.
Let's review: The health care crisis is becoming more and more acute and is swirling down the toilet. Obamacare will probably be a mess. The status quo will someday eventually fail us.
So what do we do? Beats me. It's going to take someone smarter than me to figure it out. BUT WE MUST FIGURE IT OUT. Removing the spectre of instant family bankruptcy due to whopping medical bills from the national conscience is bound to be good for the country.
We need to be concentrating on becoming more competitive, stronger, and more resilient in the new world economy, not losing sleep worrying about how we're going to pay for grandma's festering sore.
S
I'm not sure if there is an actual "First Rule of Bureaucracy", but if there is I'm sure it's something like, "Job security is directly proportional to the number of stupid new rules you can dream up."
We started another new custom home last week. We're to the point now of putting up the perimeter silt fence (to please the Federal bureaucrats at the EPA*) and bringing in the trash dumpster. Now we find that we must have yet another permit, this time to bring a dumpster onto our property, something we've been doing for years.
It seems this large Dallas-area suburb now wants us to declare what's going in the dumpster.
Me: "Uhh....trash, Sir!"
City Dumpster Police: "What kind of trash?"
Me: "Construction trash, Sir!"
City Dumpster Police: "Specifically, what kind of 'construction trash'?"
I'm so tempted to say, "Scrap lumber, plywood, roofing, cardboard boxes, Jimmy Hoffa's body, leaking barrels of toxic DDT, old bloody wound dressings from the illegal AIDS clinic next door....you know....the usual."
*Speaking of the parasites in Washington, did you know I have to pay a 3rd party inspector to come and check our "storm water runoff mitigation compliance" twice every month and within 24 hours of every 1/2" rain, at a cost of $75 per visit? (You can "self inspect", but they'll hang you if you're audited.)
This adds about $1,500 to the cost of every home I build, yet another example of why homes cost so much. IMO we have way too many people doing similar unproductive tasks that add absolutely nothing to our economy. They make a living, a very good living I might add, by leaching on to those who actually produce something of value.
Just sayin'.
S
