Let's look into the future Part 3

Is another world war coming? No one can be sure, but history tells us that the chances are good that it will. The question then is how will it start, how extensive will it be and how much damage will result.  
            In the foreseeable future the main wars will be along the lines that is happening  now; relativity small wars by global standards, limited to a small region and not threatening the large nations. They will be essentially gorilla type wars, with no defined front lines and difficulty identifying friend from foe. So far the larger nations have not confronted each other in an overt way in the middle of these wars, even if they have supplied the arms to fight them.  As long as it stays that way a global conflagration will be avoided. But, history says that is not likely to last.
           What is likely to happen sometime in the future is the large and militarily powerful nations will be drawn into conflict the same way that it has happened so often in the past. We will end up fighting a global war that nobody really wanted, over issues that aren't really defined, because of circumstances that no one saw coming and due to misunderstanding of the intentions of others. 
           The recent experience of WWI is a good example of a single incident escalating, whereby a single assassination set off a chain of events that engulfed the world in a disastrous war, that solved nothing, only setting the conditions for another world war.  It embroiled Britain and America in a war they really had no stake in, with no obligation from treaty commitments to enter, resulting in thousands of lives lost and a huge amounts of money spent from the treasuries. In the end it changed the face of Europe and resulted in America becoming a major power in the world. It caused the downfall of the Romanov dynasty and the growth of communism and the USSR. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist, setting up regional conflicts that are still being played out. Of course they weren't much of an empire by the time of WWI anyway, but they were the nation that sparked the great war. It left Germany in such poor conditions that it made the rise of National Socialism, with Hitler as it's head, much easier to accomplish, perhaps even inevitable. 
        World War II is an example of the conditions that closely align to today's climate.  Nations misreading the intentions and resolve of other nations regarding their reactions to events was really the catalyst that fueled the actions leading to the global war. Hitler invaded the Rhineland with no opposition.  He could have been stopped right there, the German Army had orders to withdraw if opposed. But, France, with the largest land army on the continent, didn't act. After taking in Austria, Hitler then threatened Czechoslovakia, and England's Chamberlain ceded the most vital part of  Czech territory in order to achieve "Peace in Our Time". Of course in very little time the rest of Czechoslovakia fell to the Germans. Hitler then made a bad assumption.  The German Army invaded Poland thinking that the French and English did not have the will to intervene.  But, this time they acted and the war in Europe erupted.  France fell pretty fast, leaving England to face the Germans alone. Subsequently Hitler made another major miscalculation and invaded the USSR while England was still at his back, living and breathing.  At that point I think his doom was sealed. He had totally underestimated the will, and perhaps more importantly, the huge armies and the manufacturing capabilities of the Soviets. He now had a two front war on his hands,which is almost always a disaster.  Then, to add to the range of stupid blunders, he declared war on the United States. A move that FDR was eagerly wishing for. 
         The United States entered the war due to a total miscalculation on Japans part. She assumed that the US did not have the will or the guts to fight a prolonged war, and by destroying the American fleet at Pearl Harbor and early victories in the Pacific she could get an advantageous treaty. One that would give them free rein in the Pacific. She thought of the American people as soft and corrupt. But, as Adm. Yamamoto feared, all they did was awaken a sleeping tiger. 
        One can easily picture several scenarios that exists at this time that might possibly be the spark that ignites a global conflict. The situation among the middle eastern Muslim nations and Israel is a tender box that shouldn't be ignored. Iran, and soon it's close ally Iraq, are open about their determination to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. An escalating threat to Israel is looming more ominous with the obvious development of a nuclear weapon by Iran, with a way to deliver it.  Israel may very well deliver a preemptive strike at the nuclear facilities in Iran.  They've done it before. However, they might act too late, because Iran may have nuclear  tipped missiles already operational. Under the nuclear umbrella Iran and Iraq, and perhaps the newly formed Arab League, may send massive armies against Israel in retaliation (as if they needed an excuse).  The USA is committed to the support of Israel and with the help of American support the attack could be turned back.  Iran and the Arab League faced with losing the war could launch it's nuclear arsenal against Israel and against the American Carrier battle group operating in the Persian Gulf, which they perceive as being Israel allies.   Now, whether the attack on the battle group will succeed depends on whether the defensive features contained within the battle groups are as good as they have been touted. But, in any event the cat is out of the bag.  The carrier battle groups that survive the nuclear attack will launch strikes against Iran, Iraq and other members of the Arab League that entered the war. The FA18's (or F35's or whatever the Navy's primary strike fighter is at the time) will roll and the missile cruisers will start raining destruction. I don't think that the initial strikes will be nuclear, but with modern technology they will be very effective. The Air Force with finally have something to do; the B2's will be airborne. Because Israel has been so crippled by the nuclear strikes from Iran and because the US was directly attacked by the Arab League, the US sends in the marines to defeat the the current regimes.  What could happen next is anybodies guess.  It could develop as Russia, fearing the presence of the American military on their very borders, counters with land troops of it's own.  And thus, it begins. China, perhaps concerned with the cut off of it's oil supply from the middle east enters the war on the side of Russia, although I would like to think that China would not be drawn in.  Europe and Britain soon follow the US into the mess. I believe the great powers will try to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons, at least in the beginning.  The consequences are just too awful to contemplate. It should be remembered that all the WWII combatants refrained from the use of poison gas during that war, a tactic that was used liberally in the WW I and outlawed in the Geneva Convention. So there is hope.  However, if the war proceeds on for a period of time and one side is in dire straights, then they may try the nuclear option out of desperation.   
        A greater tinder box is sitting in North Korea.  It isn't hard to imagine that the north will launch another invasion of the south, perhaps this time with nuclear weapons. They have threatened to do so many times in the recent past. North Korea has a huge well equipped army and will sweep into the south quickly and successfully.  Thousands of Americans will be killed in the initial assault.  The Americans will retaliate and we will have another Korean War, only this time with far more fearsome weapons.  Determined to never let this happen again, the Americans decide that the North Korean government must be eliminated and the territory reunited with the south. I fear that this course of action will drag China into the war in a big way just as it did before and the escalation starts. Once the US and China are engaged the rest of the major world powers may well be dragged in. 
         Another, and perhaps scarier problem exists in the Chinese claim to Taiwan. It is clear that the Chinese intend to take Taiwan back into mainland China.  But, the current Taiwanese government has no plans to allow that to happen.  The United States has consistently supported Taiwan.  We have sent warships down the straight between China and Taiwan several times to enforce our support. But, if the Chinese decide to force the issue by force of arms, the threat of a major war between the US and China is a real possibility, depending on our response. I don't believe that the US will allow Taiwan to be overrun. We should hope that the Chinese do not misread our resolve about that issue.  This is a problem that can be resolved by diplomatic means, at least I hope so.
         It may not play out that way, of course, but the seeds of a global conflict are present in many places.  Nations not trusting each other or with entirely different goals and political positions. The tinder boxes, at the present time, are the middle east, Taiwan and North Korea. That may change in the future, and likely will.  Consider the ever increasing hostility of  Russia toward the United States under the leadership of Putin, apparently the President for Life for all practical purposes and increasingly looking more like Stalin. A lot of South America is not our friend.  Socialist governments seem to be on the rise there, generally hostile to America. 
        The one thing that may restrain China from hostilities with the US is the fact that we owe them so much money. If that debt were cancelled by war, it might throw the Chinese economy into a tailspin. That's in addition to the fact that we're such a large consumer of Chinese products, and it mustn't be forgotten that the Chinese own a lot of America.  Another factor is that we depend on China to supply a vast number of consumer products that we no longer make ourselves, and no longer have the capability to make, because we have long ago shipped it overseas. And, the US has a lot of investment in China. It would not be in America's or China's best interest to get into a war from purely economic reasons.  We can only hope that China feels no real need to react to a war in North Korea as being possibly hostile to them or that they push the Taiwanese issue into a shooting war. 
          How will this war be fought?  Not like the last great war, that's for sure. Although the Generals will likely think that way in the beginning. I don't think you will see large land armies pitted against each other as in WWII and Korea. Such a tactic will be suicidal considering the weaponry that is currently available, and are likely to be developed in the future, to the Armies and Navies of the advanced nations. I don't think that we will see large aircraft raids dropping bombs on cities as was done by Germany and the Allies in WWII. Modern weapons are achieving greater and greater accuracy, which will result in concentration on militarily important sites with a far greater probability of damage or destruction of the target.  We can destroy the same critical target now with one bomb or missile that took squadrons of planes to destroy in WWII.  Drones are now in play and will continue to advance in capability so that we will see greater and greater use of aircraft controlled remotely. Ground based weapons will also join the robotics game, with tanks that don't require crews and other remotely controlled weapons available to the ground forces. 
          The surface Navies will likely be one of  the first primary targets at the outbreak of hostilities.  The power that can be launched from the seas is too much to ignore.  Depending on the type of weapons used and the defensive capability of the fleet, the outcome could be in doubt.  If the war has already escalated into a nuclear confrontation, it is likely the surface fleet will not exist very long. That will leave the Navy with only the undersea boats with their nuclear arsenal.  It is possible that the Navy will develop other types of ships than the conventional submarine by the time of a new global conflict, so that they will have a vast choice of weapons and delivery methods available that can survive the first few months of a future war. The Navy will then be the only one of the three services that has long range striking capability.  
          Land based airfields, command centers, fuel storage sites, strategic manufacturing and missile launch sites will not survive the initial phases of a global war. They would have long since been identified and targeted for destruction.  It is unlikely that we will ever be able to build defensive capability to stop an all out attack on these facilities. For anything like conventional air power to survive, the ground based facilities will have to be dug into mountains and hardened against weapons specifically designed to destroy such installations. 
          Just as control of the sky above the battle field was important, almost essential, in the recent past, the shift will be upward to space. The first thing that will attacked at outbreak of hostilities will be the satellites in synchronous and nonsynchronous orbit that provide detailed observations and the GPS system that provides guidance. It will be essential to deny the enemy the capability that the intelligence delivered from these sources, and the guidance capability they provide missiles and other weapons, be eliminated.          
        That will spawn a space war as each side strives to  gain command of the space above the battle field. A whole new class of weapon systems will emerge specifically designed to provide space superiority. At the same time each side will attempt to develop methods to provide the "spy in the sky" capability. It will look a lot like WWI aviation, relatively primitive in the beginning, but reaching higher levels of sophistication in a fairly short time.
          We have just seen the beginning of the development of "smart bombs", guided missiles, and unmanned  aircraft.   As the advances in intelligent weapons continues to grow, their effectiveness will become more and more lethal. Such weapons could easily destroy large land armies, and any above ground land based facilities. Of course both combatants will be striving to develop counter measures against these new and deadly weapons. And, the weapons race will accelerate.
          In short, a new world war would be a cataclysmic event. It would be fought by a whole new set of weapons at sea, in the air, in space and on the ground. On the plus side, if there is one, I don't think cities will be ravished just for the sake of destroying them.  Many studies following WWII has shown that the mass bombing of cities really did not achieve the objectives that the leaders of Strategic air-power hoped for. On the other hand the destruction of strategic targets was effective.  
          Let's just hope that the leaders of nations in the future will be able to avoid another global war.  That's a lot to hope for, but as they say hope reigns supreme. 
            
         

Lets Look Into The Future Part 2

Let's continue our journey into the future and see where it leads.

Medicine and it's impact on society:
      The strides in medicine over the foreseeable future will be astounding.  Most of the things that kill us now will no longer present a problem.  Cancer, at least most kinds, Alzheimer, heart disease, emphysema and other deadly diseases will be conquered. Some by advanced surgical methods, but most by developing immunization methods to prevent the disease to begin with.  But, a cautionary thought here.  History has shown that the little buggers that cause a lot of mankind's diseases and misery have a habit of mutating  to be resistant to the current Sera and they go on living and wrecking havoc.  Given that history, I don't think we will ever totally overcome all the various known and as yet unknown diseases that will occur in the future. 
           I think the field of nanotechnology has a real chance to be the future for large fields of medicine. Imagine the little machines programmed to selectively attack and remove bad growths in the body and to close small ruptures in blood vessels.  They could repair damaged nerves, or even repair nerves that have been severed due to accidents. They will likely do a lot more than that.  The possibilities are almost unbounded. 
         Interesting experimental  programs are underway now to provide artificial limbs which will react just as the real limb. I expect that the field of cybernetics, or robotics if you wish, will allow the attachment of artificial limbs that react to the wearers impulses just as an actual arm or leg. The technology depicted in Star Wars is likely in our future.  However, somewhere in the future we may find a way to actually grow limbs, who knows.  That would be a better outcome.
       Perhaps the stem cell research will develop as everybody hopes and we will be able to grow new organs that will not be subject to the rejection problems now present with organ transplants. And, perhaps repair  spinal cord injuries as some have speculated. Whether that avenue of research is fruitful or not, we will find a way to replace failing organs in the future without having to rely on another persons gift to do so. If we can understand an organs functions, then we likely could build a machine that can duplicate those functions. We already know a lot and can duplicate, to some extent, the functions of the heart and kidneys.  The future research and development will result in artificial hearts and kidneys that can fit in the body and effectively replace the living organs. The liver, pancreas and other essential organs will follow.  
         One of the most interesting fields of study will discover the mechanism the causes our bodies to grow and age, and we will learn how to slow the process or even to regulate it completely so that we could be forever young. Eternal Life.  Wow, what could be better? Of course people will still be vulnerable to resistant diseases, accidents, suicides, murder, war related trauma and other violent ways to end life. But, advances in medicine, engineering and other sciences will reduce those, to some extent, from our present experience.  
          In the future I feel sure that women will not have to bear their children.  We will be able to create artificial wombs that will nurture the fetus as it grows. I have no clue how this will be implemented but, I feel sure it's coming. Whether this method will be adopted on a wide spread bases is a matter of public policy and individual preference. I think there will be a lot of women who will wish for a child, but just as soon not go through the discomfort and pain of carrying and delivering it. We will be able to manipulate the DNA of the unborn to select the sex, characteristics of the child, and to eliminate any inherent birth defects. I.e. a custom made child. Sounds like the plot of a SciFi movie does't it?
          All of this sounds like a blessing, but is it really?  The advances that will be made in medicine will result in the population of the world living longer and longer lifetimes.  This is especially true if we discover the secrets of aging and learn to slow it down or stop it altogether.  Overpopulation, already looming as a problem, will be the first and most damaging of the outcomes, especially in the advanced nations where these medical advances will be first applied. Population in the industrialized worlds will explode, that is until something is done to slow it down, either voluntarily or by the state (see China). Starvation, especially among the poor and the third world countries may be the result, as all the planets resources are diverted to feed the ever growing numbers of people. The nations that have the strong military will take what they need from the weak when the need becomes desperate. World wide riots will result as the scarcity of resources begins to impact the population as a whole. Strong central governments will need to arise with central planning and power to meet the crises. Draconian measures will be applied, with the resulting abuses of power that always results when too much power is deposited into a few hands.  
         The long term effects on the human species could turn out to have a negative outcome, and probably will.  Young people would be frozen out of careers with futures. And, there are fewer and fewer young people being born as population controls come into being.  New ways of doing things would be squashed by the older generation who would now stay in their jobs for long periods of time.  After all, the older generation brings vast experience and longevity to the work place. Sometimes a good thing, but not always.  After a while we get set in our ways and think that there is no better way to do things.  It's usually the younger minds that challenge the status quo. Certainly such programs as Social Security and Medicare will have to be rethought, even over the dead bodies of the AARP and it's ilk. If we're living into our hundreds and beyond, we certainly can't be retiring in our sixties and living off a rapidly dwindling younger working class. That's already a problem today. Imagine what it would be like if our lifespan were doubled, or more. 
        When you consider history and the advances in critical thinking that occurred, what stands out is that the significant leapfrogs in thinking were generated by the great minds when they were young. Einstein, Newton, Neils Bohr, Copernicus and Kepler along with many others in scientific world conceived of their breakthrough concepts while young men.  Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Twitter were not conceived in the big laboratories of IBM, at Barns and Noble, Sears or any other of the established well staffed big name companies, but by young entrepreneurs looking for a new way to do things.  
          The young are, and have always been, the driving force behind political change, right or wrong. They are the ones who demonstrate in the streets, who lead the protests against some real or imagined wrong or injustice.  They have not always been right, in fact they often are acting out of pure self interest, but they are sometimes effective in the long run. They have always represented a large section of the total population which gives them significant political power.  But, under this scenario that will be less and less true.  Population restrictions and much longer lives of older people, in thought if not in appearance, will make the young become far less significant. As a result there will be less and less social changes in our political structure.  There will be no outraged young mob that will congregate, march in the streets, and demonstrate to bring about social change in this new dictatorship that will emerge.  
         I guess I don't believe in the future as depicted by Gene Roddenberry in Star Trek.  I don't think mankind will reach condition where poverty, crime, oppression, and hunger are not with us, whether we live longer or not. There will always be small and large dictators in our world. The third world dictators will always be with us and will spread misery among the people of their countries. The Stalins, Hitlers and their ilk will always arise, especially as resources become scarce and discontent rises.In fact I don't see a real change from the political conditions that exist today.  The names may change, but the jockeying for power among nations, religions and political factions will continue. We are not entering Utopia. 
        Part 3 to follow. 

Lets Look Into The Future Part 1

      I often wonder, as I'm sure a lot of people do, about what the future holds for our planet and mankind.  I thought I would put down what I think the future holds and what I don't think is coming up in any foreseeable time.  Of course this is a lot of speculation.  It is clear that some of things that were predicted to have happened by now by the so called experts, and so easily made,  haven't come true and likely never will. Gene Roddenberry' Star Trek was a fairly good example of science fiction becoming reality, at least in a lot of applications (remember the communicators).  It's also an example of what will likely never happen (recall the transporter).  Lets start with science:  What is likely to happen in the foreseeable future in the world of science, both physical and medicine.?
      Is human star travel in the future?  Not in any future I can foresee.  Einstein postulated that the speed of light was absolute and that no object can travel faster.  So far every piece of  data and the outcome of every experiment has enforced that theory. The only exception, based on recent theories, is that whole galaxies at the far reaches of the universe are traveling faster than light speed.  That means traveling to the stars, even if we can solve the problem of accelerating a starship near the speed of light, will take many years. Usually more than a human lifetime. No scientist I have every heard or read has presented a viable method to achieve space travel that is within the capability of mankind to achieve.  Ideas such as folding space seem to be only way that could overcome the absolute limit on  speed, but the kicker here is the enormous power that would be required to make that happen is more that can be generated on earth.
      Other daunting problems associated with long term space travel, the lack of gravity, food, water, air to breath and some way to stay warm in the frozen environment of space, cosmic radiation,  etc. can likely be overcome by methods that we can understand and in fact already employ in certain applications. The problem in most of the solutions we have at our finger tips now require power, which will be hard to come by over the time span required to travel between the stars.   The sheer distances between stars, especially stars with planets that hold some chance of being compatible with human existence is overwhelming. That means any mission to another  planet is likely a one way trip stretching over 100's if not 1000's of years. Some Science Fictions writers have envisioned the discovery of portals in space, i.e. sort of like wormholes, or some such method of travel out of our universe, that allow starships passage through space to achieve FTL relative speeds. I believe that Einstein postulated such things might exist, specifically worm holes, but the theory postulates that entering near one would be highly destructive. 
     Of course UFO believers state that the problem has been solved by another advanced civilization, so why not us? Maybe. Or it could be that such vehicles, if they exist, were launched thousands of years ago on exploratory missions by a species that doesn't even exist anymore. A very advanced civilization would be able to produce machines that can think and react to situations it encounters during it's explorations on earth or any other world. I.e sentient machines.  These machines could be programmed with a mandate to avoid contact with any sentient lifeforms it encounters.  Thus, the reason we haven't been contacted, and the reason the vehicles can accelerate at phenomenal rates,far beyond what is likely a living being could tolerate.  That is more palatable than having flying vehicles manned by aliens. And, it should be noted that all the viable data on UFOs don't really support the notion of aliens being present in the vehicles.  We just assumed that there were organic sentient beings present because that's what we would expect. Of course the UFO types point to the marvels of the past as evidence that some advanced being was responsible for the the great building projects. They don't give much credit to the fact that humans are very inventive and likely did figure out how to build those structures.  I think they are reaching a bit far. Who knows. If we reach into the stars that is likely the way we will do it. 
     It is very likely that we will travel into near space (within our solar system) in the future. I think, however, it will  be very limited to commercial enterprises. Our demand for resources to feed the manufacturing industry will likely demand it. This is especially true if we find minerals, rare earths for example,  on a near planet; mars is the most likely, that we need so badly that it becomes economically feasible to mine and transport them to earth. Such facilities would be housed under a geodetic dome and largely automated, requiring a minimum number of humans to operate, maybe none at all.  Even though we are recycling metals now too some extent, we are not, and likely never will, be able to reuse them at a rate approaching 100%.
     I really don't expect that humans will ever colonize the other planets, or the moon, to any extent, as some pundits seem to think.  The environment is just too unfriendly for humans for that to be a popular choice. We will take other drastic actions here on earth before we would do that. The only way that could happen is a major breakthrough in terraforming, so inhospitable planets could be turned into earth-like environments.  Mars seems to be only candidate, but even then, I'm not sure it has the gravity to hold an oxygen rich atmosphere to it's surface. The other planets are just too far or close too the sun. What would be much easier and cheaper would be to convert areas on the earth that are not friendly to humans into habitable land.  The deserts of the world, Sahara, Gobi, etc., northern Canada, Russian Siberia and so forth.  
      Can we play God in the future?  Well, yes, in a way.  Computing power is advancing at a phenomenal rate, something like doubling  every 13 months. There is surely some end to the growth, but not right away.  In the not too distant future computing power will be so huge we will be able to create cyber worlds that are populated with sentient beings that we create, that are aware of the world and the environment we construct for them. They could exist in a virtual world with no idea that they're just a digital construct in that world.
      We could build that world setting out "laws" of nature that every single entity in that world must follow. We could start that world with some event, like a big bang, and let the natural laws we created for that world govern events from then on.  Because time is relative in that world we could make years in the virtual world pass in just milliseconds in ours. We could then stand back and watch how this simulation plays out. Wouldn't it be weird if that was really all we were?  We would have no way to find out would we?
     Transportation: I see long distance high speed ground transportation as being the principle mode of travel around the continent in the future.  Likely some extension of the so called bullet train. Powered by electricity,  and moving at near sonic speeds, (or maybe supersonic speeds if in under ground tunnels or tubes moving in a near vacuum) the trains will transport people in far greater numbers, and much more cheaply, than can reasonably achieved with air transportation.  The trains would be suspended in a magnetic field and propelled by the same principles that drive the electric motor. It will be cheaper, and environmentally cleaner than any version of air transport that one can imagine. Electrical power can be generated in large plants where the environmental conditions can be better controlled.  The amazing thing is we essentially have the technology to build such systems now. Almost all the technical bugs have been worked out and are in use to some extent already.  Such a system could be stretched into intercontinental travel with the construction of tubes either on the oceans or beneath them. If we can build stable platforms in the ocean to drill for oil, we surely find a way to support a transportation tube stretching between continents. 
     Local, personal and other such transportation will likely be by electrical power.  And, most likely still on the ground. I don't see airborne vehicles, other than ground effect applications, being used extensively in any foreseeable time frame for individual travel. That's been the dream and prediction for years by other prognosticators, but it hasn't happened yet and I don't see it in the future unless we develop some new source of portable power. There are just too many problems inherent in that application. 
     There are perhaps three applications that might end up the winner in the race to power such transportation  A couple involve application of self contained power sources in the vehicle itself and the other will involve embedding the roadway with electrical energy that can be used to propel vehicles.  I think it will end up a combination of both approaches.
     Advances in electrical storage (Batteries) capability could allow long distances to be covered between charges, but the charging time will need to be significantly reduced. Alternatively the storage medium could be light and portable so that it can just be changed out at refueling stations in a matter of minutes. I don't see chemical batteries as being the answer to the electrical storage problem that must be solved.  Some other method will have to evolve, perhaps some application of large capacitors, storing power at very high voltages. This would allow very fast recharges on one hand, and after converting the power into lower voltages for usage might provide long term power for an vehicle. The downside for this approach is the handling of very high voltage equipment. In any event a way must be found to store enough electrical power to move a three thousand pound vehicle something like 300 miles. And, to make matters more challenging you have to move a heavy truck of perhaps 20,000 pounds over the same distances.  All this without taking a long time to recharge the power source. 
     The second application that is now underway and will likely further evolve is the adaptation of the hydrogen fuel cell to the vehicle.  This would mean the conversion of what is now gasoline stations into hydrogen stations for refueling. This is a technology that is already in limited use.  The efficiency of fuel cells closely resembles that of combustion engines. I think this approach will be the winner, at least in the near term, for individual vehicle propulsion. At the moment it looks to be very expensive however.  I suppose if it comes into wide spread use the costs would go down quite a bit. I'm not sure it would ever become as economical as oil in the near future.  But, oil is going to increase in price in the long term. That's a certainty. So it might well become price competitive in the not too distant future. The fuel cells would consume the most abundant element in the universe and only produce water as a by product.  There is much work to done to fully develop this technology however.  The short comings now involve not the fuel cell itself so much as the production of hydrogen to power it. It isn't self generating. It takes more energy to produce the fuel than it produces in return. For the fuel cell it's a negative return on investment. Not a good thing. The power to produce the hydrogen is, at the present time of course, derived from mainly from fossil fuels.It is likely the most inefficient of the options considering the power required to extract the hydrogen from water. But, it is clean burning and could provide power for mobile vehicles. 
      The third and most attractive is the embedded roadway. This would represent the ultimate in auto transportation. The required electrical power would be carried in the roadway itself and would be transferred to the vehicle on demand.  There would be no need for refueling stations.  All the major thoroughfares and highways would be embedded with the capability.  There are several ways that power could be transferred to the vehicle, either by direct contact (sort of a third rail) or by induction. Likely the latter. Some form of on-board power will be needed however, as not all roads will be equipped with power transfer.  As you leave the main highways for city streets, etc. you will need power to complete your journey.  That puts far less strain on the on-board system than if it were the sole source of power, so here you could employ chemical batteries.  In addition the embedded system would charge the storage medium in the vehicle as you drive the main thoroughfares. After the initial costs of installation this would likely be the least costly of the alternatives.
      Automatic guidance and speed control of the vehicle is in our not too distant future, a technology that is already in it's infant stage. You enter the vehicle, tell it where you want to go and it will take you there.  The control of the vehicle by the system, after it's fully implemented,  will allow cars to be spaced very close together with much more efficient movement of the mass of vehicles that will be on the road at that time. And it would be much safer, with wrecks almost unheard of.  At the present time a combination of GPS and proximity sensors looks like the best way to go.  But, in future we may find the devices in the major roadways will emerge as the best approach.
     Where is power coming from in the future? Lot of factors come into play influencing how we generate the enormous power needed  in the future.  The main one is the ever decreasing supply of fossil fuels and the corresponding increase in costs at the pump.  We are running out folks. The reserves of fossil fuels are limited. Oil more so than the others. The ever increasing population of the earth will put additional strain on resources that must be met if we are not to retrograde significantly in our standard of living. And, the earth can not stand  being enveloped in the residue caused by the burning of dirtier fossil fuels and there is significant efforts, even today, to wean us off of their use.  One of the biggest problems is that fossil fuels, particularly oil, is used to make a huge number of the products we use every day.  It's used to make plastics, produce our synthetic fibers such as nylon and polyester , and numerous other products that we consume and use, most of which we don't even realize the use of petroleum based products in their manufacture. The clamor will grow in the years to come with the growing industrialization of China, India, Brazil and third world countries we don't see now.  Perhaps the middle east, Egypt, and who knows. It is possible that one of the most abundant fossil fuels, coal, can be be made to burn cleanly which would extend the life of fossil fuels but, in the end it will run out.  It's not renewable. 
      I do not believe that the picture many movie makers painting of an earth shrouded in a brown haze is in our future. There are efforts underway already, headed by large and powerful countries, to clean up the environment.  And, in spite of the opposition from some industries and the reluctance of some countries, I think the initiatives will take hold and major efforts will be undertaken to keep our environment relatively clean. We now have the spectrum of Global Warming to brighten our day, and that is something that is going to discourage the use of fossil fuels. 
       Most of the projects being deployed today really do not hold the answers. Maybe a combination of Solar, Wind, and similar non-polluting sources of power will meet a portion of the requirements for power, but they alone will not solve the massive power requirements that will be needed to run this planet. They are already running into opposition due to their impact on the local habitat and as we try to blanket the southwest with solar panels or wind turbines the opposition will grow. And, it isn't cheap. Today you see homes and businesses being equipped with solar panels, and that will likely continue in the future as the price of electricity continues to rise. Many homeowners associations forbid the use of solar panels, but is likely to be overridden by legislation. But, this application is only economically feasible due to subsidies.  
      The ethanol lobby is pushing their technology, but that is almost dead on arrival. We can not afford to put valuable land that can be used to grow food into producing massive amounts of ethanol and causing a shortage of food in an ever increasing world population. And ethanol is not pollution free.  It's still carbon based. Without government subsidies none of these alternatives would be economically feasible.      
     One of the most intriguing sources of huge amounts of power is the ocean tides and currents themselves. Here we have a massive amount of power that can be tapped. I'm sure that isn't all that simple to place generators into this water stream but, there are already prototype programs underway to use tidal movements to generate electricity.  Perhaps there are environmental impacts that I'm not aware of, but it certainly provides an attractive place to go. Right now the pilot programs are concentrated on a few areas of the earth where there are large tidal movement.  But, there is tidal movement on the shores of every ocean of the world, and that's a lot.  
     Nuclear power at one time seemed to be answer to everybody's hunt for the cheap clean burning power source. But, recent events has really soured the public on this form of power. In a larger sense the biggest problem with nuclear power isn't really meltdowns and accidents, but rather the long term storage of nuclear waste. Even if we learn how to design nuclear power plants to make them very safe in an almost absolute sense, the problem of waste disposal will still be with us. However, nuclear power does provide abundant power at a reasonable cost and is likely to be a major source of power in the near future, as it is now, especially in Europe. Perhaps it will end up the winner as a replacement for fossil fuels if the problems of waste storage can be solved. 
      Water: The most precious commodity in the future will be water.  We already are in a position where parts of this country have to undergo water rationing during low rainfall periods. Farmers have to cut back on crops because lack of fiercely rationed water.  In the future there will be greater and greater need for water for use of a growing  population. Water to drink, cook our meals, grow our crops, feed our livestock, and on and on. It will be necessary to turn even more of the deserts into farms in the future and the main thing needed will be water to do so. We've already done that in the southwest.  Without the aqueducts the Imperial Valley, Los Angeles, San Diego, the San Joaquin Valley, southern New Mexico, Arizona, west Texas and the associated cities and areas would be deserts. 
     So, where is all the water we need coming from?  Really, all it takes is money to solve the problem. There are two sources of water in abundance.  The most reliable is the oceans of the world. The only problem is they are full of minerals that make them incompatible for animal consumption and for growing plant material that we can tolerate. We already have  desalinization technology.  Such plants exist around the world now. The other method is to transport the water from where it is, to where it's needed, much as the California aqueducts do now. There are environmental consequences to both approaches and they must be approached carefully. It is clear that feeding Los Angeles without considering the impact on the source of the water in the Owens River has proved disastrous for that area. We have found that damming of rivers to produce power and to control and provide water to surrounding areas has it's drawbacks. But, either we cut back on population growth or we will have to face this problem head-on in the not too distant future. I don't know how reducing population growth would be possible at all, short of draconian measures to limit the birth of children worldwide.  Maybe some world wide epidemic will solve the problem. 
      Movies, TV and such.  First we figured out how to capture images of real events, then we figured out how to simulate movement of those images, made the moving images talk and then added color. They were called movies and they were the principle vehicle for entertainment for many years. Then someone figured out how to project images over the air using radio waves and TV was borne.  First they were small black and white screens, but they grew rapidly in size, adding color and greater clarity. The movie industry started losing patronage to this new form of entertainment.  To counter they developed CinemaScope and other wide screen applications that let them show sweeping vistas in their movies to lure back their customers. But, then came the large flat screen monitors showing in wide screen format and some of the movies advantage vanished, at least for a lot of movie types. The movie people weren't through: along came 3D which is really catching on. To keep pace the TV industry is also tinkering with 3D, available now at your local electronics outlet. 3D will continue to evolve over the next few years.  The need for special glasses will be solved, making it more comfortable to view the picture. Other senses will be activated, especially in movie houses, such as a sense of motion in action movies. 
       So where do we go from here?  I know that movies, shown in a virtual realty format, are coming.  What isn't clear is exactly how that will be implemented for the mass audience. There are at least two approaches I can think of.  One is too project the picture as a holographic image almost surrounding the viewer. Thus, the viewer would be in the middle of the action, as if they were a true spectator to the events. The other would be to fit the viewer with special glasses that would allow the same kind of image. The likely winner, at least for mass use, will be the virtual reality glasses.  It will be cheaper. Perhaps homes in the future will be equipped with holographic image projectors, but more likely this form of entertainment will be the province of movie theaters. The media will be dominated by interactive type showings, where the viewer will have some form of control over the action.  Not sure how that will work, but somebody will figure it out. That will be in addition to the games that will be available to play, much as they are today, on X-Box and other such game consoles.  

Maybe we have recovered.

There is much discussion among the media and the talking head economists about when the economy will recover from the great recession that we have officially just came out of. What they mean by recovery is back to pre 2007 levels.  But, wait a minute, maybe this is it. Maybe we have recovered.

          Let us consider for a moment what was driving the great economic engine before the collapse. Primarily it was the artificially stimulated housing market where borrowers were able to get loans and buy houses that they could not really afford. A great many of those loans were adjustable rate mortgages with a very low interest rate on the front end. It appeared that nobody could lose.  You could buy a house with a small down payment and at very low interest rates and turn it over before the mortgage's higher interest rate kicked in, usually about 5 years, take the equity generated by the escalating price of real estate and buy even a bigger house the same way.
         The banks and other lending organizations, such as Fanny Mae and Fanny Mac thought they were safe because the ever escalating value of homes covered their risk.  To add to the problem the government was on a kick where everyone should own a home and was urging the lending institutions to make that happen. That spurred a building boom, with it's corresponding growth, in fairly well paying jobs in the building industry and the resulting spread of money through the the whole economy. The ever escalating value of property poured money into the coffers of the local and state governments and they naturally went wild  trying to  spend it.
          The apparent wealth resulted in a consumer frenzy of buying. We were turning over houses at a profit and constantly trading equity gained through inflation of the market into bigger houses and consumer products. We were taking out home equity loans on the inflated values of our property and using that money to buy all kinds of goodies.
        All was peachy keen as long as the formula held.  As the wealthiest nation on earth we literally fueled the economic engine of the world.  We bought all kinds of things we really couldn't afford. China became an economic power house due to our import of Chinese made goods.  

         Then the bubble burst.  Just like what happened to the stock market in 1929, the housing market experienced the same effect in 2007, except instead of stocks it was housing.  Such a condition, as existed, is clearly not sustainable. The value of property was reaching it's upper limits, even in this kind of environment.  The adjustable rate mortgages low interest rate times were expiring and higher rates were kicking in, and guess what, a lot of the borrowers couldn't meet the higher monthly payments. So many of them were coming into this condition that the market began to be over supplied with housing by people trying to unload their property.  The buying slowed down. The sellers trying to unload the homes they could not afford  found they could no longer get enough money from their sale to cover the outstanding balance.
          So the foreclosures started.  The banks were heavily invested in these sub-prime mortgages and so they began to have real problems. Suddenly there was a surplus of houses on the market that were underwater on their mortgages.  And the whole house of cards came tumbling down. It was like a snowball rolling down hill.  Getting bigger and bigger as it progressed.  Pretty soon the whole economy was in a state of chaos. Two of Americas car makers had  to declare bankruptcy and were be bailed out by the government.  The largest banks required government help to stay afloat. The big mortgage holders (Freddie Mae and Freddy Mac) were going belly up. We really were on the verge of total economic collapse.
The government blamed the bankers and the bankers blamed the government.
         Consider the situation now. The banks have tightened their lending requirements such that the only people buying homes are ones that can afford them. The Feds have done a great deal trying to get the housing market to be active again; we now have the lowest historical interest rates on mortgages, with only minimal impact.  The banks, hesitant to make risky loans, don't want to get caught in the same trap again. The result is now, and in the foreseeable future, that  the housing market is pinned to overall economic growth.
         Many more workers have to become employed in higher paying jobs.  The minimum wage type job just doesn't support the purchase of a home. But, wait a minute.  Where are these jobs coming from?  We have essentially shipped the blue collar middle class jobs that once were the bread and butter of the economy overseas. And, they are not likely to return. The unions and government together have drove the cost of doing business in this country to levels such that many  industries can not afford to compete against foreign made products with their cheaper labor and far less restrictive regulations. It's cheaper to have that TV or computer made in Taiwan or China and shipped here, than to build it here. The other thing that's driving the engine is the ever increasing use of automation to perform tasks that once were accomplished by labor. It seems that all the clothing, electronics, a huge percentage of cars, appliances and a host of other products are made in China, Japan, or elsewhere or are largely made with computer driven machines requiring far few workers. 
        We have been adding jobs lately as the economy recovers and the government likes to tout those numbers.  But, wait a minute what kind of jobs are they?  In an article by Bernard Condon and Paul Wiseman of the AP, we lost 7.5 million jobs during the recent recession, of which half were middle class earners ($38,000
to $68,000 per year).  But, only 3.5 percent of the 3.5 million jobs gained since the end of the recession were mid pay.  Nearly 70 percent are low-paying jobs; while 29 percent paid well. They point out the countries that use the Euro are actually worse off than we are. Almost 4.3 million low-pay jobs have been added since 2009 but, the loss of mid pay jobs has never stopped. A total of 7.6 million disappeared from January 2008 through last June. To put icing on the cake, they point out that a great number of the mid level jobs are not coming back.  They didn't get moved somewhere else, they just disappeared, the tasks they performed now being accomplished by computers crunching numbers or driving robotic machines. 
          What's left in this country, with a few exceptions, are two classes of workers.  The service industry, which for the most part doesn't pay all that well, and the high tech industry which requires extensive training and education to enter and is exceptionally well paid. Of course you always have the government, which is another story. By high tech I mean all professions that require education and training, engineers, RN's, doctors, skilled technicians, i.e. Science, Technology, Engineering, Math.  American schools are not turning out these kinds of trained people at rate approaching the need.  And that is our best hope of competing on the world market.
         Our universities graduate lots of young people with degrees in fields which have no known requirements in the real world. Very few of the liberal arts degrees have any real application in the modern work place. The colleges and universities are turning out graduates with degrees in Philosophy, Psychology, Black Studies, Political Science, Art History, etc. at an astounding rate. Try competing for a job outside of government or some non-profit with those degrees. Especially a job in an industry that competes on the global stage.  The latest statistics I read indicated the something like 50 percent of the college graduates from the last 2 years are either not employed or are severely underemployed in jobs that have no relevance to their degree. 
         Of course we have a growing class of government workers who make good money for what they do and realize lush fringe benefits.  But government workers don't contribute to the economy.  They spend money that was taken from some worker in the private sector, so there is no net increase in the buying power of the population. And, their retirement benefits are causing local and state governments to have real budgeting problems. They produce nothing that can be sold in the global market.
         There is a surplus of workers to fill the low skilled type jobs and a real need of  personnel to fill the jobs requiring extensive training and education.
         People that have jobs, and many who don't, are spending money on things they need and want, but they are a little leery of overspending on high ticket items. We still sell lot's of IPads, Smart Phones and other nonsense which really isn't needed, but satisfies some inner desire. In general the consumers are still cautious about too much debt, and rightly so. And, they are likely to remain that way.  All the lending institutions have tightened their credit requirements making it harder for the buyer to really get in over their head.
         To get the economy moving upward toward the pre-recession levels would require buying and lots of it. I just don't see that happening.  Where we are, is exactly where we can expect to remain, with slow, and we hope steady, growth over the next decade of so. The wild times of the decade are not likely to repeat.
        Government stimulus packages do not generally have a significant impact on the overall economy. The primary reason for that is the way that the stimulus money is allocated, primarily to activities directly tied to the public sector such as welfare and public service. I.e. schools, law enforcement  etc. And, sometimes we create new organizations; remember the WPA, the NRA (National Recovery Act), the PWA and the whole New Deal alphabet of bureaus created by FDR. After all, government can only redistribute money.  It's takes money from Peter to pay Paul.  It's a zero sum game. If Peter doesn't have the money to pay Paul what the government wants to pay him, they borrow it, and we go deeper into debt with corresponding higher interest payments cutting into the budget and a growing inflation rate. 
      History has shown us that large government spending in the private sector can create a vigorous economy, at least for awhile.  Remember WWII. The spending to create the war machine for that war pulled us out of the depression.  All the social programs created by FDR prior to that time did not have any real effect on the economy, but it did make the poor feel good. The unemployed rate was about the same in 1938 as it was in 1932 and the GNP remained fairly flat.  Hitler pulled the German government out a deep economic depression by spending on infrastructure, remember the Autobahn, and building up the German war machine. Hitler and FDR used the same formula to lift the economies of the countries from crippling recessions. Defense spending during the height of the cold war resulted in a thriving economy. Eisenhower's spending to create the Interstate highway system created a lot of high paying jobs. But that only lasts as long as the spending lasts.  Generally we have to borrow money to sustain large spending over any extent of time in either the private or public sector and that is not sustainable in the long term. 
     The liberals love Keynesian economics philosophies. The problem is that they love only one side of the Keynesian model, not the other. The Keynesian model is based on the idea the government should spend money in the bad times to stimulate the economy and pay it back in good times. The attempt is to level out the hills and dales to which economies are subject. We have fervently embraced the spending part of the model but have neglected the pay back part. 
      Unfortunately that has been going on for well over a score of years as the government goes deeper into debt and the dollar has lost buying power as the government prints money to pay it's bills.
        So, I contend that a rapid return of the economy to pre-recession levels is not going to happen quickly and that we are where we should be. The real unemployment rate will remain fairly high, probably in the neighborhood of 7 to 10 percent at best (it's actually about 15% now). The unemployment rate stated by the government is not the actual rate as the job seekers that have literally given up are not reported, only those actively seeking employment through government monitored agencies. Adding to the problem is the fact that a very high percentage of the jobs being added in the future are low paying. 
       I don't think anybody has a good idea what do about this problem. Entrenched government entitlements, bureaucracies, regulations and the influence of public employee unions make for a hostile environment for opening and maintaining a small business, especially one the competes on the global stage.  Unfortunately our government has created a montage of rules and regulations that really hamper the establishment and growth of small business. I don't think that large manufacturing will be the solution. Manufacturing, while  more profitable than ever, is becoming highly tech driven, requiring far less workers than were used only a few years ago. And, even start up small businesses have embraced technology and are using fewer workers that would have been previously employed. 

We've Probably Already Lost the War

     Did you hear about the nation that didn't know it was in a war and when they discovered that they were, it had already lost. I believe that's the case of the illegal immigration issue that is getting so much attention in the media and from the politicians. 
     The flood of illegals coming into this country on a unprecedented scale over the last couple of generations has significantly changed the political climate and the culture of the United States.  The latest statistic I read indicated the the Hispanic population in American has increased 600 percent since 1990. All the other migrations into this country in the past had their effects in a local sense, but never had the far reaching span of change that the Mexicans have wrought in the last years.
     Even though it is required that any naturalized citizen be able read and comprehend English, we have codified into law that official documents be published in Spanish as well as English. Even our ballots, which require citizenship to vote, must be published in multiple languages.
     Whether the changes being forced upon us by this migration into the country is good or bad has yet to be determined.  I'm sure we will convince ourselves, in the end, that it was a good thing. At least the Democrats are gaining from it,  big time. 
     The biggest effect is a pronounced swing in political power toward the Democrats.  The Republican Party has, one way or another, principally by supporting more rigid immigration controls, alienated the Latino (largely Mexican-Americans) to such an extent that they are heavily supportive of the Democratic Party. In fact, without the solid Latino vote it is likely that some of the blue states would swing back into Republican hands.  One of Obama's biggest worries is that the Latinos will stay home on election day.  Not that they will vote Republican, but just stay home.
     California is a prime example of what has happened. Once a fairly balanced state with the major parties waxing stronger for a short period and then the other, it now is a sure electoral vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is.  That was when the state was basically a white eurocentric population.  Seventy years ago only about 7% of the states population was Latino.  Today, minorities, mostly Latinos, make up a majority of the California population.
     The major parties don't even bother to campaign in California anymore for national elections. To do so would be a waste of money.  The huge electoral vote will be awarded to the Democrats. 
Most of the other swing states that have a heavy Latino population might go Republican if Obama doesn't get a heavy turnout of Latino voter.
     Now we have the Dream Act in California, which favors illegals over native Californians in the public universities.  In many counties in Southern California, Spanish as a first language is more common that English.
     Many states now have huge and politically powerful groups that strongly object to any effort to control the flood of people coming across our southern border. We have many elected officials at all levels of government whose parents or grandparents came into the country illegally. These representatives fight like crazy to get illegals into the country and to naturalize them, making them voters.They are supported strongly by the left wing of the Democratic Party.  Of course the people who benefit from the cheap labor provided by  immigrants don't want strict laws involving the finding and deportation of illegals either. The big farmers are good example.  Any attempt by a state to enforce the immigration laws because the federal government isn't really doing so, is met with quick opposition from the White House and from the left leaning politicians. Look at Arizona.
     Some cities have declared their townships to be safe zones for illegals.  Their police are forbidden to aid the immigration service in any way to find and deport illegals. San Francisco is a prime example.
     So I believe the war is already lost.  Any attempt to enforce a strict immigration policy at this time is doomed to failure. The only thing that's stemmed the tide somewhat lately has been the lack of jobs in the US because of the recent recession.  But, if the demand for labor increases, the tidal wave will start again. And, not enough politicians  will have the political will to hinder it. If the trend continues the Mexican-American population of the United States will form a majority. I looks like we had all better learn to speak Spanish.
     Will they assimilate into the culture of the country without significant impact?  In the end, hopefully, but it seems it will be a slower integration than past groups.  Past immigration bulges, the Irish, the Germans, the Swedes came into the country and almost immediately started to become American.  This was in spite of the persecution that was heaped on on them by the prevailing residents, especially so the Irish. They fought their way into the American mainstream. The parents  understood the importance of learning the English language and mostly forced their children to learn it and use it.  And, there were no laws enacted to cater to their native language, unlike with the Mexicans.  If they wanted to be Americans they understood that English was required. Perhaps more importantly the large movement of people from a foreign land into the United States was accomplished in relatively short period of time. The movement due to the Irish Potato famine is a good example, when the Irish were driven out of their homeland by starvation in one large exodus. The movement across the border has been long, sustained and is likely to continue for years to come.
     Go into any grocery store in Southwest where there is a significant Latino population and you might note that the principle language is Spanish. This from the 2nd and 3rd generation children of people who came into the country illegally and Spanish is still their first language.  Go to any construction job, speak English and you likely will get a blank stare. Only the boss speaks it, workers not so much.
     One thing that is obvious, the immigrant brings a hard working ethic to their job, legal or not. I'm afraid that doesn't necessarily carry over into their offspring.  It is said, and it is true today, that the immigrants do work that the "white guys" will not do. I'm afraid that is an indictment  of the current generation of young people who grew up not knowing about work, hard work especially, and expect Mommy and Daddy or society to take care of them. At one time, not long ago, the work in the fields, dish-washing, and other menial labor was done by whites.  The current generation wouldn't touch that kind of labor for the kind of money that the employer can afford to pay, or for even quite a bit more. They would rather live off welfare. 
     There are two ethnic groups currently on the up rise in this country. The Spanish speaking Latinos (mainly Mexicans) and Asians.  What a difference in outcome. The children of the Asians(Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Japanese) have taken to the American Education system and dominated it. I don't know about the rest of the country, but it seems that every young doctor in Southern California is Asian. The specialties seem to be dominated by them.  The University of California at Irvine's student body as well as UCLA is heavily populated with Asians. At UCI I think they constitute the majority. This is especially true in their graduate programs. The universities have had to discriminate against Asians in order to allow other ethic groups to gain admission.
      The culture that the two different groups bring into the US mostly explains the difference. The Asians come in with a strong bond of extended family and a reverence for education.  The child is taught and understands that sub-par performance at school reflects on the family and it is treated as such.  Our current young white kids hate to be in a class with Asians, they suffer by comparison. 
     The second generation Asian speaks English better than many whites and certainly out performs them in the scholastic environment.  In one sense, the Asians may be the saving of America, and it certainly needs some saving.  

Medical Care, Is it a RIGHT?

The first question must ask oneself, and the voters and taxpayers of the country; is  medical care a guaranteed right for every citizen of the United States? That is a fundamental question that must be answered before a reasonable approach for the government's involvement in medical care can even be discussed. Until recently it is clear that the answer was, no it's not.  Medical care was the responsibility of each individual to provide for themselves.  The government had little or no role in that process. People dealt with their family doctors on their own terms, bought insurance from private companies if they so desired, or could afford to, and depended on private charities to take care of the indigent.


Lately however, it seems to me, the dynamic has changed. First the government stepped in to require that emergency rooms treat anyone showing up at their doorstep, with or without the ability to pay. Emergency Rooms became the family doctor for so many people without insurance and indigent folks, especially illegals. Somewhere along the line we decided that us old folks needed to be provided with quality health insurance, so Medicare came into being. Now almost everyone sixty five and older is covered by Medicare, replacing previously private insurance provided by their retirement benefits package. Or self funded in some cases. An interesting thing to note is the cost of medical care has sky rocketed with the advent of sweeping changes in the number of people covered by insurance. Don't know whether they're related, but I have my suspicions.


Something new has entered the field; Dubbed Obamacare.  This legislation provides that everybody be forced to obtain health insurance.  As one might expect, this bill is under heavy attack by many states as being unconstitutional.  At least part of the act will likely be so ruled.  What is also becoming clear is this act will increase the cost of medical care (due to higher insurance premiums) to the consumer. At least that is what all the cost analyses I have read concludes. It solves little and creates all kinds of problems. It probably should be repealed and a better health plan devised to replace it. But, what this act and any subsequent acts cement, is the notion that medical care is the RIGHT of every  citizen of the country and that right should be codified into law by enacting sweeping legislation providing some form of universal health care. It should be noted that almost every advanced nation, outside the US already is on that approach. That RIGHT is certainly not written into the constitution but, like so many of our perceived rights, it has grown into being with the evolution of our dependence on government from cradle to grave. 


It is true that medical care is being paid for now, one way or another.  Much by private insurance, some by self insurance, many by Medicare and Medicaid, some by charitable organizations, etc.  The hospitals are required to treat anyone who shows up at the ER, and the cost is passed on to the paying patients who use the hospital.
As was been pointed out; there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Someone pays. Eventually the consumer pays for all the medical treatment.  Much of the costs are hidden from the consumer, but they pay the bill anyway.  They just don't see it up front.  


The government will continue to gobble around with various approaches to universal health care.  I have no doubt about that.  I don't know whether the American public at large is really for this intrusion into the lives of everyone or not.  But, I do believe it will become a linchpin of the Democratic Party's platform. They will try to force a method down our throats that will be the least onerous to to the core of their party and will burden the middle class workers, or the so called rich, with the bill. It can't help but be expensive, but that won't really matter as it will cement a larger block of votes to their party by the passage of another in a long line of entitlements.


I am going to cave in to the inevitable, that some form of universal health care is coming, like it or not, and I would like to look at an approach that is both simple and may be most cost effective. It is simple to implement because the mechanism is already in place.  I think that serious consideration should be given to just simply put everybody that falls under the Social Security mandate to be enrolled in Medicare, i.e. they and their dependents would be eligible for SS benefits upon retiring (they likely have a SS card). Look at this as being the best alternative to any other type of universal health coverage.  We know the Social Security and it's Medicare component are in deep trouble. Some form of adjustment must be made or the entitlement program will literally go bankrupt carrying the national economy with it. Private insurance has some options to hold down the risks that a government program doesn't enjoy. That will help keep their cost down in the future, but it isn't clear that they will ever be able to provide the kind of coverage offered by Medicare at anything like the costs to the consumer.  


I know this goes against the grain for all those who rightfully fear the growth of big government.  It kind of rubs me the wrong way too. But, if the Republicans don't want to be left at the starting gate, I fear that they must address the overall problem and get behind a program that will provide health care for almost everyone.  They must tailor it in such a way that doesn't increase the reach of government any more than is necessary and does so with the least cost to the taxpayer. 


I found that getting a handle on the necessary data to make this study meaningful is not so easy. I have had to assume (guess) at some of the numbers in order to come up something, that at least approaches reality.  Where these assumptions are made I will point them out.  


This would be a radical departure from our present situation where private insurance dominates the market and would be loath to give up this highly profitable business.  You could bet that the lobbying and the propaganda put out by that industry would be intense if this approach ever moved to the floor of the legislature. 


Let us look at this approach in more detail. There are pluses and minuses.  

• The mechanism is already in place to administer the program.  It will not require any new bureaucracy to to be created.  Most of the kinks have been worked out of the Medicare program and it runs pretty efficiently.

• Most people who are now on Medicare are quite satisfied with the program.  It allows a lot of flexibility in the type of medical care to choose from.  Most HMO's now participate in the Medicare line up of options available to the insured as Part C. Most doctors accept Medicare, even highly trained specialists. I've never heard of a hospital or medical clinic that doesn't participate in the program. As most private insurance allowable fees follow Medicare's lead, the private practitioner and medical  facilities have little choice but to continue to do so.  Medicare constitutes a significant percentage of their revenue.

• A study by Mark E. Litow showed that the administrative costs of Medicare vs private, for profit, insurance companies is significant.  The total administrative costs for Medicare was 3.3% in 2010 and 16.7% for private insurance. The study projected that the total administrative costs of Medicare would decrease in the future to 1.6% in 2025. Private insurance is not likely to go down.  How this applies exactly to a broader scope, everybody on Medicare,  isn't clear. But, my sense is that it will only go down if more, healthier people are brought into the program. You can look at the numbers in several ways and reduce the gap between private insurance and Medicare, but in the end, Medicare always comes out as having lower administration costs. 

• Today Medicare covers about 42 million individuals.  That allows a significant economy of scale. Private insurance covers about 165 million people spread over hundreds of companies. So, today about 1 in 4 people covered by any kind of insurance are already on Medicare.  And, the baby boomers are just beginning to enter the age grouping for Medicare and most of them are eligible for Social Security which enrolls them in the plan automatically. I would think that 1 in every 3 Americans will be on Medicare 10 to 15 years from now if nothing is changed. Medicare has four main components to the program. Two "Original Programs" called Part A and Part B and two newer Part C and Part D add ons.  Part A covers "in hospital" expenses while Part B covers other medical expenses such as labs, regular doctor visits, etc.  Part C incorporates private insurance, typically HMO's or the like, into Medicare. The consumer has the option of enrolling in either the "Original Program" or in an Advantage  Plan (Part C). Part D is new and for an additional fee covers Prescriptions. Part D participation is optional.

• The current (2010) breakdown of government payouts among the four plans are:
•       Part A ------36%
•       Part B-------29%
•       Part C-------23%
•       Part D-------11% 

• These ratios are not likely to change very much as the costs of medical services increases in the years ahead.  The costs for  2010 were approximately 519 billion dollars, projected to be around 929 billion dollars by 2020.

• The patients on Medicare at the present time are older and much more likely to be afflicted with serious and costly medical problems.  According to the study the estimated costs per year is about $12,357 per person per year for Medicare patients in 2010.  The average costs for privately insured patients is a little over $6,000 dollars per year. This primarily reflects the fact that private insurance covers a younger, healthier population. If you bring that younger group into the Medicare umbrella the average costs per person would go down significantly.

• My brief research shows that private insurance premiums range from around $200 up to more than $1500 per month per person, depending on deductibles, co-payments and the like.  Some of the plans feature deductibles of $5000 and huge co-payments, wow. However, the private insurance plans also cover both Part A  and Part B type benefits, which make the comparison more dicey. Many are HMO's as well a Pay Per Service PPS type insurance organizations. Some include prescriptions in their plan

                                              PART B

•  Medicare part B covers 80% of the allowable fees for a private medical provider. The balance could be covered by supplemental insurance provided by the individual or as a company perk. There are a lot of such plans already in existence. 

• The current premiums for Medicare Part B is $99.00 dollars per person per month for taxpayers earning less than $85,000, $170,000 for a couple. The plan is already in place for an increase in these premiums in the future. They are progressively higher for the larger income earner. Part B premiums are withheld from the Social Security benefits on a monthly basis. Currently the premiums cover about 26% (134.65 billion) of the costs incurred under Part B coverage. The balance is heavily subsidized from general revenues to the tune of about 74% of total expenditures or about 384 billion dollars. Although expenditures involved in Part B coverage would go down if everyone were included in the program, in terms of cost per patient, the number of patients covered would increase about 5 to 6 times from the 42 million now covered. This will mean a larger increase in the premiums withheld, or a larger raid on the general fund, or both. 

• Today Part B premiums are only paid by Social Security recipients (deducted from the SS check).  Expanding the program to include everyone would necessitate some modification, such as payroll deductions, so that the premiums could be paid.  That is, if we keep the same formula. Part B expenses amount to about 29% of the total Medicare payouts or about $3,400/patient.

• It is assumed that the present costs per patient for the age group covered by Medicare would remain the same in any event. The age group now covered by private insurance (the under 65 age group) would be less, but not by much for the type of services covered under Part B insurance. If everybody is covered by insurance they would go to the doctors more often, have preventative procedures done more often, just as seniors do.  But it's hard to get a handle on just how much private insurance companies pay out in expenses that are equivalent to Medicare Part B. They pay out only about one half as much as Medicare for all patient care, but that number includes both expenses that are equivalent to both Part A and Part B of Medicare. I'm going to assume that the payout for the younger crowd will be slightly less than that incurred by Part B Medicare per patients.  To take a stab at the number of people that would get wrapped  up in a full implementation of Medicare a couple of data points are necessary.  

• The population of the USA is around 310 million.
• About 7% of employed people are exempt from SS and Medicare (railroad workers and some states teachers mainly)
• There are about 12 million illegals in the country.
• Therefore about276 million folks will join the party.
• Using these numbers you can calculate about what the total costs will be: The present medicare group of 42 million plus             the new group times the per person cost of the under 65 age group--assume that this age group will cost  25% less than the            3400 dollars for the over 65 age group   

•      (42M X $3400) + (276M - 42M) X ($3400 X .75)= $739.5B      .
• There are about 162 million legally employed people in the US.  If  7% are not included, then that would leave 156 million workers contributing to Medicare Part B. The average wage earner would then pay for 1.8 dependents, including him or her self.  Let's suppose that the program is structured to provide enough funds so that total funding from the Part B from premiums paid by everybody does not gouge the general fund any deeper than it does now( 384 billion dollars).  That would mean that the premiums would need to raise 355.5 billion dollars. 

• To raise that money from the receivers of Social Security and the wage earners of the country gives: 

                       P X(4.7M +156M X 1.8) = $355.5B

                       P= $1240 per year or $104 per month

                      where P is the average premium.  

• It is likely congress would choose to scale the premiums such that the higher wage earners would pay a greater share. 

• If however, we wanted to make Medicare a fully funded, stand alone program, then the premiums would need to be increased to cover the total Part B costs of 739.5 B dollars.  In that case:

          P X (4.7M + 156M X 1.8) = 739.5 B
          giving an average premium of 2,784 dollars per year or
          P=$234 per month. 

•  Again congress would likely scale the premium payments so the higher income folks would pay a greater share..  But, the average would have to support the program. 

• This is of course, is predicated on the 2010 Medicare expenditures.  They will increase in the future.

                                                 PART A

• Part A insurance, which covers most hospital related expenses is funded primarily from two sources.  A tax of 2.9% on earnings is levied, half paid for by the employer, on each worker. That amounts to about 85% of the Part A expenditures. Most of the balance is again financed by the general fund.  Part A insurance consumes the largest part or 36% of the Medicare payouts . 

• The bill for Part A amounted to 183.6 billion dollars a year or $4371 per person in 2010 .  With the population bubble now entering the Medicare age group, it is expected that this figure will grow, with or without modification to the plan. Higher income wage earners are already scheduled to pay more in the future. 

• Considering the age group that would be included with the expansion of Medicare Part A, it is clear that the cost per patient would not be nearly as high for the new recipients as it for the current aging group.  The new plan would cover 267 million total (or 225 million more) people.  Hospital costs would be  much lower on a per person basis than the older generation.  I am going to assume that these types of costs, for the under 65 age group, will be about 1/3 of those incurred by today's participants.  This factor is really based primarily on the fact that total private insurance costs are so much lower than medicare (about 1/2) primarily due to the younger ages of it's policy holders not needing nearly the hospital care. In addition all one has to do is visit your local hospital and get a sense of the ratio of older patients to the general group,  Part A costs would then be:

              The current Part A costs of the over 65 age group

              + the costs for 225 million at 1/3 the per person costs

               of those on Medicare now.
  

            $183.6B + 225M X ($4371 X .33) = $511.4 B

•  This gives a average monthly hospital cost per person spread of 276 million policy holders of $2000. As one might expect the costs per person went down when the younger, healthier group is brought into the fold.

•  The new payroll tax rate that would need to raise  85% of 511.4 billion dollars, if it is to cover of the  costs of Part A insurance without dipping  further into the general fund.  The new tax rate would roughly be the old tax rate of 2.9% factored by the increase in total revenue necessary to cover the bill.  

•                Factor is 511.4 X .85/183.6 = 2.367 
•               Tax Rate would be  2.367 X .029 = 6.86%

• If the employer pays 50% then the worker would pay 3.43% payroll tax for Part A insurance. This would have a middle income employee earning $100,000 and supporting 1.8 dependents  paying 1.8 X $100000 X .0343=$6,174/year

                       or $514/month --

•  For the employee earning $25,000 per year the deduction would be $1543.50 per year or $128.63 per month.

• Whether this is acceptable or not depends on the individual.  How much do they pay for insurance now and what does it cover.  And, if the employer pays 50%, does that  increase their insurance costs. My feeling is that it's a godsend to the lower income group and the employers who hire them.  For big companies with many upper income earners it might create a problem.  I guess a little further research is needed to determine how much. Of course self employed people would not get the 50% sharing of the employed wage earner, so it will be twice the ding for them.  It will mean little to retiree's as they have no earnings to tax. Just as today, the workers will be subsidizing the older and retired generation. Of course this could be mitigated by a partial support from the general fund, but all that means is we'll be paying for it in another way. Just remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. 

                                      Part C 

• Part C insurance is an option to the "Original Programs".  The recipient may chose to have an HMO, a PPO or other private insurance plans cover them.  Several advantages to many of these plans is that they offer additional services not covered by the Original Programs.  A common addition is subscriptions, some with eye glasses. 

• The draw back for Part C coverage is the limitations on the choices of medical treatment options available.  Except in emergencies, the recipient is limited to the doctors that they can see, and the medical facilities they can use.  Kaiser, for instant, is a totally locked in plan. Most of the plans require that you be referred to a specialist by a primary doctor acting as a gate keeper. 

• Advantage Programs (Part C) that can enter into contracts with the government must supply, at least, the services provided by the "Original Program" benefits. The private providers are given a monthly fee to supply the services. But, the private insurance providers may ask for additional fees to offer more services than is covered in the basic contract.  There is myriad of  choices one can make for this option. 

• In any event the Medicare Program spends 23%  of it's total costs on Advantage Programs. The Part C program is funded from the same sources as Part A and Part B.  So to the recipient there is really no additional charge, except any that is levied by the private insurance company.

•                                  PART D

• Part D insurance is a very new addition to the Medicare family of plans.  It covers prescription drugs as an option.  There is a fee associated with this plan and, if selected, is deducted from the Social Security check. 

• Part D consumes about 11% of the total Medicare expenditures.  Whether that will increase in the future, as more company backed prescription plans move their retired workers from their plan to Medicare Part D, isn't clear. But, I suspect it will.  Of course the fees charged for this service add to the income into Medicare, but is largely self financed as far as I can determine.  The premiums vary widely depending on many factors, each of which is chosen by the recipient upon entry in to the prescription plan.  

 Most large companies and even some smaller ones provide the insurance for their workers, in whole or in part. That includes insurance coverage for workers retired before age 65. This is often a union negotiated perk. Most salaried personnel are covered also.  We need to lower the cost of doing business and producing products, enhancing their affordability, especially in the overseas market where we must increase our exports or we will owe America to foreign powers.  Right now we probably owe China more that we can pay.  The people who work for smaller companies, which by the way employs the vast majority of American workers, likely have little company financed medical insurance.  If they have it at all they are, at least partially, self financed usually through a group policy contracted by the company. But the premiums are high in any event.


Whether this plan is good or not depends on the vantage point of the beholder. If congress is going to mandate full insurance coverage then it seems to me that this plan may be the best alternative.  Further study is likely necessary to refine the numbers. Comments are welcome to any of my blogs.