More aging and seriously injured veterans plus already existing issues with wait-times and a tightening supply of doctors, as well as other medical professionals, equals a VA healthcare system that cannot serve veterans who are entitled to government provided medical care. Clearly, the math predicated the ever-growing problem with the medical system that is supposed to serve America’s warriors. In the case of the VA wait-time scandal, the laws of economics demonstrated what has been realized in the real world.
Arbitrarily setting a wait-time goal of two weeks, however, failed to serve as an incentive to do better, because “the incentive” was based on a bad assumption, i.e. the problem was an efficiency (human) versus resource issue, and failed to consider the real problems with the VA. According to psychological theory (behavioralism), we can expect an incentive to encourage the behavior that is more readily rewarded, i.e. the easiest thing to do to get the incentive. Failing to take into account human behavior and the lack of sufficient resources, the financial incentive could not have been effective under the current circumstances. Because incentives tied to meeting wait-time goals could be achieved by manipulating paperwork and administrators used added pressure, including social pressure, to “punish” a failure to meet wait-time goals, it encouraged a system that has around 57,000 individuals whose care has been delayed with another 64,000 left entirely neglected. Although the incentives were canceled in the light of the controversy, they were not the cause. If the VA is to address this ongoing issue with wait-times, it must stop trying to use the easy business solution of avoiding the problem by deploying pressure tactics; instead, it must face the resource issue and find solutions that help provide more affordable, more accessible care to veterans. In broader terms, both policymakers and business leaders need to learn from the VA’s error in judgment. When there is a potential conflict of interest created by an incentive, whether financial, social, or emotional, the mechanisms of economics and human nature dictate we can expect corruption, whether intentional or not. More importantly, our society needs to start recognizing when the assumptions being made by economists invalids the real world application of their thinking as well as the limits of what economics incentives can do to achieve a goal in the real world.
Comments
On the Seventieth Anniversary of D-Day, the wars of our world are very different. Instead of the leaders of the United States and Russia coming together to fight the world’s greatest threat to peace and stability, President Obama and President Putin are divided by the Ukrainian Crisis. In the wake of the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks, the world came to the realization that the global reach of terrorism was the greatest threat to the International Community and the Peoples of the world.
Following the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America has over learned its lesson when it comes to the use of military force, which is why the US is so hesitate to get directly involved in conflicts like the Syrian Civil War. On the hand other, Russia appears to have forgotten another lesson the US learned from 9/11 with its involvement in the Ukrainian Crisis, i.e. supporting insurgents today is a good way of creating tomorrow’s terrorists. At the same time, the world is watching crises, such as the mass kidnapping of children and massacres of innocent villages by Boko Haram, overwhelm the ability of governments to protect the lives and freedoms of their Peoples. While the Nigerian government has reluctantly accepted the help of the US and other international partners in their search for the young kidnapped girls, its failure demonstrates the challenges world power face when trying to partner with less capable and less willing nations. That said, the willingness and ability of the International Community to support anti-terrorism campaigns is only shrinking. It seems the poorly run wars in Iraq and Afghanistan truly exhausted America’s zest to take on globalized terrorism and to lead the world in a global war on terrorism while the rest of the world seems too focused on its own immediate interests to take up the cause. Where the world came together on D-Day to fight the greatest threat to the peace, freedom, and humanity ever seen, the world is now doing everything it can to avoid the most serious conflicts of our day. Nearly a decade ago before President Obama took office, or even a few weeks ago, it would have been nearly unfathomable for political figures to openly condemn the exchange of a US serviceman for just five once-prominent Taliban leaders as being too expensive. Calling an exchange of prisoners illegal, even if it was technically true, would have never made the news, unless the person uttering those words was to be silenced. Just hinting that the price was too high could have marked the end of even the most prominent politician’s career. With the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, however, this exact scenario became reality, without any real consequences for critics.
After five years of being held prisoner by the Taliban, Bergdahl’s release should have earned the Obama Administration praise and the solider a hero’s welcome. At most, we would have expected some criticism aimed at the failure of the Obama Administration to free the young American sooner while there may have been some grumbling over Obama’s failure to inform Congress in a timely manner. Instead, the American People are watching President Obama defending his Administration against a whole slew of criticism, including from US Senators and Congressmen. In fact, Bergdalh’s homecoming has even been cancelled as follow soldiers openly accuse him of being a deserter. Although these charges may or may not be valid, the fact that our political leaders and professional news outlets are able to so freely discuss this criticism is shocking. At the very least, criticism should wait until Bergdalh has been given a chance to tell his story and face his accusers. This is clearly a sign that our political system is far too toxic. Given that President Obama has repeatedly tried to reach out to the other side of the aisle, has always tried to find legislative solutions that address “conservative” views before acting on his own, and would be on the right side of this issues at any other point in our history, the Right is more to blame for the negativity associated with this incident. This should be a wakeup call that our political system needs some serious changes. Unfortunately, this week of escalated fighting in Ukraine began with Russia violating its promise to respect the outcome of the May 25th Presidential election when it attempted to use an emergency meeting with the UN Security Council to declare the Ukrainian military’s crackdown on pro-Russian rebels criminal. This apparent copycat strategy, likely patterned after America’s initial calls for restraint on behalf of the Assad Regime and the defense of humanitarian corridors as the Syrian Civil War unfolded, seems to be a means of legitimizing ongoing Russian interference in Ukraine. Unlike in Syria, the government crackdown is aimed at armed rebels who decided to forcefully takeover Ukrainian territory, not peaceful protestors seeking political freedom.
Given that we do not know exactly how Russia is connected to these armed pro-Russian groups and Russia did use its armed forces to seize the Ukrainian territory of Crimea just months ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin likely does not intend to respect President-elect Petro Poroshenko’s authority or Ukraine’s sovereignty. As Ukraine’s crackdown on the armed rebels is not going terribly well, the new government risks losing its credibility. At the same time, waning international support demanded strong leadership. As such President Obama must back his renewed commitment to Ukraine by taking concrete action against Russia in order to lead the International Community, as the US helps the Ukrainian government and military regain control over its borders. In an apparent attempt to appease conservatives, who favor States rights over federal regulation, the Obama Administration has released an EPA proposal for new rules on carbon emissions that essentially affords every States the option to deal with emissions from power plants on their own terms. That said, the overall goal of the new regulations will be to reduce emissions by 30% from their 2005 levels. To sell these changes to the American People, the Obama Administration has honed in on the health and economic benefits that might be realized in the future, though climate change is clearly a main motivation.
Unfortunately, the proposal relies on future, potential technological advancements and essentially promotes a more customizable form of the cap-and-trade approach that has roots in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. This means it suffers from most of the same critical flaws. Economically, the lack of an international solution means any benefits derived from reductions will be lost due to increased emissions elsewhere in the world. Thanks to Free Trade, this type of solution would also cost the US in terms of competition, i.e. lost jobs and economic development. It would also mean we Americans would have to rely on more expensive forms of energy production, until new technology is developed to make production cheaper, which serves a disincentive for energy producers given the Administration hopes this proposal will reduce consumption, i.e. less volume and smaller profit margins. On the other hand, we do have a problem with pollution, because pollution does affect our health, finances, and climate, while the EPA does have the authority to regulate carbon emissions according to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Obama Administration has the political leverage they need to force opponents of environmental regulation to offer better solutions. Although the US does need to show leadership on the world stage by bringing major players together to develop and adopt novel, viable solutions, leading by example will never be an effective approach on these types of global issues. Technological development and economic pressure are what allow for improved energy efficiency as well as the propagation of cleaner energy sources. As such, the punitive approach of increased regulation can only raise standards, not lead the charge for change. What the Obama Administration needs is less stick and far more carrot. On September 20th, 2013, the EPA announced new regulations that limit the amount of carbon-dioxide emissions for new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt of electricity for natural gas power plant and 1,100 pounds per megawatt of electricity for coal power plants. In order to achieve reductions in emissions, proponents of these caps want power producers to turn to carbon capture technology. Unfortunately, this technology has yet to be commercialized on such a large scale. In fact, the most advanced, lowest carbon admitting power plants in service, or soon to be in service, produce around 1,800 pounds per megawatt of power. As such, the most prudent action is to rollout these regulations in a smarter fashion. If 1,800 pounds per megawatt is achievable now, all new power plants should be limited to or slightly below this amount. Adding a carrot to this stick, power plants should receive tax credits for reducing the amount down to at or below the 1,100 pound limit. (A progressive tax credit structure may be helpful.) |
Read old posts
April 2020
|