The case of the missing education funding

My ballot was sitting on my desk, only one blank remaining. I was confused.

Colorado Proposition 103 is supposed to restore cut state education funding by increasing our taxes for the next five years. But I distinctly remember that we passed a constitutional amendment about ten years ago that promised to increase school funding every year.

Either the Legislature has been violating the state constitution by cutting education spending, or someone isn't being quite honest (or possibly both).

Amendment 23 passed with 52.7 percent of the vote in 2000. It promised, among other things, to "(increase) per pupil funding for public schools and total state funding for special purpose education programs by at least the rate of inflation plus one percentage point for the next ten years and by at least the rate of inflation thereafter." And yet, for the past couple of years, education funding has been on the chopping block along with everything else.

I sympathize with the Legislature. Theirs is an impossible task. They are being micromanaged by us citizens with many conflicting goals.


[more]

Boulder Election 2011

Given recent local election coverage, you'd think the only things we're voting on were municipalization and corporate rights. However, Boulder has no fewer than eight ballot issues this year.

Issue 2A allows the city to sell $49,000,000 in bonds for critical infrastructure needs, including maintaining streets, bridges, buildings, and recreation facilities; upgrading software, the main library, and police and fire equipment; and improving transportation connections and streetscapes. It's hard to argue with those priorities. The bonds will be paid back using existing revenue streams. Plus, the work will generate local jobs, helping the local economy.

Issue 2B allows the city to extend and increase the utility occupation tax levied on Xcel's customers to further investigate the feasibility of a municipal power utility. Question 2C authorizes the city council to create a power utility, if it proves it can do so in a cost-effective manner, with rates and reliability comparable to Xcel's and a plan for more renewable energy.

David Miller, in his guest commentary a week ago, rightly pointed out that there are many unanswered questions related to this proposal. We don't know how much it will cost, nor how much additional renewable energy will be feasible. However, we can't know these answers without approving both measures. So, the real question is whether we want to know, or whether we will continue to trust Xcel to work in Boulder's best interest.


[more]

We're going about this thing all wrong

I'm talking, of course, about the economy. It's annoyingly broken, and for some reason just refuses to fix itself.

The tea party gang would have you believe it's as simple as spending less money and reducing the deficit. However, they can't actually believe that will work. Every economist and his brother-in-law tells us that cutting government spending will just send the economy further into the toilet. Economies in the toilet, as we've seen recently, tend to result in larger deficits.

Of course, Obama and the Democrats don't have a much better plan. They're banking on stimulus that's so tepid that Republicans might even vote for it if they hold their noses. Tepid stimulus leads to, you guessed it, tepid recovery.

I have a modest proposal.

[more]

A Deficit of Honest Discussion

No matter which party is in power, the other party thinks that the budget deficit is a vital issue. The party in power, generally, considers it a lower priority.

But, at least for the time being, the GOP has convinced enough voters the issue is critical. So now both parties are talking about how to reduce our country's deficit spending.

Of course nobody is proposing anything that will seriously make a dent at any time in the foreseeable future. Each proposal simply reflects the ideological priorities of the proposer, and suggests cutting programs they don't like.

Anybody can play that game. See how easy it is to trim the deficit by $100 billion.


[more]

The opening of open space

After the recent election, Boulder County officials immediately approved new open space purchases using revenue from the Issue 1B tax increase.

This year's vote was a squeaker -- the measure passed by 0.86 percent. The county clearly learned something from last year's embarrassing loss, but can obviously no longer count on overwhelming support for program expansions.

Most recent opposition to open space expansion cited higher taxes and the large amount of open space already protected.

But some of the loudest opposition came from the program's biggest fans.

Some withheld support because there are too many bikes on open space trails, others because there is not enough bike access, too many dogs, not enough dog access, too many people and too many trails, or too much open space that is not open to the public.


[more]

How Did I Do? Election 2010

Are people reading my recommendations more this year? Are they starting to take me more seriously? Are people actually starting to read the issues and think about their implications before voting?

I'm not sure what happened this year, but the election results were much closer to my recommendations than they have been in past years. Probably just luck.

I called for a protest to vote "No" on all statewide ballot issues. In fact, almost all were soundly defeated. The only one that passed was a measure referred by the legislature to allow them to temporarily move the state capital in a state of emergency. Definitely not a big deal.

And voters approved every single county, city, and school district issue, including five tax increases. The only issue in the batch that I had recommended against, the Boulder Valley School District tax increase was certainly for a good cause. My concerns had to do with accountability, and hopefully BVSD will prove responsible with this new chunk of cash.

And maybe my winning streak will continue into future years.

Whose words?

Many are happy to interpret recent election results, but to me it's simple. People are out of work and taking it out on their elected officials.

According to my statistical analysis of past elections, the unemployment rate has been responsible for about a third of switched congressional seats. Further, when the unemployment rate is above about 7 percent, that contribution leaps to somewhere between half and two thirds.

When unemployment is high it is a huge factor in house seats being lost by the president's party. When unemployment is low, other factors come more into play.

Based on this theory, you could have predicted that Democrats would lose at least 40 seats in the House without looking at a single news story, poll result, party platform, or campaign ad.

But there's more to this story.

[more]

Local Taxing Issues

For those of us living in Boulder, five of six local ballot issues this year include tax increases. Given the current financial conditions, we need to look closely at the short-term and long-term benefits of each before casting our ballots.

County Issue 1A's property tax increase was drafted in response to a confluence of three factors. State legislation required the county to spend down its human services rainy day fund; state funding for human services needs has been cut significantly; and, due to the recession, the rainy day has arrived.

Not only is it wise and humane to help people in our community who are feeling the worst pain of the economic downturn, the county is also required to do so by state law. This measure is responsibly crafted: It has a five year sunset, makes good use of public/private partnerships, and directs the commissioners to reduce the new tax as state funding is restored and conditions improve.

County Issue 1B is a new 0.15 percent sales and use tax for open space acquisition. Most people are not fans of higher sales tax, but most in the county like our open space.


[more]

Vote No

Colorado's constitution is ridiculously easy to change. To pollute our fundamental governing document with your own poorly written special-interest trash only requires convincing 50 percent of voters in one marketing blitz.

There may be some hidden benefits among this year's Colorado ballot measures, but to make things easy and make a point I'm voting against them all.

The crème de la crème of over-the-top ballot issues is the group of Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101. Their sheer complexity is reason enough to reject them. Funded by people hiding in the shadows, the goal of these measures is nothing less than destroying state and local government in Colorado.

[more]

W's last laugh

It's not totally correct to blame the pending tax increase on Bush. Although the 43rd President did push for and sign the law, it was Congress (primarily the Republicans) who came up with this clever scheme and wrote the laws that will raise all of our taxes on Jan. 1.

The tax acts of 2001 and 2003 included temporary tax cuts followed by corresponding increases. Republican marketing at the time focused on tax relief, but today's press focuses on the tax increase, conveniently while the other party holds the Presidency and Congress. The GOP gets all of the credit and none of the blame, in an election year to boot. Brilliant.

Of course, at the time there was no way to know Democrats would be in power when the tax increase was scheduled to tax place. That's just happy coincidence.

The sunset provision was purely a political ploy. By keeping the tax cuts in effect for fewer than ten years, Republicans could sidestep rules that would have required paying for them, a tacit admission that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

[more]

How Did I Do? -- Election 2009

First of all, I'm glad to say that all of my choices on the City of Boulder issues were agreed to by the voters. Four out of four, not bad.

I didn't do so great on the county issues. Issue 1A, the extension of the Open Space tax, failed by about 4 percentage points. It looks to me that this was partly because of the economy, partly because the County Commissioners did not do a good job of explaining why it needed to be renewed 10 years in advance of when the tax expires, and partly out of backlash against current open space policy.

However, if you look at that backlash, it seemed to come from both sides -- for example, one person commented that he voted against the tax because he wasn't allowed to mountain bike on county open space, while another said he voted against it because of too many bikes on open space. This sounds like a can't win situation. That's especially true since most of the folks who complained about the open space department seemed to be confusing the city's open space rules with the county's -- the contentious mountain bike rules actually are on city property. So, bottom line, lack of a good sales pitch by the county, coupled with ignorant voters who had to lash out against something.

The real puzzler was County Issue 1B, the extension of the ClimateSmart loan program, which lost by two percentage points. This program is already in place and has been enormously successful. It helps locals fund improvements that cut CO2 emissions. It adds to local jobs. And the best thing is that it doesn't cost anybody a nickle except the people who take out the loans.

It looks like 1B was caught in the backfire against 1A, as there was no organized opposition. Again, opponents seemed to not understand it, thinking it was a tax increase, and the county did not do much PR in advance of the election.

Both of these issues will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot, and the county will undoubtedly do a much batter sales job then.

Still undecided is Question 1D, the extension of term limits for DA from two to three terms. Latest results show that ahead by just 41 votes, too close to call with the last of the ballots still to be counted.

And that leaves me with the city council race. My endorsed candidate, Barry Siff, came in sixth in a race in which the top five get seats. He missed it by just 672 votes (not all votes have been counted, but there are not enough ballots outstanding to change the results).

Why did Barry lose? (Ok, best of the rest.)

As I see it, the biggest issue was the media and others who lumped the candidates together into so called "power blocks". There was the pro-environment slate, those endorsed by the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County, and there was the so-called pro-business slate. With his credentials, Barry could have been on either list. But because he has been a businessman, he was lumped in with the second group.

In Boulder, not being endorsed by the Sierra Club and being labelled pro-business are the kiss of death at the ballot box for many. Undoubtedly, he gained some votes by association with the business crowd. But he did not stand out from that group, and I think it was a net loss for him.

It would have been a better strategy, I think, for Barry to have tried to straddle both groups. He could have been the environmental candidate who actually knows how to pay for it, for example.

In any case, the fundamental makeup of council didn't change much, in spite of the loud voices of the mostly anonymous single-issue attackers.

So, Barry, have a well deserved vacation and when you come back think about whether there is some other way to contribute to this community and maybe get to be better known for the next election cycle (if you're still up for it).

Summary of 2009 Boulder Ballot Issues

This post summarizes my analysis of the 2009 City of Boulder and Boulder County ballot. You may not agree with any particular recommendation, but you can easily see how I came to my recommendation and come to your own decision based on all of the facts. My biggest goal is to ensure that fewer people vote on issues based on either just the ads or just reading the issue title on the ballot.

Remember, when in doubt, vote no! Here's the list. Click on any specific issue to see my full analysis.

Boulder County Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Issue 1A Open Space Sales and Use Tax Extension
YES	Issue 1B ClimateSmart Bond Authorization
YES	Issue 1C Energy Conservation Bond Authorization
YES	Issue 1D DA Term Limits Extension

City of Boulder Measures

Vote	Issue
YES	Question 2A Sales and Use Tax Extension
YES	Question 2B Open Space General Obligation Bonds
YES	Question 2C Pension Bond Funding
NO	Question 2D Changes to Housing Excise Tax

City of Boulder Council

Vote
Barry Siff

Yes, the Election Can Impact Global Warming

The smallest things can have a butterfly effect. If you are concerned about global warming, vote YES on 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2B, and vote for Barry Siff!

Also, check out http://www.blogactionday.org

Boulder County 2009 Ballot Issues

This year's county issues are pretty straightforward.

Issue 1A would extend a current 0.25% sales and use tax dedicated to open space acquisition, improvement, and maintenance. Without this ballot issue, the tax will expire in 2019. If this issue passes, that will be extended to 2034. This issue also authorizes the issuance of bonds, to be repaid from the revenue from that tax, and to be used for those purposes. I support the county's open space program, and this would allow it to continue. Some opponents question renewing this tax 10 years before it expires. But the fact is that the money from that tax has already been spent, by virtue of bonds already issued. The county's open space program cannot continue to grow without this additional revenue. Vote YES.

Issue 1B would authorize additional bonds to extend the ClimateSmart program. This program allows county property owners to use the county's credit rating, to effectively cosign, on loans to make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. There is no cost to taxpayers. I supported this program when it was first implemented, and I continue to support it. Vote YES.

Issue 1C would authorize new bonds to pay for energy efficiency improvements in county buildings. Some or all of these bonds would be very low interest federal Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, authorized under the recent stimulus bill. This is a smart long-term investment, takes advantage of a short-term opportunity, and is smart from an environmental point of view. Vote YES.

Question 1D would extend the term limit for the county DA from two terms to three. Several other county offices have already had this change approved. In general, I believe that term limits are anti-democratic. Having the option to suffer the overhead of a new DA every twelve years instead of eight would be a benefit as well. Vote YES.

2009 Boulder Ballot Issues

I discussed the city's ballot issues in my column in the Camera this morning. My specific recommendations were not in that column, so that there is no confusion between my endorsements and theirs. So, here are mine.

Issue 2A, Vote YES, for the reasons stated in that column. We need the revenue from continuing the sales tax at the current level to maintain services at the current level.

Issue 2B, vote YES. Yes, there is a risk that the city will have to raise property taxes if they miscalculate and issue too many open space bonds. But even if that happens, in the meantime we will have been saving money on those bonds from the better terms we have negotiated just by having the possibility of those taxes.

Issue 2C, vote YES. Honor our commitment to our retired firefighters and police officers.

Issue 2D, vote NO. This is a big change in how taxes are collected for this fund, and I haven't seen the kind of analysis from the city to justify the change. Perhaps between now and when I mail in my ballot they can change my mind.

City of Boulder 2009 Ballot Issues

City Council approved four issues for the 2009 ballot, all related to taxes and debt, and all deserve careful consideration before voting.

Each ballot issue is defined in an ordinance that includes a summary of council`s findings on the issue - good for letting voters know council's rationale. But each ordinance also specifies that these findings are not to be printed on the ballot - bad for deciding how to vote.

Voters who want to know more can find these ordinances on the city's Web site and in the county election pamphlet. But for additional information about the issues voters need to know at which council meetings they were on the agenda, search for meeting notes, and hope that the discussions were actually documented.

[more]

Let Him Have It

It is especially important for those of us who support Barack Obama to strongly criticize him when he screws up. He must know that it is not just the conservatives who will voice their disapproval, but also the very people he depends on to do his job and keep him in office.

When he nominates several people for important administration positions that seem to have serious ethical or competence problems in paying their own taxes, it means that he is not doing what he said he would. Yes, the country has many serious problems that need serious, immediate attention. But that doesn't mean that you should appoint just any old person to fill that job. With 350 million people in this country, there must be at least one for each of these positions that is knowledgeable, creative, capable, energetic, competent, and ethical. Plus, I'm guessing that most of us do a reasonable job at paying our taxes.

So, Mr. President, please consider this our version of tough love. We speak our minds not just when Republicans make mistakes, but when any elected official makes mistakes. We realize that you are under lots of pressure and still learning on the job, but I hope we elected a fast learner.

Remember, this hurts us much more than it hurts you!

The Only Way to Stop Global Warming?

I write quite a few essays about global warming. These include several ideas on how individuals can help address the problem. But I'm not naive enough to think that even a significant minority of well-intentioned consumers doing what they think is right will have a measurable impact.

Some of my Libertarian-leaning friends say that the solution should be left to the free market. (At least they are mostly agreeing that the problem is real.) But here's the problem with that. Given enough time (say, 100,000 years), the free market will arrive at a solution. But in the meantime, lots of people and species will suffer, and most of them are not directly related to the companies and individuals causing the biggest impacts. You see, the flaw in this thinking is that spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is definitely impinging on others' rights, and the free market should not allow individuals or companies to infringe on the rights of others in the name of profit, even if those others are not yet even born.

One politically popular approach is cap and trade (carbon trading). Here, companies are issued the right to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. If they emit more, they have to purchase the right to do so from someone else. If they emit less (or if they remove carbon from the atmosphere), then they can sell the credits.

The problem with cap and trade is that it assumes people and companies have the inherent right to put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, impacting future generations around the globe. That would be like saying that, since there are 16,000 murders per year in this country, we are going to cap and trade permits to kill people. The permits will be issued proportionally to the number of murders you committed last year. If you kill more people next year, you will have to buy more permits from someone who came in under their cap. (Have no fear, each year we will cut the number of permits issued. By the year 2050 we will only be allowing 10,000 murders per year -- uh, subject to change based on input from organized crime's lobbyists.)

I've always thought that a carbon tax (actually a tax on any greenhouse gas emissions) is the ideologically best way to approach the problem. You charge a tax for any fossil fuel burned. It can be charged when the fossil fuels are mined, when they are burned, or any point along the supply line, but we would need to be consistent so they are charged exactly once.

You may ask, what about other countries? This will have no impact on China, India, or any other part of the world that may be contributing significantly to the problem.

I have two answers to that. First, we slap a tariff on all imported goods and services, proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases used to produce and ship to the U.S. If the producer can provide proof that they have an equivalent tax in their home country, this tariff will be waived. And second, if this program is successful, it can provide a model for other countries, and a useful tool in negotiating international agreements.

There's one more big problem with a carbon tax, and this is where I got stuck. Such a tax is highly regressive. The people who will suffer the most are those that already can't afford the gas to drive to work and the energy to heat their homes.

I pondered this last issue long and hard until I ran across this idea from Jim Hansen. Dr. James Hansen is none other than the scientist who first brought climate change to the attention of the U.S. Congress in the 1980s, and he continues to be active in the field.

Dr. Hansen suggests (actually demands) a carbon tax, but he adds a twist: 100% of the revenue of the tax is refunded immediately to the citizens. People would receive monthly direct deposits into their bank accounts. None of the received new tax money would be spent by the government. Instead the money would be divided equally among every man, woman and child.

How does that work? Say this new tax causes massive inflation (after all, the companies paying the tax will just pass it on to consumers). People might be paying $1,000 more per month for home heating, electricity, gasoline, and goods and services produced using these resources. But, the same people would be seeing the same $1,000 appear like magic, like clockwork every month.

If I'm a smart consumer, I'm going to figure out how to cut back on my energy usage and set aside some of that new money to make my home more energy efficient, or buy a plug-in hybrid, or any number of investments designed to allow me to live more efficiently and hence spend less money.

And, if I'm a smart business, I'm going to figure out how to get some of that new money. I'm going to start selling some of those energy-efficient products. And it won't be something goofy like carbon credits. Instead it will be something that will actually cause less greenhouse gas emission.

How much money are we talking about? Well, one estimate was that it would take an investment of about $100 per ton of carbon dioxide to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Each person in the U.S. emits about 22 tons of CO2 per year. So, we're talking about new taxes (and new dividend checks) of about $200 per month per person, or $800 for a family of four. Most of the cost for the typical family, I assume, would be in the form of higher prices for energy, and for good and services produced using fossil fuels. That cost would be offset by direct deposit of an approximately equal amount each month.

Of course, we'd need a scientific panel to determine the correct amount of the new tax for each product or service, as this should not be a political decision. And we would likely want to phase this tax in over a small number of years.

Is this the best solution? I don't know. But it seems to me that we need to be thinking about radical ideas such as this, instead of relying on do-gooders, relying on the free market, or relying on the ability of politicians to solve this in a timely manner. Because a timely manner is the thing that is most important.

How Did I Do? Better than the County Clerk!

Every year after the election I compare how I recommended and voted with how all of the ballot issues actually fared at the ballot box. This time, it took three days for the county to finish counting votes in Boulder County, the slowest in the entire state.

What went wrong? Well, apparently the folks doing the counting were paying attention and noticed some anomalies in the optical scanning that was picking up votes that weren't made. It took hand checking each ballot for paper dust and ink smudges, a very slow process. I guess no other jurisdictions were doing the same type of check, so they were able to finish faster. Please, nobody tell them that their vote counts may not be accurate.

Anyway, back to my own report card. First, I got 100% on the City of Boulder issues. That's right, the city voted with my recommendations on all seven of the questions on the ballot. Are that many people reading and agreeing with my blog, or are the people here just that much smarter? Basically, people agreed to continue funding the city at the current level, but not to give council more powers.

At the county level, I got one out of two. I recommended a NO vote on extending the Worthy Cause tax, and it passed with flying colors (which I could have predicted.) Oh, well. I don't think the money from this sales tax will go to any group that doesn't deserve it. I just wish people were trusted to make their own decisions on who to give to.

We did pass, in line with my recommendation, the new clean energy district, a novel way to fund, with no public expense, small renewable energy and efficiency projects. Boulder folks are smart AND generous.

On the state level, I didn't do as well. State voters ignored my recommendations on nine out of fourteen issues.

My successes: Luckily, Amendment 48, which redefines "person" in parts of the state bill of rights went down narrowly. Amendment 52 also failed -- it would have taken money from water projects, pine beetle mitigation, and other priorities that will be getting more urgent with global warming, and spent it on getting more people in their cars to ski resorts. Two out of three of the attempts by business to cripple unions also failed. Less critically, voters agreed with me that 21-year-olds are not old enough to run for state legislature.

Big losses: Referendum O would have protected our state constitution against the continued onslaught of amendments, but failed because too many people were convinced (incorrectly) that it would decrease their ability to write initiatives. Amendment 50 won, giving state casinos the right to not only stay open all night and increase bet limits, but also prevent their own taxes from going up. Two measures that would have helped with education funding went down -- Amendments 58 and 59. Amendment 51, a sales tax to help people with developmental disabilities failed; I guess Coloradans as a whole are not as generous with their sales tax dollars as Boulderites. Amendment 54 passed. Like Amendment 41 in a previous election, it takes a semi-reasonable idea (in this case preventing undue influence by government contractors) and pushes it way beyond reasonable, probably way beyond constitutional.

Mixed blessings: Also failing was Amendment 46, which would have ended affirmative action in the state. No doubt it is still useful, but symbolically it still grates. And Referenda M and N also passed contrary to my recommendation. These remove so-called obsolete clauses from the state constitution, although I wasn't convince in either case that we had the whole story.

Yes, this Insomniac is out of touch with the Colorado voter, and proudly so!

I'm Sick of Waiting for Socialized Health Care

I had the opportunity to spend a couple of days in Canada last week. While I was there I thought it would be a good chance to do a little informal research into how their health care system really works.

"Fixing" our health care system is clearly near the top of the list of things for our incoming President and Congress to work on. And everybody here seems to have an opinion. Obama wants to bring us "socialized" medicine, according to John McCain. But socialized medicine, he warns us, results in rationing of care and long waits.

Well, Canada truly does have socialized medicine. And nothing Obama has proposed comes anywhere near to what they have. But in any case, I asked three Canadians I had the chance to talk to what they thought of their system:

• The software engineer
• The business executive
• The retired factory worker

The first thing to get out of the way is wait times. Every person I talked to confirmed that there are long waits for certain things. If you want to schedule non-emergency surgery you may have to wait six months. I was told that the government is working on improving this, because of the number of complaints, but it seemed to be an accepted fact.

Can you get your hip surgery quicker if you are willing to pay? Well, I heard of one man who paid out of pocket to come to the U.S. and get his new hip. It cost him $40,000, but the money was burning a hole in his pocket and being in his 80s he really valued the time more than the money. I also heard that, depending on which province you live in, you may be able to pay for improved service locally, but that in some provinces that would be illegal.

The other thing you may have a long wait for is a first appointment with a doctor or specialist. (I guess this is similar to some popular providers in the states.) Again, that could be months. Now, once you have become a client of the doctor, I was told that immediate appointments were available. The executive and the retired factory worker told me they were getting appointments the next day when needed.

Interestingly, I also heard that employers may supplement the health care plans of their employees. For example, they may add prescription coverage, or may upgrade from a ward to a semi-private room.

The retired worker's biggest complaint? When he turned 65 and switched to the Canadian equivalent of Medicare, they switched one of his drugs. Instead of taking one pill per day he had to take two.

What about the cost? The executive told me she is in the highest tax bracket, with essentially no deductions, and that she pays 47% of her paycheck in taxes. For comparison, the highest tax rate in the U.S. is 35% federal, 7.65% payroll tax, and 4.6% state income tax (here in Colorado), for a total of 47.25%. Hmm. That doesn't count the insurance costs that are also deducted from your paycheck.

So what do they think? My software engineer doesn't like it. He doesn't like the rationing, and the inability to get the care he wants when he wants it. My business executive loves it, because people can't go bankrupt because of a catastrophic medical problem. And my retired worker feels lucky compared to his brother, who lives in the U.S. and has no health care after being forced into early retirement.

So what's the bottom line? First, it will be hard to sell government run health care in the U.S. It seems like it can be done at a reasonable cost. To do so, however, will require some rationing. And given that, people in this country will not tolerate being told they can't get the care they want.

To be successful here, socialized medicine must include the ability for employers to supplement the insurance, and it must include the ability for individuals to pay for unrationed care.