The musings of a physician who served the community for over six decades
367 Topics
Downtown A discussion about downtown area in Philadelphia and connections from today with its historical past.
West of Broad A collection of articles about the area west of Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Delaware (State of) Originally the "lower counties" of Pennsylvania, and thus one of three Quaker colonies founded by William Penn, Delaware has developed its own set of traditions and history.
Religious Philadelphia William Penn wanted a colony with religious freedom. A considerable number, if not the majority, of American religious denominations were founded in this city. The main misconception about religious Philadelphia is that it is Quaker-dominated. But the broader misconception is that it is not Quaker-dominated.
Particular Sights to See:Center City Taxi drivers tell tourists that Center City is a "shining city on a hill". During the Industrial Era, the city almost urbanized out to the county line, and then retreated. Right now, the urban center is surrounded by a semi-deserted ring of former factories.
Philadelphia's Middle Urban Ring Philadelphia grew rapidly for seventy years after the Civil War, then gradually lost population. Skyscrapers drain population upwards, suburbs beckon outwards. The result: a ring around center city, mixed prosperous and dilapidated. Future in doubt.
Historical Motor Excursion North of Philadelphia The narrow waist of New Jersey was the upper border of William Penn's vast land holdings, and the outer edge of Quaker influence. In 1776-77, Lord Howe made this strip the main highway of his attempt to subjugate the Colonies.
Land Tour Around Delaware Bay Start in Philadelphia, take two days to tour around Delaware Bay. Down the New Jersey side to Cape May, ferry over to Lewes, tour up to Dover and New Castle, visit Winterthur, Longwood Gardens, Brandywine Battlefield and art museum, then back to Philadelphia. Try it!
Tourist Trips Around Philadelphia and the Quaker Colonies The states of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and southern New Jersey all belonged to William Penn the Quaker. He was the largest private landholder in American history. Using explicit directions, comprehensive touring of the Quaker Colonies takes seven full days. Local residents would need a couple dozen one-day trips to get up to speed.
Touring Philadelphia's Western Regions Philadelpia County had two hundred farms in 1950, but is now thickly settled in all directions. Western regions along the Schuylkill are still spread out somewhat; with many historic estates.
Up the King's High Way New Jersey has a narrow waistline, with New York harbor at one end, and Delaware Bay on the other. Traffic and history travelled the Kings Highway along this path between New York and Philadelphia.
Arch Street: from Sixth to Second When the large meeting house at Fourth and Arch was built, many Quakers moved their houses to the area. At that time, "North of Market" implied the Quaker region of town.
Up Market Street to Sixth and Walnut Millions of eye patients have been asked to read the passage from Franklin's autobiography, "I walked up Market Street, etc." which is commonly printed on eye-test cards. Here's your chance to do it.
Sixth and Walnut over to Broad and Sansom In 1751, the Pennsylvania Hospital at 8th and Spruce was 'way out in the country. Now it is in the center of a city, but the area still remains dominated by medical institutions.
Montgomery and Bucks Counties The Philadelphia metropolitan region has five Pennsylvania counties, four New Jersey counties, one northern county in the state of Delaware. Here are the four Pennsylvania suburban ones.
Northern Overland Escape Path of the Philadelphia Tories 1 of 1 (16) Grievances provoking the American Revolutionary War left many Philadelphians unprovoked. Loyalists often fled to Canada, especially Kingston, Ontario. Decades later the flow of dissidents reversed, Canadian anti-royalists taking refuge south of the border.
City Hall to Chestnut Hill There are lots of ways to go from City Hall to Chestnut Hill, including the train from Suburban Station, or from 11th and Market. This tour imagines your driving your car out the Ben Franklin Parkway to Kelly Drive, and then up the Wissahickon.
Philadelphia Reflections is a history of the area around Philadelphia, PA
... William Penn's Quaker Colonies
plus medicine, economics and politics ... nearly 4,000 articles in all
Philadelphia Reflections now has a companion tour book! Buy it on Amazon
Philadelphia Revelations
Try the search box to the left if you don't see what you're looking for on this page.
George R. Fisher, III, M.D.
Obituary
George R. Fisher, III, M.D.
Age: 97 of Philadelphia, formerly of Haddonfield
Dr. George Ross Fisher of Philadelphia died on March 9, 2023, surrounded by his loving family.
Born in 1925 in Erie, Pennsylvania, to two teachers, George and Margaret Fisher, he grew up in Pittsburgh, later attending The Lawrenceville School and Yale University (graduating early because of the war). He was very proud of the fact that he was the only person who ever graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Science in English Literature. He attended Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons where he met the love of his life, fellow medical student, and future renowned Philadelphia radiologist Mary Stuart Blakely. While dating, they entertained themselves by dressing up in evening attire and crashing fancy Manhattan weddings. They married in 1950 and were each other’s true loves, mutual admirers, and life partners until Mary Stuart passed away in 2006. A Columbia faculty member wrote of him, “This young man’s personality is way off the beaten track, and cannot be evaluated by the customary methods.”
After training at the Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia where he was Chief Resident in Medicine, and spending a year at the NIH, he opened a practice in Endocrinology on Spruce Street where he practiced for sixty years. He also consulted regularly for the employees of Strawbridge and Clothier as well as the Hospital for the Mentally Retarded at Stockley, Delaware. He was beloved by his patients, his guiding philosophy being the adage, “Listen to your patient – he’s telling you his diagnosis.” His patients also told him their stories which gave him an education in all things Philadelphia, the city he passionately loved and which he went on to chronicle in this online blog. Many of these blogs were adapted into a history-oriented tour book, Philadelphia Revelations: Twenty Tours of the Delaware Valley.
He was a true Renaissance Man, interested in everything and everyone, remembering everything he read or heard in complete detail, and endowed with a penetrating intellect which cut to the heart of whatever was being discussed, whether it be medicine, history, literature, economics, investments, politics, science or even lawn care for his home in Haddonfield, NJ where he and his wife raised their four children. He was an “early adopter.” Memories of his children from the 1960s include being taken to visit his colleagues working on the UNIVAC computer at Penn; the air-mail version of the London Economist on the dining room table; and his work on developing a proprietary medical office software using Fortran. His dedication to patients and to his profession extended to his many years representing Pennsylvania to the American Medical Association.
After retiring from his practice in 2003, he started his pioneering “just-in-time” Ross & Perry publishing company, which printed more than 300 new and reprint titles, ranging from Flight Manual for the SR-71 Blackbird Spy Plane (his best seller!) to Terse Verse, a collection of a hundred mostly humorous haikus. He authored four books. In 2013 at age 88, he ran as a Republican for New Jersey Assemblyman for the 6th district (he lost).
A gregarious extrovert, he loved meeting his fellow Philadelphians well into his nineties at the Shakespeare Society, the Global Interdependence Center, the College of Physicians, the Right Angle Club, the Union League, the Haddonfield 65 Club, and the Franklin Inn. He faithfully attended Quaker Meeting in Haddonfield NJ for over 60 years. Later in life he was fortunate to be joined in his life, travels, and adventures by his dear friend Dr. Janice Gordon.
He passed away peacefully, held in the Light and surrounded by his family as they sang to him and read aloud the love letters that he and his wife penned throughout their courtship. In addition to his children – George, Miriam, Margaret, and Stuart – he leaves his three children-in-law, eight grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and his younger brother, John.
A memorial service, followed by a reception, will be held at the Friends Meeting in Haddonfield New Jersey on April 1 at one in the afternoon. Memorial contributions may be sent to Haddonfield Friends Meeting, 47 Friends Avenue, Haddonfield, NJ 08033.
At present, the Classical variety of Health Savings Accounts is reported to have 15-17 million subscribers and 25 billion dollars deposited. It seems to be growing at the rate of a million new subscribers a year. Let me confide it is very satisfying to discover millions of people are intrigued enough to commit money to an idea John McClaughry and I put together thirty years ago. It happened without any money of our own devoted to promoting it, and from which John and I have derived no personal gain. I even have an eventual goal, which requires some legislative help to get going. It's called the Lifetime Health Savings Account. It builds on the original idea of the year- to- year Classical HSA, but follows the whole-life insurance plan, so familiar to purchasers of life insurance. It is, to lifetime health care, what whole-life life insurance is to term insurance. A single lifetime marketing effort, internal professional investing of its float, early overfunding followed by later distribution of surpluses.
However, you can't buy lifetime health insurance right now, and won't be able to, until certain laws are modified. Furthermore, the various steps will take decades to come together into a unified lifetime demonstration. Therefore, two strategies were tried out. The first was to omit some steps and work around The Affordable Care Act as if it didn't exist. That's easier on paper, called the New Health Savings Account (N-HSA), but takes just as many decades to prove itself, and is forced to surrender much of the financing cushion which gives it a safety factor. Therefore, it is only included in the book to display some of the hidden technical features which tend to make it workable. These details are then extracted like pearls from oysters and strung into a necklace of ideas. The eventual outcome is the last chapter of the book, which is able to refer to these pearls as if the reader is familiar with them. Which he will be if he reads the book sequentially, and which he can be if he refers back to the sources in other chapters in other guises. The result is a description which is quite simple, but each feature of which has explanations which are not entirely self-evident.
If I started over and re-wrote the whole book, it would be much smoother. However, I made a conscious decision to sacrifice smoothness, in order to get the book into the national debate in time to make an impact. Even now it seems a little late, while many fast-breaking events just have to be ignored because there is no time to include them. It's the primary difficulty, for which I apologize, is the math of the examples keeps changing.
Meanwhile, I decided two things: to go ahead with the book with its final goal largely sacrificed to immediate needs. And, to prepare an interim, or new, Health Savings Account proposal. The new proposal would go ahead with a few advances toward Lifetime Health Savings Accounts which might be acceptable enough to political combatants to pass Congress, but which could advance the concepts of Lifetime HSA through some experimental stages. Even that proved too ambitious because It would require decades to prove the concepts by example. So it was stripped down some more, creating the last chapter of this book. Instead of taking a few ideas and struggling with them for a lifetime, I finally came to the view that a lifetime was a series of events, some of which worked out, and some didn't. Like a string of beads, I finally strung them together, recognizing that some would have to be replaced. Essentially a pilot study of proofs-of-concept, it prepares the way for more grandiose plans after most demonstrated flaws had been cleaned up. I called it New Health Savings Accounts (N-HSA) and thought it would work to include all of the healthcare except for age 21-66. Although that would cover 58% of health costs, it would not conflict with the Affordable Care Act, and might eventually seek greater compatibility as the ACA evolved. If the ACA got thrown out, it would be a concept prepared to take its place, without tumbling us into healthcare chaos. But until some upcoming elections clarified where the public stood, the two ideas could essentially stay out of each other's way.
A description of N-HSA follows in this section. Because the calculations of the Lifetime goal-model showed L-HSA could generate considerably more money than required, I was misled into thinking abbreviated N-HSA would generate ample funds. That turns out to be only narrowly true, and it has such a thin margin of safety that a major war or a major recession would probably sink it before it had enough public support as a pilot study. That didn't stop Lyndon Johnson from going ahead with a program which was only 50% funded, together with a Social Security program which has a similarly bleak balance sheet, and a Medicaid program which is a notorious failure to do a good job or to come close to paying for itself. But those were different times. In 1965 the international balance of payments of the United States had been positive for 17 years in 1965 but has been steadily negative for fifty years subsequent to that time. It shows no sign of improving. The Vietnam semi-revolution destroyed Lyndon Johnson's political career in the Sixties. His entitlement programs lingered on as unsupportable public generosities for fifty more years, but they simply must change if we are to survive as a nation.
The Health Savings Account is based on a different set of fundamentals. We have saved enormous sums by stamping out thirty diseases but at a different sort of cost which has increased as we extend our generosity to essentially everybody, even non-citizens. We have created a tidal wave of rising expectations which even the most optimistic surely cannot imagine can continue indefinitely. And a rising rebellion of envious foreigners with nuclear capability, and an unstable monetary system without any definable standard; which puts us at the mercy of ambitious foreign rulers. And yet, we continue to throw huge amounts of money at research, in a typically American mixture of hope and calculation. We have narrowed most medical costs to about five chronic diseases: cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, Parkinsonism and self-inflicted conditions, and we aren't going to stop until those five conditions are cured. Nobody told us to do such a thing, but everybody secretly hopes it will work. If we eliminate diseases, well, everybody can then afford not to pay for them. Unfortunately, it created a bigger, unanticipated, problem.
We bifurcated medical payments into three compartments: working people age 21-66 who earn almost all new wealth, but most don't get very expensively sick. Secondly, the elderly from 66-100 who don't earn much money, but increasingly have all the expensive diseases. And third, the children from birth to age 21, who only consume 8% of the health care costs, but who have no opportunity, either to pre-fund their costs or to earn enough to pay for them. This third group, as I found out, unexpectedly upset almost all plans for comprehensive care, cradle to grave. Rich and poor folks, about whom we have heard so much, are distributed within these three groups. What we have mindlessly created is the need for an enormous transfer of wealth from the people who earn it, to the rest of the nation, who have most of the disease and little of the earning power. This wealth transfer is just more than the generosity of the country can comfortably support, and it's been growing steadily from President Teddy Roosevelt to President Barack Obama.
My concept, right from 1980 onward, has been to find a way for individuals to store up their own wealth while they are working so they can support their own costs when they grow older. Doing it by demographic classes is too much altruism to tolerate -- just listen to what young people are saying about their lucky elders, and to what the baby boomers are saying about the millennials. The nick-names will change, but that's the way all interest groups talk about each other. I had assumed medical science had already reduced the disease burden to the point where self-funding your own old age -- in advance -- would cover a majority of the population. But I now have to admit we are only part-way. Enough volunteers would probably support N-HSA to make the experiment a success in normal times, but it doesn't have enough cushion to be completely confident it could survive a war or a depression. Every time we make a scientific advance, the day of feasibility comes a little sooner. So, it boils down to whether you are willing to take the risk now, or not. I'd like to see a pilot study of volunteers iron out the kinks, first. But a great many impatient people are boiling to take the risk right now, and if we are lucky on the international and economic level, it might work. Every bull market "climbs a wall of worry." If we approach it more gradually, it is more certain to work. Judge for yourself.
Enacted 2003. Subscribers as of Jan.1, 2015: 17 million.
Provisions: Briefly stated, any approved high-deductible indemnity health insurance plan, when attached to an approved tax-deductible saving account for the accumulation of the insurance deductible, or payment of other medical expenses. Deposits are limited to $3,400 tax-deductible annually and are not taxable on withdrawal for medical purposes. Accounts presently may not be used to pay the insurance premium. The account is exchanged for a regular IRA at the time the subscriber begins Medicare coverage. (In this sense, an overfunded account earns interest until age 66 when unused funds are taxed but exchanged for any Individual Retirement Account which may then be used for any purpose. Up until that time, there is a 20% penalty for funds used for non-medical purposes.)
Suggested technical amendments: 1. Permit the account portion to pay the premiums for the insurance portion, making the entire
Health Savings Account tax exempt. 2. Improve flexibility by eliminating age and employment limits. 3. Relax the deposit limits with a COLA and switch from annual limits to lifetime limits.
Suggested regulatory changes: 1. Limit costs and charges for deposits, withdrawals, and investment income to 1%, applying all the rest to the customer's account. The main purpose was not rationing, but to block expansion from Congressional intent of before-tax funding of deductibles, health expenses, and retirements. 2. Permit subscribers the option to purchase index funds and take delivery on the certificates into defined escrow sub-accounts.
Suggested Areas for Future Expansion:
1. First/Last Years-of-Life Re-insurance. (To shorten the transition but extend the period for compounding interest, plus reduction of Retirement cost.) These four years consume 50% of medical costs. They are seldom paid by the patient himself and affect 100% of the population. The present system is largely a transfer system to these four years, paid for by people who are not themselves sick.
2. Study how the savings from future disease cures could be applied to retirement (rather than misapplied to battleships, etc) by flowing such savings into HSAs. The planning should contemplate eliminating Medicare gradually as its need disappears, a feature seldom included in the design of entitlements.
3. Study the Dis-intermediation of HSA investing. Privatization creates complicated agency problems, sometimes with excessive costs. Savings are possible from investing rather than borrowing, but the savings should reflect the risks better. The problem is how to invest several percents of GDP without using price controls.
4. Decentralize. Centralization of medical care has led to running it at great intermediary cost, unlike most businesses which become cheaper if centralized. Old people have most of the disease and do most of the medical commuting. The effective way to restore physician control is to decentralize from urban silos to suburban retirement communities. To do so gracefully requires protracted planning. Begin with the Maricopa case of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Overview. To be brief about it, health spending now crowds toward the end of life, with most heavy spending after age 65, but most earning power comes before 65. Disregarding the complicated history of how we got there, we are borrowing to pay for Medicare, but not earning market interest on the idle money collected from younger people. Potentially, the two age groups could unify their finances and get more or less dual savings. That's the dream advanced by the single-payer advocates, but on examination, the cost, politics, and complexities prove too overwhelming for that approach. It would be a mess, and nothing else could be accomplished by the government for decades to come. It is our contention the use of Health Savings Accounts as a transfer vehicle would be much easier than unifying insurance programs, solving most of the problems, avoiding most of the obstacles.
But that's only part of the health financing problem. At the opposite front end of life, children concentrate medical expenses toward their first day of life but have absolutely no way to pre-pay the expenses from their own income. They might add thirty years to the compound interest in Health Savings Accounts if they only had some money. Thus if you aspire to serve lifetime financing, you seemingly require two clashing systems, roughly the opposite of each other, at the beginning and end of life. Not to mention the working class in the middle, largely funded by employers who frequently change. Those people who largely support the whole system, have such constraints on their financing it is probably not feasible even to discuss unifying them for decades into the future. Connecting, yes; unifying, as little as possible, Therefore, this book passes over single payer and concentrates on lower-hanging fruit.
Essentially, this book proposes the Health Savings Account as a unifying financial bridge between programs, one account per individual lifetime, serving many disparate programs. It is designed to be implemented in pieces and designed to be phased in. The reader will probably be surprised at how simple some things are likely to be, once it is conceded the patient ought to be in charge of what others are now deciding for him.
Prepare yourself for one big rearrangement of thinking, however. Extended retirement costs are a direct consequence of superior healthcare. They are five times as expensive as healthcare itself, and can only conceivably be partly paid for, with money saved from the rest of the healthcare budget. But eventually, new revenues must be found. It's a devastating realization, but it contains the seed of solving the problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial reaction was to treat workers and retirees as two different classes of people, relying on one to tax the other, ignoring any restlessness about the cost of paying for someone else. But retirees now move to different communities, even different states, almost sorting into two different nations. Furthermore, the gap gets wider, with good health leading to longer retirements. Government is forced to be the paymaster for an expanding free lunch for strangers.
become entitled to tax their parents for health and education, for longer stretches of increasing alienation. Give things a little time, however, and it's possible to anticipate this additional third of the population feels entitled to tax the working third, deploying the enforcement powers of the government intermediary. Between them, the non-working two thirds will constitute a majority, so even politics may not forestall the problem. To earn more requires more education. To work more should entitle a peaceful retirement. Somewhere, we got on this wrong path for the right reasons.
If the present system could be disentangled without destroying it, the potential exists to earn money before the funds are needed and spend them later. The PThe initial reaction was to treat workers and retirees as two different classes of people, relying on one to tax the other, ignoring any restlessness about the cost of paying for someone else. But retirees now move to different communities, even different states, almost sorting into two different nations. Furthermore, the gap gets wider, with good health leading to longer retirements. Government is forced to be the paymaster for an expanding free lunch for strangers.
The book before you is not a list of dooms and glooms. It is a proposal to protect a functioning society by regarding child, parent, and grandparent as different stages of the same person's life, all with a united interest in preserving the system. Specifically, we build upon the idea of a Health Savings Account, one account per person throughout one lifetime, as a financial way to illustrate a social point. If you spend too much too early, you won't have much left for later. This proposal is voluntary, you don't have to do it, but in some ways, that's another advantage. No matter what system is used, ultimate protection lies in the sympathy of more fortunate people. Sympathy will last longer if everyone appears to have done his level best--for himself, and with plenty of warning if it wasn't sufficient. Ultimately, there is no escaping the use of insurance for unexpected catastrophes, but that's the last resort. Only an insurance salesman would argue for unlimited insurance for everyone, all the time. And only someone who knows very little about insurance would believe insurance is a form of printing money. Voluntary isn't one-size fits all. Voluntary doesn't dump 340 million subscribers on an untested system, all at one time.
Either voluntary or mandatory, the consequences of our present dangerous path eventually fall on the individual, leaving nothing but the unlimited (?) sympathy of others for protection. The working generation must always subsidize the two dependent generations, but it's the individual at different ages instead of as anonymous classes of strangers. For a final twist, we propose to address this problem by adding the incentive of a second problem we didn't even have until a few years ago. It isn't a trick; everything looks in retrospect as if it could have been predicted.
The cost of a third-party system can be found in the difference between two costs, first-dollar cost, and high-deductible.
Three Surprises. Curiously, the new concept had to be tested before it could be fully understood by its originators. A bit of history may help explain how it came about. The basic concept of Health Savings Accounts was developed in 1981 by John McClaury and me, while John was Senior Policy Advisor in the Reagan White House. Derived from the IRA concept developed by Senator Bill Roth of Delaware, it started as a Christmas Savings Account to build up the deductible for a (high-deductible) Catastrophic health insurance. After testing, the realization dawned that the real deductible was the unpaid portion of the deductible in the account, eventually becoming zero -- because the (linked) insurance premium did not rise as the real deductible declined. Eventually, the HSA emerged with first-dollar coverage for the same price as high-deductible insurance. The modest saving of the deductible within your own hands, plus the relief of that burden upon the insurance company, essentially high-lighted the undue cost of first-dollar coverage.
A different way of enlarging that point emerged from the tendency of non-insurance HSA managers to use debit cards for medical payments, instead of claims forms. Although there must be more temptation to chisel in the absence of strict scrutiny, the debit-card system essentially depended on the client to howl if his own money was suspected of being mis-spent. When you spend a third party's money, there's far less concern than when spending your own. The relative absence of chiseling cost was defining the true cost and effectiveness of third-party policing. And since the cost was seemingly much greater to police than not to police, it exposed the second true cost of using the third parties at all.
That was one surprise, but a more gratifying development was an appreciable fall in medical costs in spite of minimal cost-reduction efforts. At first, this was attributed to the ("adverse") selection of unusually frugal clients, but in time the real incentive emerged: the provisions of the HSA act permitted any surplus at age 65 to be turned into an IRA. That is, an incentive had been created to save health money for retirement, substituting personal responsibility for insurance company vigilance. And the hidden cost of using a third-party system was approximated by the resulting difference between the two costs.
But a third zinger in the system took longer to emerge. What was mainly motivating subscribers to be stingy and vigilant was the provision in the enabling law that when the owner reached Medicare age, the Health Savings Account turned into an IRA, Bill Roth's Individual Retirement Account. The name itself suggested motivation. As improved health care spread among the elderly, they lived longer and longer. Gradually and grudgingly, it was recognized that extended longevity was an unfunded cost of Medicare. There was Social Security, of course, long left in the dust of thirty extra years of longevity. It might have satisfied Bismarck, but it was essentially negligible in the face of really extended longevity -- which eventually proved to be five times as expensive as the rest of health care. What's worse, its cost is even harder to approximate than the future cost of health care, because everyone has his own definition of a "decent" retirement. An underfunded retirement is a stronger incentive to watch your pennies than a specified one, because there is no one, not even the demonized one percent, who can be certain there will be enough left to last. Wasn't that enough incentive to get anybody's attention?
For the purposes of this book, the strength of that last incentive was its most important feature. Almost anybody could tell at a glance the cost of Medicare was what stopped "single payer" in its tracks, what paralyzed Congress on healthcare, and what defied solutions from any direction. Medicare was the "third rail" of politics -- touch it and you are dead. But with a new retirement entitlement looming which almost made Medicare costs laughable, it was a new ball game. In the new environment, third-party reimbursement was itself standing in the road of lowering everybody's costs through rearranging the payment stream. Medicare became a symbol of what the problem was, not just a lobbying benefit. Increased retirement cost was, in short, a central cost of health care, and anyone who stood in the way of fixing it was misguided. Because it is closest to retirement, Medicare is in fact the first thing you must change, but you better do it very carefully. And by the way, you better do it pretty soon.
------------------------------
This study of Health Savings (and Retirement) Accounts was begun thirty years ago, with intensity in the past five years. During most of that time, it was paying for health costs which were the central concern. Paying a big chunk of health costs would be an achievement, paying for it all would be an impossible dream. Therefore, paying for the whole healthcare system was the earlier goal of my proposals. If it fell short, well, it paid for a big part of it. Either way, we could afford to leave Medicare alone. But once Medicare came into focus as the main impediment to solving an even bigger problem for exactly the same age group, "saving" it becomes a relatively small issue. New revenue must be found, the quality of care must not be injured, and -- most of all -- public opinion must be re-directed. This is a specialist's game, but the public is now the real player.
Resource Assessment. Adding up all the other economies of Health (and Retirement) Savings Accounts, but now also including the retirement costs, the conclusion is left that HRS As might stretch to pay for health costs, and some but not all retirement costs. Much of the shortfall comes from difficulty stating a "decent" retirement payment which would satisfy most people. That's enough for a Trappist monk is not enough for a movie star, and what will be called decent in 60 years is pretty hard to say. So the most we should promise is healthcare plus some retirement; supplement more generous retirement as you are able. Even promising that much is a stretch, but is certainly superior to healthcare plans without the discipline of individual ownership. Unfortunately, it forces the individual to some choices he must make for himself, versus allowing some big anonymous corporation to do it all for him at a hefty markup. Let's specify the two big dangers he must navigate:
Imperfect Agents Theoretically, the best result anyone could provide would be to give a newborn baby a couple of hundred dollars at birth, let a big corporation do the investing, and pay a million dollars worth of bills over the next ninety years on his behalf, at no charge. The long investing period would provide some astonishing returns, and it would be entirely carefree for the customer.
Unfortunately, experience over thousands of years has demonstrated agents will eventually extract much of the profit for themselves. Countless kings have been known to shave the edges of gold coins, even more, have been found to have employed inflation of the currency to pay their own bills. Investment managers are almost invariably well compensated, usually for mediocre returns. William Penn, the largest private landholder in history, was put in debtors prison by his wayward agent, as was Robert Morris, the financier of the American Revolution. Whole-life insurance companies are the closest approximation of an agent for a Health Savings Account who might propose to get paid a level premium for decades before paying out a benefit for a dead client. They seem to survive by promising a single defined fixed-dollar benefit and counting on inflation to work for them as it does for dictators, overseen by an insurance commissioner. Unfortunately, they have the moral hazard of falling back on other surviving firms to bail out bankruptcy, and the political hazard of trying to force premiums downward for the taxpayer without any reliable benchmark. Just how much they have been rescued by lengthened longevity is something only an actuary knows. Long ago, the situation was summarized by the question, "And where are the customers' yachts?"
Inexperienced Solo Management. If Warren Buffett had an HSA, he would have no problem managing it, and neither would a great many other savvy folks. The problem is to make the management so simple and standard that expenses can be kept low without injuring investment returns, for the average citizen. This consideration almost drives the conclusion the lifetime would be best divided into at least three component parts, with benchmarks and averages published regularly, since the medical and beneficiary problems divide into the same three (childhood, working age, and retirement) components. It begins to look as though a new profession of fee-for-service advisors needs to become educated and distribute themselves widely, perhaps in local bank branches. As will be described in later sections, the need is for the income stream to be kept in balance with the probable expenditures, adjusted for inflation or deflation. It is not to achieve the maximum possible revenue return, regardless of risk. That is to say, the purpose of the HRSA is not to make as much money as possible, but to be sure as much medical need as possible can be satisfied by the revenue available. Let's put it all in a nutshell: There's a big difference between designing a system to cover a public need inexpensively -- and designing a business model to make a profit. But that's not nearly as big a problem, as doing both at the same time.
After Assessing Obstacles Comes Strategy. Most HSAs make payments with a debit card suitable for passive investing (utilizing total market index funds) for inexperienced investors and for otherwise undesignated accounts. However, there's a technical problem: the earning period is not the first stage of life; it's the second, following nearly a third of life in childhood and educational dependency or debt. Health expenses in the childhood third of lifespan may be comparatively small, but the earning capacity is essentially zero. This unconquerable fact leads to splitting investment considerations into three stages, the first and last thirds subsidized by the middle one. The result is, two systems feeding off the middle third in opposite ways, requiring opposite approaches. Somehow, it must all come out in balance at the end. And remember, it starts with a deficit in the obstetrical delivery room unless we re-arrange something else.
If you spend too much too early, you won't have anything left for later.
The book before you is not a list of dooms and glooms. It is a proposal to protect a functioning society by regarding child, parent, and grandparent as different stages of the same person's life, with a united interest in the same goal. Specifically, we build upon the idea of a Health Savings Account, one account per person throughout one lifetime, as a financial way to emphasize an underlying social point. If you spend too much too early, you won't have much left for later.
This unification proposal is voluntary, you don't have to do it, or even part of it, but in some ways, that's another advantage. Without the ability to refuse, the only remaining protection is the sympathy of more fortunate people. Sympathy lasts longer if everyone appears to have done his level best--for himself, and with plenty of warning if that wasn't sufficient. There is no escaping the use of insurance for unexpected catastrophes, but insurance is formalized dependence on strangers. Only an insurance salesman would argue for unlimited insurance for everyone, all the time. Only someone who knows very little about insurance would believe insurance is a way of printing money. Voluntary, by contrast, isn't a one-size-fits-all commitment and doesn't dump 340 million subscribers on untested systems, all at once. Voluntary respects your right to say No.
Either voluntary or mandatory, however, some things are just part of life. The working generation must always subsidize the dependent generations, but it could be the same individual at different ages instead of by classes of strangers. For a final twist, we unexpectedly propose to empower solution by adding a second problem we didn't even realize we had, until recently. It isn't a trick; everything looks in retrospect as though it might have been predicted.
The cost of third-party systems can be found by subtracting the difference between the costs of two approaches, first-dollar, and high-deductible.
Three Surprises. Curiously, the Health Savings Account had to be tested before it could be fully understood even by its originators. A bit of history may help explain it. The basic concept of Health Savings Accounts was developed in 1981 by John McClaury and me, while John was Senior Policy Advisor in the Reagan White House. Derived from the IRA concept developed by Senator Bill Roth of Delaware, it started as a Christmas Savings Account, to save up for the deductible of a (high-deductible) Catastrophic health insurance. So there were two linked features: high-deductible health insurance, and a medical version of an IRA. After testing, the realization dawned that the real deductible became the unpaid portion in the account, eventually becoming zero -- because now the (linked but separate) insurance premium no longer rose as the real deductible declined. Eventually, the HSA emerged looking like first-dollar coverage for the same price as insurance with a high-deductible. Saving the deductible was placed within your own hands without shifting the burden onto an insurance company. The undue cost of first-dollar coverage was reduced, again, by shifting its point of impact.
A different enlargement of that point emerged from the tendency of non-insurance HSA managers to use debit cards for medical payments, instead of claims forms. Although there may well be more temptation to chisel in the absence of strict scrutiny, the debit-card system essentially depends on the client to howl if he suspects his own money is being mis-spent. Otherwise, it will be lost. When you spend a third party's money, there's far less concern than when you spend your own. The relative disappearance of chiseling cost was tangibly high-lighting the true cost (and lack of effectiveness), of third-party policing. Since it was more costly to police than not to police, it exposed a second hidden cost of using third parties -- at all.
That was the first surprise, but a more gratifying development was an appreciable decline in medical costs, in spite of reducing cost-reduction efforts. At first, this saving was attributed to the ("adverse") selection of unusually frugal clients. In time, the real incentive emerged: the provisions of the HSA act permitted any surplus at age 65 to be turned into an IRA. That is, an incentive had been created to save health money for retirement, substituting personal responsibility for insurance company vigilance. And the hidden cost of using a third-party system was similarly approximated by the resulting difference between the two costs.
But a third zinger in the system took longer to emerge. What was mainly motivating subscribers to be stingy and vigilant was the provision in the enabling law that when the owner reached Medicare age, the Health Savings Account turned into an IRA, Bill Roth's Individual Retirement Account. The name itself suggested motivation. As improved health care spread among the elderly, they lived longer. Gradually and grudgingly, it was recognized that extended longevity was a hidden cost of Medicare. There was Social Security, of course, left in the dust of thirty extra years of longevity since 1900. It destroyed defined-benefit insurance. It might have satisfied Bismarck, but it was essentially negligible in the face of longevity -- which eventually proved to be five times as expensive as the rest of health care. What's worse, its cost is even harder to approximate than the future cost of health care, because everyone has his own definition of a "decent" retirement. Underfunded retirement is a stronger incentive to watch your pennies than a specified one because there is no one, not even that demonized one percent, who can be certain there will be enough left to last his lifetime. Wasn't that enough incentive to get anybody's attention?
For the purposes of this book, the strength of that last incentive was its most important feature. Almost anybody could tell at a glance that the cost of Medicare was what stopped "single payer" in its tracks, what paralyzed Congress on healthcare, and what defied solutions from any direction. Medicare was the "third rail" of politics -- touch it and you are dead. But with a new retirement entitlement looming which almost made Medicare costs laughable, it was a new ball game. In the new environment, third-party reimbursement was itself standing in the road of lowering everybody's costs through rearranging the payment stream. Medicare became a symbol of what the problem was, not just a lobbying benefit. Increased retirement cost was, in short, a central cost of health care, and anyone who stood in the way of fixing it was misguided. Because it is closest to retirement, Medicare is in fact the first thing you must change, but you better do it very carefully. And by the way, you better do it pretty soon.
------------------------------
This study of Health Savings (and Retirement) Accounts was begun thirty years ago, with intensity in the past five years. During most of that time, it was paying for health costs which were the central concern. Paying a big chunk of health costs would be an achievement, paying for it all would be an impossible dream. Therefore, paying for the whole healthcare system was the earlier goal of my proposals. If it fell short, well, it paid for a big part of it. Either way, we could afford to leave Medicare alone. But once Medicare came into focus as the main impediment to solving an even bigger problem for exactly the same age group, "saving" it becomes a relatively small issue. New revenue must be found, the quality of care must not be injured, and -- most of all -- public opinion must be re-directed. This is a specialist's game, but the public is now the real player.
Resource Assessment. Adding up all the other economies of Health (and Retirement) Savings Accounts, but now also including the retirement costs, the conclusion is left that HRSAs might pay for health costs, and some but not all retirement costs. Much of the shortfall comes from difficulty stating a "decent" retirement payment which would satisfy most people. That's enough for a Trappist monk is not enough for a movie star, and what will be called decent in 60 years is pretty hard to say. So the most we should promise is healthcare plus some retirement; supplement more generous retirement as you are able. Even promising that much is a stretch, but is certainly superior to healthcare plans without the discipline of individual ownership. Unfortunately, it forces the individual to some choices he must make for himself, versus allowing some big anonymous corporation to do it all for him at a hefty markup. Let's specify the two big dangers he must navigate:
Imperfect Agents Theoretically, the best result anyone could provide would be to give a newborn baby a couple of hundred dollars at birth, let a big corporation do the investing, and pay a million dollars worth of bills over the next ninety years on his behalf, at no charge. The long investing period would provide some astonishing returns, and it would be entirely carefree for the customer.
Unfortunately, experience over thousands of years has demonstrated agents will eventually extract much of the profit for themselves. Countless kings have been known to shave the edges of gold coins, even more, have been found to have employed inflation of the currency to pay their own bills. Investment managers are almost invariably well compensated, usually for mediocre returns. William Penn, the largest private landholder in history, was put in debtors prison by his wayward agent, as was Robert Morris, the financier of the American Revolution. Whole-life insurance companies are the closest approximation of an agent for a Health Savings Account who might propose to get paid a level premium for decades before paying out a benefit for a dead client. They seem to survive by promising a single defined fixed-dollar benefit and counting on inflation to work for them as it does for dictators, overseen by an insurance commissioner. Unfortunately, they have the moral hazard of falling back on other surviving firms to bail out bankruptcy, and the political hazard of trying to force premiums downward for the taxpayer without any reliable benchmark. Just how much they have been rescued by lengthened longevity is something only an actuary knows. Long ago, the situation was summarized by the question, "And where are the customers' yachts?"
Inexperienced Solo Management. If Warren Buffett had an HSA, he would have no problem managing it, and neither would a great many other savvy folks. The problem is to make the management so simple and standard that expenses can be kept low without injuring investment returns, for the average citizen. This consideration almost drives the conclusion the lifetime would be best divided into at least three component parts, with benchmarks and averages published regularly, since the medical and beneficiary problems divide into the same three (childhood, working age, and retirement) components. It begins to look as though a new profession of fee-for-service advisors needs to become educated and distribute themselves widely, perhaps in local bank branches. As will be described in later sections, the need is for the income stream to be kept in balance with the probable expenditures, adjusted for inflation or deflation. It is not to achieve the maximum possible revenue return, regardless of risk. That is to say, the purpose of the HRSA is not to make as much money as possible, but to be sure as much medical need as possible can be satisfied by the revenue available. Let's put it all in a nutshell: There's a big difference between designing a system to cover a public need inexpensively -- and designing a business model to make a profit. But that's not nearly as big a problem, as doing both at the same time.
After Assessing Obstacles Comes Strategy. Most HSAs make payments with a debit card suitable for passive investing (utilizing total market index funds) for inexperienced investors and for otherwise undesignated accounts. However, there's a technical problem: the earning period is not the first stage of life; it's the second, following nearly a third of life in childhood and educational dependency or debt. Health expenses in the childhood third of lifespan may be comparatively small, but the earning capacity is essentially zero. This unconquerable fact leads to splitting investment considerations into three stages, the first and last thirds subsidized by the middle one. The result is, two systems feeding off the middle third in opposite ways, requiring opposite approaches. Somehow, it must all come out in balance at the end. And remember, it starts with a deficit in the obstetrical delivery room unless we re-arrange something else.
If you spend too much too early, you won't have anything left for later.
New blog 2016-07-13 17:16:09 contents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial reaction was to treat workers and retirees as two different classes of people, relying on one to tax the other, ignoring any restlessness about the cost of paying for someone else. But retirees now move to different communities, even different states, almost sorting into two different nations. Furthermore, the gap gets wider, with good health leading to longer retirements. Government is forced to be the paymaster for an expanding free lunch for strangers.
become entitled to tax their parents for health and education, for longer stretches of increasing alienation. Give things a little time, however, and it's possible to anticipate this additional third of the population feels entitled to tax the working third, deploying the enforcement powers of the government intermediary. Between them, the non-working two thirds will constitute a majority, so even politics may not forestall the problem. To earn more requires more education. To work more should entitle a peaceful retirement. Somewhere, we got on this wrong path for the right reasons.
If the present system could be disentangled without destroying it, the potential exists to earn money before the funds are needed and spend them later. The PThe initial reaction was to treat workers and retirees as two different classes of people, relying on one to tax the other, ignoring any restlessness about the cost of paying for someone else. But retirees now move to different communities, even different states, almost sorting into two different nations. Furthermore, the gap gets wider, with good health leading to longer retirements. Government is forced to be the paymaster for an expanding free lunch for strangers.
The American Medical Association feels unappreciated and misunderstood, and that is indeed a pretty accurate appraisal of things. In 1976, when I was offered an opportunity to be nominated to the AMA House of Delegates, I naturally was flattered to represent a thousand physicians. But I must admit that an extra incentive was the opportunity to learn what the AMA was all about. Since that is not exactly a superior qualification for election. I kept it quiet until now, but I can tell you that it is a very common feeling among new delegates. Even up to the time of being invited to give this lecture, my thoughts were formless or subliminal, and it is actually a welcome opportunity for me finally to coagulate my thoughts in order to say something useful to you tonight. Some would say, it is about time I made up my mind.
It seems helpful to begin with a broad historical perspective. Most of you know that the AMA was founded in Philadelphia in 1847 and that this Philadelphia County Medical Society is older than the AMA, and older than the Pennsylvania Medical Society. That was entirely natural, since Abraham Lincoln was then a small child in a log cabin in the forests of Illinois, whereas Spruce Street was lined with mansions, and the Pennsylvania Hospital was one of less than a dozen hospitals in the whole country. Things changed dramatically during the Nineteenth Century, but it would be important for you to recognize that by the year 1900, only seven percent of American physicians were members of the AMA. The AMA was founded as an elite brotherhood, adhering to a Hippocratic Code of Ethics, protected by stringent entrance restrictions, and internally disciplined by active boards of censors. If you were a member of the AMA and had not yet been thrown out, the public could be assured that you pledged active allegiance to Code of Ethics.
Well, as you know, the news media now jeer, and the AMA now despairs, that membership has declined to slightly less than half of all practicing physicians, a fact which is probably correctly attributed mostly to the rather high dues. Again, you should know that at the peak of membership in the 1930s, when it is fair to say that almost every physician was a member, the dues were free.
What happened to the ama was the Flexner Report in 1914. At that point, the AMA enlarged its traditional posture of self-discipline in a naughty world to active involvement in the processes by which medical excellence is produced. The Flexner report was devoted to examining the scientific content of the medical educational process and membership in the AMA came to stand for scientific as well as ethical excellence. Without intending for it to happen, the AMA had stumbled on the real secret of medical prestige, and after that, the AMA had no problems with attracting membership.
Throughout the Nineteenth Century, the major accomplishment of the AMA had been to establish the state licensing process. As a result of its formative activity in lobbying legislatures to create state boards of medical licensure, and it's later spectacular success in specifying the best medical educational process, the AMA has long played an influential, indeed dominant role in both areas. The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals was another AMA project, and so was Blue Shield. None of these secondary power centers (now dominant in licensing, education, hospital regulation, and health insurance) was established as an AMA vassal,but their formats were established from the beginning using the AMA model, their early leaders were all AMA leaders, and to this day, the AMA is certainly where to be if you want to learn the ropes. It must surely be frustrating to the enemies of the AMA to see how fruitless it has been to resist the power of the AMA in these areas, because so much intangible power rests in the experience, savvy, and contacts of the AMA in these areas, because so much intangible power rests in the experience, savvy, and contacts of the AMA leadership. They know where the bodies are buried, and they know all about the personalities and politics of the process. You could spend three lifetimes as an outsider just trying to learn what is going on. By the time you learned, the situation would have shifted just enough so the information wouldn't do you any good.
So, you can see that in some ways the AMA is an object lesson in the way that society often gives power to idealistic leaders, and then Idealism struggles to check the corrupting pressures of Power. The ancient Greeks thought it was a good idea to have philosopher kings, but history teaches us that even they acted more like kings than philosophers. Since this seems to be the universal nature of human behavior, it is vital that we search for self-regulating mechanisms in our institutions. The one I suggest for the AMA is the very unpopular suggestion that we be careful how we lower the dues, and we must never achieve automatic membership of the entire physician community. We must be cautious of defining success in the Morris Fishbein sense of getting rid of all dues because then the staff and leadership won't need to solicit membership. When we stop scratching and scrabbling for members, the members lose their ultimate power to impose their wishes on the organization. No one now needs to sign a petition or make a speech, and it is definitely counterproductive to threaten the leadership that you are going to resign. Rather, the invisible hand of the perceived wishes of the membership is raised in every vote at every Trustee meeting we must care of this or that, we must be careful of our image, else the membership might not like it. The paradox is that the AMA is now much more representative of members than it ever was in its heyday. When Morris Fishbein was coining a fortune in cigarettes advertising in the JAMA, the wishes of the membership be damned.
The thought I would next pursue is that the bumper stickers, paraphrased as "If you don't like the AMA just try to practice medicine without it." The . AMA is the largest medical publisher in the world, and while New England Journal has more prestige at the moment, it wouldn't take a charismatic editor more than five years to put the JAMA back on top of the prestige heap. The AMA News is by far the best medical newspaper in the world, and it supplies an absolutely unique information role.
The AMA has a program in the health care within our prisons which has almost no visibility, but which I can assure you is something you can be very proud of as a humanitarian effort conducted for its own sake. The AMA is extremely active in such abstruse but vital projects as creating medical nomenclature coding, uniform insurance billing forms, medical manpower surveys, health economics monitoring, and clearinghouses for personal exchanges. Whenever we have had a war or physicians draft, the AMA has been the only organization capable of coordinating the civilian and Military medical needs of the country. The AMA seems to be the only organizations which give a hoot about the Veterans Administration or military medicine. There is a very large building in Chicago filled with a thousand salaried people doing many other very necessary things, and doing them quite creditably, without getting very much public credit for it.
The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy as we sometimes tend to say. The American Medical Association is a much purer form of a republic, and its retention of some republican forms which the National government has lost has been a very useful political education for me. I take my seat in the House of Delegates by presenting a little yellow card, signed by the current president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society. If I have the card, I am seated; no card, no card. The cards are given to the State societies in the proportion of one card for every thousand AMA members. The AMA sees to it that the State Society Presidents are in person at the meeting to adjudicate credentials disputes. States may elect their delegates in any way they like and there are several methods. In Pennsylvania, the election is made by the Pennsylvania Medical Society House of Delegates, where membership is roughly one for every hundred members, sitting by countries. Philadelphia County has 30 delegates, and three AMA delegates, although there is nothing official about that.
The AMA House of Delegates meets twice a year for a week. Since you cannot retain your seat without tending to the political fences, a delegate must also attend the state and local meetings. A delegate must thus expect to devote four full weeks a year to the experience, and he need not expect to be influential at the AMA until he has been there at least five years. The AMA delegates feel very strongly about personal commitment; you can be tolerated if you are pretty eccentric, but if you don't come to a meeting, you are instantly ostracised, and probably will be quickly replaced.
The delegates have two main duties. They are an electoral college and they are a legislative body. The House of Delegates elects the President of the AMA and the Trustees, who run the organization between meetings of the House. The House also elects the members of four Councils, who are the specialists in matters of science, legislation, medical practice, and governance. The 70 officers, trustees, and councilors are the leadership, the Curia so to speak, and House of Delegates meetings are highly charged with the politics of these elections as well as the shadow of elections coming in future years. I am inclined to think the candidates take the elections too seriously and the delegates do not take them seriously enough, but it is a matter about which you cannot be entirely certain. There is absolutely no doubt that every delegate has ample opportunity to know every candidate very well, and it is likely that the House makes relatively few mistakes in its choices.
Acting in its legislative role, the House of Delegates usually receives a very thick handbook of agenda, two weeks before every meeting. Most newcomers are overwhelmed by the unexpected volume of detail and are quite unprepared for the ensuing experience of holding up their hands and voting on two or three hundred issues in the course of a week. There is a knack to mastering the process, of course, but mostly the knack comes from making the awful acknowledgment that you really must spend all evening studying the handbook, every evening for the two weeks before each meeting. You don't have to do it, of course, and some members are obviously bluffing. But if you expect to be effective you must do it, and if you want to get effective you must do it, and if you want to get effective you must do it, and if you want to get promoted you have to be seen to be effective. Business starts at 7 AM sharp, often in a city where you must cope with three hours of jet lag, and it goes straight through to midnight. The fact that you are eating breakfast o at a reception does not change the business nature of the day. Only a profession of workaholics could produce three hundred delegates and three hundred alternates, the majority of whom will put up with this grind for ten or fifteen years. Some of our decisions may be wrong, but we sure try hard to make them right.
In closing, I think I should say something about the AMA lobbyists. The AMA is rightly known as having the most effective lobby in Washington, but you ought to know what that means. Since we are a national organization, and every congressman has a doctor, and every congressman lives where there is a county medical society, it is possible to create an organization which can influence the entire Congress, but only with a massive organizational effort. Congressmen too are overload with work and live in a constantly confusing environment. Just to be able to get them to listen to your story is an achievement, and it is necessary to work very hard at repairing this network of contracts. AMPAC raises campaign contributions, and this is one way of reaching some congressmen. Knowing who is on what committee, how he leans, who can influence him, and when the timing is right is an enormous organizational job. Sometimes extraordinary measures are needed, was true in April 1984 when mandatory assignment of Medicare benefits looked as though it might pass. The AMA flew in 125 state medical society presidents and other key contracts and led each one up to the appropriate doors at the critical moment. As you know, the effort was successful.
Most lobbying, however, is far less dramatic. The Federal Register is published weekly and averages seventy thousand pages a year. Perhaps a twentieth of that fine print pertains to medicine in some way, and it must be culled out, studied, decided about, and lobbied with the staff assistants and bureaucrats who are producing it. here are no major victories in this sort of work and you lose a lot of arguments. But there is little doubt that the steady pressure, the constant alertness, and the presentation of superior information have the effect of pushing this avalanche of legislation in directions which are much more favorable to medicine than if the effort were not undertaken.
And fellows, it all takes money. We can raise money by forming captive malpractice insurance companies, or getting advertising in our journals, or charging for computer networks, or speculating in real estate. But who pays the piper calls the tune. In the long run, the member will only control their society if the society remains heavily dependent on their dues. You really must choose between three alternatives. You can have no one represent the profession in an era when everyone else is represented. You can be represented by a bureaucracy which constantly reflects your wishes because it constantly hungers for your dues. The decision is yours and you can expect, in the long run, to get what you pay for.
109 Volumes
Philadephia: America's Capital, 1774-1800 The Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from 1774 to 1788. Next, the new republic had its capital here from 1790 to 1800. Thoroughly Quaker Philadelphia was in the center of the founding twenty-five years when, and where, the enduring political institutions of America emerged.
Philadelphia: Decline and Fall (1900-2060) The world's richest industrial city in 1900, was defeated and dejected by 1950. Why? Digby Baltzell blamed it on the Quakers. Others blame the Erie Canal, and Andrew Jackson, or maybe Martin van Buren. Some say the city-county consolidation of 1858. Others blame the unions. We rather favor the decline of family business and the rise of the modern corporation in its place.
Originally the "lower counties" of Pennsylvania, and thus one of three Quaker colonies founded by William Penn, Delaware has developed its own set of traditions and history.
Start in Philadelphia, take two days to tour around Delaware Bay. Down the New Jersey side to Cape May, ferry over to Lewes, tour up to Dover and New Castle, visit Winterthur, Longwood Gardens, Brandywine Battlefield and art museum, then back to Philadelphia. Try it!
Millions of eye patients have been asked to read the passage from Franklin's autobiography, "I walked up Market Street, etc." which is commonly printed on eye-test cards. Here's your chance to do it.
In 1751, the Pennsylvania Hospital at 8th and Spruce was 'way out in the country. Now it is in the center of a city, but the area still remains dominated by medical institutions.
Grievances provoking the American Revolutionary War left many Philadelphians unprovoked. Loyalists often fled to Canada, especially Kingston, Ontario. Decades later the flow of dissidents reversed, Canadian anti-royalists taking refuge south of the border.
