Most of us fail the marshmallow challenge.
Even if we know there’s a greater reward for denying ourselves two sweets instead of one, we say, “why wait?”
That can be a problem.
Deferring immediate gratification is how we best prepare for the future.
That’s how as a country we fund entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security that help take our senior citizens into their sunset years.
It’s how we are able to have a strong defense system that works to preserve our democracy.
It’s how we maintain our infrastructure making sure we have clean water to drink; good schools, law enforcement and public health services.
Conscientious lawmakers work to see these programs and services are adequately funded knowing they are the fabric that binds our society.
Others are always looking for loose threads.
SOCIAL SCIENTISTS refer to industrialized societies such as the U.S. as being “time-blinkered.” Increasingly we have become so focused on today, that we refuse to consider how our actions may affect the future. Nowhere is that more evident than our failure to address climate change, where sacrifices today could make a big difference for future generations.
In France, large segments of the working class are in an uproar over President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to extend the retirement age from 62 to 64.
With a population that’s trending elderly, the country’s pension system is not adequate to support upcoming retirees. Instead of being willing to prop up the program by working an additional two years, the French are unrealistically demanding what they feel is their due — now.
“That’s some other guy’s problem,” is the apparent sentiment.
The quest for immediate gratification can do long term damage.
In Kansas, the equivalent is Republican legislators’ decade-long refusal to expand Medicaid, the country’s health insurance program designed for primarily low-income households.
If expanded, the program would cover an additional 150,000 Kansans. As proposed, the state would cover 10 percent of the cost of expansion with the federal government picking up the rest.
But that sticker price — an estimated $600 million — is holding back Republican support, even though studies show the state can expect to see an overall net gain of nearly $70 million once fully implemented.
The annual savings come from multiple avenues. For example, many enrolled in traditional Medicaid, such as those diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer or those who have spent down their savings for long term care, can be reclassified under the expansion program and the state’s financial responsibility drops from 40 to 10 percent.
