PHILADELPHIA REFLECTIONS
The musings of a Philadelphia Physician who has served the community for six decades

241 Topics

HIDDEN ECONOMICS OF HEALTHCARE
Here are a few of the reasons Healthcare Reform still isn't going anywhere.

George Washington in Philadelphia
Philadelphia remains slightly miffed that Washington was so enthusiastic about moving the nation's capital next to his home on the Potomac. The fact remains that the era of Washington's eminence was Philadelphia's era; for thirty years Washington and Philadelphia dominated affairs.

Philadelphia Before the English Settlement
New topic 2012-07-09 15:21:41 description

FRONT STUFF: Savings for RD
Editorial material for book construction.

Subcultures (2)
New topic 2013-06-21 19:46:36 description

Click for more Topics

Philadelphia Reflections is a history of the area around Philadelphia, PA ... William Penn's Quaker Colonies
plus medicine, economics and politics ... 2264 articles in all

  • Try the search box to the left if you don't see what you're looking for.

Henry Kaiser's Cleverness Out of Control

The Henry Kaiser caper. In 1943 during the Second World War, Henry Kaiser was given "Liberty Ship" contracts to build freighters for the Pacific Theater, and claimed he had difficulty attracting steelworkers to California from the East Coast because he could not pay them an incentive bonus to move. To build them in East Coast shipyards was to invite German U-boats to sink them as they headed for the Panama Canal. There unfortunately was a price-control mandate from the War Production Board, seeking to restrain wartime inflation by disallowing raises or bonuses. By whatever means of persuasion, Kaiser nevertheless was able to obtain an exemption for healthcare costs, permitting him to regard these fringe benefits as exempt from income taxation. As Cicero noticed, "In times of war, the Law falls silent." Many other expedients were probably allowed, just in order to win the war, but such loopholes were mostly closed after victory was achieved.

Henry J. Kaiser

In later post-war years, just exactly who negotiated with whom remains unclear, but the essence was the IRS continued to treat employer health benefits as tax-exempt, and still does, eighty years later -- provided the employer pays the premium. This unintended post-war extension is fiercely defended by organized labor, and more quietly supported by the management of big business. Congressmen are scared to death of the whole subject because of repeated bad experiences with united lobbying, linking unions and big business, more noticeable because they ordinarily oppose each other. In effect, they now unite the support of the leaders of both political parties. It must be noticed here that Government itself is one of the biggest beneficiaries, acting as an employer offering fringe benefits, itself. The central feature remains that the employer must give the gift of insurance to the employee; self-employed and unemployed persons are not entitled to it. Small businesses are entitled to the tax exemption but many do not avail themselves of the opportunity when they discover premium rates for their employees are considerably higher than those of big businesses, and their businesses are overall less dependably profitable. The essence of the self-interest of big business for "employee" health benefits is concentrated in those companies who make big profits, and thus pay high corporate taxes; unprofitable businesses have less tax deductibility to play games with.

While it is hard to be precise, it is obvious that when things are more expensive they attract fewer buyers. A considerable number of the uninsured are in the same boat, with higher premiums but less income. Generally speaking, the lower your income, the more your health insurance will cost if you can obtain it. However, if an employee somehow gets a gift of his premium, his employer saves the same tax money, multiplied by the number of employees he has. Both employer and employee would have had to pay income tax on a higher salary, so if the absence of taxes makes it cheaper for both, both are better off. Let's put it this way: if an employee pays no income tax on his gift of health insurance, his employer also pays less state and federal corporate tax, too. So, while it is conventional to ascribe this tax evasion to the employee, and to blame it all on those dreadful Unions, the employer gets just as much cash benefit as each employee, multiplied by thousands of employees in the bigger firms. Relaxing in a taproom after one of these discussions, employers have boasted to me that the Unions just weren't smart enough to have thought of such a clever maneuver, so they originally had to be reminded of it at the bargaining table.

It is sometimes argued the gift of insurance premiums is in addition to the salary, but almost all economists agree that the salary soon equilibrates up or down to equal the labor cost. Stop calling it wages and treat it as total wage costs, and you soon see the point. There is no doubt it takes time to equilibrate, but it seems roughly fair to say the employer benefits from the tax reduction about as much as the employee does, which is about $2000 per year per employee. Because the hidden benefit is in taxes, the profitability of the company somewhat enters in, too. If the business is profitable to the full limit of corporate taxes, the benefit is the full limit of the employee's tax bracket, with the offset to the employer at about twice that rate in his corporate taxes. We assume a blended tax rate of 20% for the employee, and 40% state and federal rate for the employer. What the improvement in employee relations might be worth is noticed but not calculated. In companies with 10,000 employees the financial saving alone can amount to quite a bit. What the federal government may save on a standing army and navy, plus half the inhabitants of three states surrounding Washington, can be guessed at and need not be calculated. Almost all corporations listed on an exchange are profitable most of the time; there might be more swing in smaller businesses. Anyway, sometimes it just seems more desirable to have Subchapter S tax treatment.

In that sense, it is a little difficult to say what pressures motivate small businesses in this regard; some people allege the whole Subchapter S complexity is a reaction to utilizing this distinction, and therefore should be counted as an indirect benefit of the Henry Kaiser gambit. During the 2009 Tea Party agitations however, it was noticeable that small businessmen at the microphone were extremely vocal in their opposition to Obamacare. With regard to all employees, it seems safe to say that people who are well enough to be employed, have lower healthcare costs, and therefore seem more attractive to their health insurance company, resulting in lower premiums, maybe. Since only 25% of persons 25-34 are insured, Obamacare calculated they would break even if they enrolled 40% of the "young invincibles" at average rates. But there's also the automobile insurance phenomenon: compulsory auto insurance leads a great many to stop paying premiums after the first month or two. The kids resent being overcharged for something they feel they don't need, and calling them "young invincibles" inflames rather than softens that feeling. With auto accidents, young people have higher rates; with health insurance, it would seem it should be the other way.

Taken all together, it is pretty easy to see why big business demanded a one-year exemption from Obamacare, which then was extended a year. No doubt they intend to keep a low profile, but will keep demanding temporary exemptions, at least until the recession is over, and possibly forever, Until we see the eventual experience with employees, the largest group affected, it will be impossible to predict the limits of the subsidy program for the uninsured. Nevertheless, it is fairly obvious that this essentially political impasse is being treated as an untouchable issue, and believable estimations of "fairness" will be a long time in coming. Businesses of all sizes like to present themselves as a big happy family. But in fact the large common market produced by our continental boundaries means a comparatively small amount of American trade (but a growing one) is international. The main competition for big American business is small American business, and don't you forget it. It can get carried too far, however, as it indirectly was in the Warren Court's Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v Sims decisions.

To a fairly large extent, this split is also a split between family-controlled business and stockholder-controlled business, between Subchapter S and Subchapter C corporations, or between university-educated management and small-college educated bosses. It's geographic, it's regional; it's R and it's D. In short, it would take considerable leadership to persuade a simple and obvious compromise. If you ever watched a pro football game with them in the audience, you know they both feel challenged, and they both intend to win, even if they might both end up losing.

Solution: Nevertheless, the issue of revenue neutrality, at least for employer-based health insurance, is easily summarized. Those who get a deduction don't want to give it up; those who are excluded want to gain equal treatment. You don't have to be a professional negotiator to see that something close to a 2/3 exemption for everybody would make it revenue neutral. And then, through inflation and other traditional means of attrition, mid-course corrections whittle it down.


Employer Based Health Insurance

Originally, this book planned to be a review of healthcare financing reforms, in particular the Affordable Care Act of 2009 ("Obamacare"). But that was six years ago, and the Constitution says it will soon be time for the country to get a new leader. There's time for much to happen, but most of it will be directed toward winning the election, or keeping the opponents from winning it. There is little doubt the past century has repeatedly displayed medical care following the dictates of the payment system. In fact, I wrote a book, The Hospital That Ate Chicago in 1980, whose subtitle was "Distortions Imposed on the Medical System by its Finance." The person or persons who devised the Affordable Care Act of 2009 seem to have taken that analysis to heart, concentrating their effort on achieving payment control as a first step toward enforcing their plan for control of the health system as a whole. Unfortunately, they never told the public what they planned to do with such control, and at least half of the country refused to move, without first being told where it was supposed to go. The medical profession was particularly irked to have added thirty years to the average person's life, without much sign of gratitude for the achievement. We had devoted ourselves to eliminating a host of diseases, and surrendered control of a large economic empire to do it. Vannevar Bush and James Shannon demonstrated enlightened government leadership was possible, even likely. Meanwhile, the titans of the American Medical Association and patricians of the business community controlling large family businesses, recognized the worth of what was asked of them, more or less docilely falling into assigned roles.

In 1965, the most fundamental of fundamentals reversed. America's balance of international trade shifted from positive to negative, remaining negative ever since. The era of effortless and largely unchallenged world supremacy was over; from now on, it was to be every man for himself, in Medicine as in every other trade. A new triumvirate, consisting of hospitals, health insurance companies, and medical schools claimed leadership, fought against each other for domination, and consequently emerged as the main targets for opportunists. The new name of the game was to gain control of the payment system, through it, control of hospitals, and through them control of the doctors. Meanwhile, the doctors experienced an entirely different socialization by going away to various wars, and discovering how little they needed the hospitals. As shown in episodes of the TV series Mash, new bonds were formed between a medical band of brothers, operating successfully in tents, not medical centers. This experience comes and goes, but unfortunately we have seen such a succession of wars, that experience gets reinforced. One of the great paradoxes of the present medical upheaval is to see government and insurance doing their best to herd doctors back into hospitals so they can be controlled. And while they seem to have largely succeeded, the ACA ambition to control medical care by control of the payment system is appreciably undermined at the interface between institution and profession. The oppressive cost of everything, the collision between recessions and inflations, seemed to be keeping each other under control for the time being. But it would be unwise to assume calm would prevail forever, or that a command and control arrangement would continue to work through the hospital, without fragmenting somewhere.

This book has four short but complex parts. The first section goes directly to an unraveling of the payment system in order to put a stop to cost strangulation. It absolutely is not necessary for scientific progress to cost so much. The second section emphasizes that cost is far from the only problem we have created for ourselves. That section picks a few notable examples of the hidden economics of healthcare; our problems are more complex than they seem. This section isn't comprehensive, because the times require the public to understand a few more issues, before they demand fundamental changes. My guess is, full implementation of obvious fixes would cut healthcare costs in half, but the system would not be able to cope with full reform, all at once. In short, we are guilty of thinking too small.

Second, the complexities of a whole new approach to paying our medical bills is explored; unsuspected dangers from big-data computers and going completely off the gold standard in October 1976 lurk in the background. We complain our intermediary agents charge us too much; but individuals have a lot to learn before they can do things for themselves.

And third, the final section explores what Congress would have to do. Congress will have its own ideas, but Congress is often in a hurry. What isn't complicated, is often politically difficult, and it helps things along if the public has thought about them first. Medical cost-cutting is like closing military bases; it has to be gradual, it has to be spread wide and thin, and it must show benefits quickly. In its first six years, for example, a lot of people must see some benefit, and very few must see their jobs destroyed. All this can be done, but it can't be done repeatedly. The country simply cannot afford to keep using up its reserves with noble experiments. World affairs and world economics will surely present enough distractions, without inventing artificial ones.

So, come along, let's learn a few hidden things. Start with employer-based health insurance. That's what we claimed we had for the past century.

A Short History of Employer-based Health Insurance. Instead of starting with Bismarck or some other link to a non-American, let's say health insurance in America began as a proposal of Teddy Roosevelt's during the Progressive Era just before the First World War, a century ago. The American Medical Association had a flirtation with Teddy's national health insurance, but came to prefer something like the business community's Blue Cross system, as it eventually evolved during the 1920's. Business scarcely recognized it, but large American companies were beginning to shift control from founding families to stock holders, an evolution which advanced during the next three decades, mainly as a way to extract capital gains taxes to float war debts. The shift extends to only about half of corporations even today. But health insurance and stockholder control of the big companies advanced side by side, scarcely realizing how diminishing employer benevolences was undermining the process. It makes a huge difference whether you are a paternalistic owner or the manager of someone else's company. In the first instance you spend your own money , in the other instance the only sure mandate is to generate money for the stockholders. That's a measurement applied to every "good" manager. Plenty of owners were tight-fisted, and plenty of managers were benevolent. Even today, small businesses (less than a billion dollars in assets) are mostly "Subchapter S" corporations, and about 15% of really large "Subchapter C" corporations are still dominated by founding families. But in spite of the rhetoric of the "rich owner", the shift in attitudes is clear; as founding generations move from active involvement in their companies, they become less involved with employees. They themselves become more like their hired managers. Current investment trends, moving into index fund passive investing, further widens the distance between stockholders and owners-by-inheritance. The "silo effect" of specialized departments also isolates the core business from non-revenue support departments.

The concept originally underlying Blue Cross was that private rooms produce enough profit for the hospital to support the poor folks in open wards, whereas semi-private rooms just break even. At first, only a handful of ministers and school teachers were in the semi-private category. When hospital finances improved, more working-class people moved into the semi-private category, the wards shrank in size, and semi-private -- became the standard clause in employee contracts. For two hundred years, multi-bed open wards were standard, but semi-private became standard in a single decade. Semi-private nevertheless gradually acquired a charity flavor. The "Blue Cross discount" began to apply to semi-private beds, at the same time semi-private became readjusted to become "standard size" for "service benefits". That is, most employees started to be cared for at less than actual cost, at the Blue Cross discount rate, because their contract called for being provided certain services, no matter what they cost. It would not take long for a new standard to be demanded: sharing a room with strangers was so low-class. Private rooms were going to be the only decent thing.

And because Blue Cross organizations became dominant during the second World War, their competitors in cash benefits ("indemnity carriers") greatly resented paying more dollars for the same semi-private room than Blue Cross patients did. Some of this was doubtless a response to wage and price controls during World War II, a way of raising wages without expanding the (taxable) "pay packet". The response of commercial indemnity carriers was to price their premiums on "experience rating", which especially cut into the profit margin of Blue Cross private-bed patients. The way that worked was, the insurer waited a year to see what inflation had done, and made a trailing readjustment in the next year's premium. One unexpected outcome of this price warfare was to make the hospital reluctant to reveal its tentative charges, while the employer demanded to be shown the actual costs of his employees, as well as prices to everybody else. When Blue Cross coverage reached government employees, a new power center gained possession of itemized hospital bills. A new employee representative could easily see how much or how little the government was actually subsidizing charity care. Naturally, as the new source of the benevolence, they claimed they were paying too much.

When Group practices, or HMOs, started to pay for healthcare, they too demanded to see comparable bills, or at least standardized prices. And so it went, with each new wrinkle in payment. Some people paid listed prices, but big groups demanded to send auditors to look at the books. There had long been a three-tier price list, and now there was a six-tier one because of having list prices and actual payments on each of three levels. Soon there might be sixty prices for the same thing. Like a stag cornered by barking dogs, the hospital fended off the payers as best it could. Because of the long period of catch-up following the Great Depression and then the Second World War, hospitals usually needed new buildings, and improved wage standards for employees. How were they to pay for this, when everybody seemed to be demanding to get backlogged services at the old prices?

For centuries, hospitals had existed on a system of collecting whatever they could, and delivering needed care as best they were able. Their deficits were covered by public subscription, by religions, and by tightening the belts of the charity minded hospital volunteers. Sometimes the rich guy who lived in a mansion on the hill would donate, sometimes he wouldn't. Surely, the government had a responsibility to rescue such a deserving charity. The student nurses and the young doctors in white, worked for no pay at all. If hospitals overcharged a few insurance companies, well, there was nothing else they could do to keep the doors open. Until health insurance made a significant impact, hospitals ruled medical care. They were the only institutions which seemed to work, all new ideas seemed to come from them, and any new idea which came along was somehow attached and centered within hospitals. Although it wasn't described as such, hospitals began to suffer the disease of conglomerates. If an organization takes on too many functions at once, it performs some of them poorly. Usually, one of the subsidiaries fails and drags the rest of the conglomerate down. That's essentially why the Supreme Court, in the State Oil v. Khan case finally decided vertical integration cures itself and does not require antitrust judicial action to break it up.

Disregard for the Tenth Amendment in the 1937 Court-packing incident greatly injured the Tenth Amendment Constitutional requirement that health and health-related activities should be regulated at the state level. But it also heightened public attention on the Constitutional issue, since hospitals, nurses, doctors, pharmacies, and the Blue Cross organizations were all organized along state lines. Only when the Federal government under Harry Truman began to sound serious about central control of medical care, did health insurance begin to cross state lines, and thus weakened hospital and Blue Cross domination of it. By the time Lyndon Johnson began his piecemeal assault in 1965 with Medicare and Medicaid, the insurance industry had broken healthcare into four "markets":

Large-employer groups. The healthiest groups, and hence the cheapest to insure, were the low-hanging fruit. Union pressure combined with the passage of ERISA expanded and somewhat fragmented the groups, but they were first and dominant.

Small-employer groups. Curiously, this often became the most expensive silo of the markets, because of successful pressure to expand -- even mandate -- benefit packages, and the fact that certain expensive cost generators can be selectively insured when the personnel manager knows them by name.

Individuals. Because of adverse self-selection, "non-group" had the highest marketing costs, and often the highest medical costs. It was possible to eliminate the worst abuses, such as figuratively buying insurance while riding to the hospital in an ambulance. But subscribers to non-group insurance move freely between employers, and thus can avoid being dropped from the insurance when they change jobs. What is generally touted as a great disadvantage of employer-based insurance, could easily be called an exploitation of selecting only healthy people for jobs. Insurance companies obviously and regularly "prefer to work with groups". Circumvention wears many disguises. When an insurer tells you this is "his company's policy", be sure to kick him in the shins. His company is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Executive "Cadillac" plans. are mentioned for completeness, although they could also be grouped with steak dinners and baseball tickets, as mere sales promotion for the people who make decisions for members of a large group. They often had "first dollar coverage", essentially paying for everything describable as medical care, down to the last penny. It should prompt some concern to learn that health insurance for college professors and politicians is often of this variety. In terms of actual medical cost, or course, Cadillac plans are negligible. However, as long as they exist, they light the way for those fortunates who can focus on Henry Kaiser gimmicks rather than the treatment of illness, and eventually to the rest of the tax-deductible group.

The general purpose of market stratification is to offer much the same product at different prices. Like other concessions which vice makes to virtue, they constrain admiration for the essential, desirable, feature of insurance in the first place: it spreads the risk and lessens the cost of what is supposedly an unpredictable random health catastrophe. If the insurance industry is really serious about this mission, it would start with one essential feature of it: catastrophic coverage. Remember, the higher the deductible, the lower the premium. Almost nobody can withstand a million-dollar illness, but almost anybody can afford a hundred dollars a year. Once you have that minimum feature, you can then start to talk about more expensive, more common coverage, until we eventually reach first-dollar coverage for non-essentials, at wildly unaffordable premiums. By the way, if you would like to know why I didn't acquire catastrophic coverage back in the days when it was available, it was because I already had first-dollar coverage given to me by the University where I worked, so I couldn't use extra catastrophic coverage even if it was free. This is no longer pre-1965. Everyone should have catastrophic coverage.


George Washington in Philadelphia; Revolutionary

New blog 2015-05-27 18:53:03 contents

George Washington in Philadelphia; Post-Revolutionary

New blog 2015-05-27 18:51:30 contents

George Washington in Philadelphia; Pre-Revolutionary

New blog 2015-05-27 18:49:41 contents
I'm overwhelmed. I'm thinking of a one-line poem by William Blake: "Enough or too much" " stragglers who live from 85 to 91." Sorry to be a burden, but soon to be 91 I can still go a couple of rounds without huffing and puffing. You remind me of Dr. Melvin Konner.... professor.... anthropologist..... physician.
Posted by: Martin   |   Sep 27, 2014 5:16 AM
I want to thank you for this wonderful resource. I find it fascinating. May I offer one correction? In the section "Rittenhouse Square Area" there is reference to the Van Rensselaer home at 18th and Walnut Streets and its having a brief fling as a club. I believe in 1942 to about 1974/5 the Penn Athletic Club was located in the mansion. The Penn AC was a good club, a good neighbor and a very good steward of the building - especially the interior. It's my understanding that very unfortunately later occupants gutted much of the very well-preserved original, or close to original, interiors. I suppose by today's standards the Van Rensselaer-Penn Athletic Club relationship could be described as a fairly long marriage. The City of Philadelphia played a large role in my life and that of my family, and your splendid website brings back many happy memories. For me and many others, however, there is also deep sadness concerning the decline of so much of the once great city and the loss of most of its once innumerable commercial institutions. Please keep-up your fine work. Your's is a first-class work.
Posted by: John D. Mealmaker   |   Aug 14, 2014 2:24 AM
Dr. Fisher, The name Philadelphia University was adopted in 1999, as you write, but the institution dates to 1884 and has been on School House Lane since the 1940s. It acquired the former properties of the Lankenau School and Ravenhill Academy, but it did not "merge" with either of them. I hope this helps when you update your site.
Posted by: David Breiner   |   Jun 11, 2014 10:05 PM
Hello Dr. Fisher, I was looking for an e-mail address and this is what I could find. I must tell you my Mother who you treated for years passed away last May. She was so ill with so many problems. I am sure you remember Peggy Marchesani. We often spoke of you and how much we missed you as our Dr. You also treated my daughter Michele who will be 40. I am living in the Doylestown area and have been seeing the Dr's there.. I just had my thyroid removed do to cancer. I have my fingers crossed they get the medicine right. I am not happy with my Endochronologist she refuses to give me Amour. I spoke with my Family Dr who said he will take care of it. I also discovered I have Hemachromatosisand two genetic components. I have a good Hematologist who is monitoring me closely. I must say you would find all of this challenging. Take care and I just wanted to convey this to you . You were way ahead of your time. Thank you, Joyce Gross
Posted by: Joyce Gross   |   Apr 4, 2014 2:06 AM
I come upon these articles from time to time and I always love them. Is the author still alive and available to talk with high school students? Larry Lawrence F. Filippone History Dept. The Lawrenceville School
Posted by: Lawrence Filippone   |   Mar 18, 2014 6:33 PM
Thank you for your articles, with a utilitarian interest, honestly, in your writing on the Wagner Free Institute of Science [partly at "...blog/1588.htm" - with being happy to post that url but the software here not allowing for the full address:)!] I am researching the Institute, partly for an upcoming (and non-paid) presentation and wanted to ask if I might use your article's reproduction for the Thomas Sully portrait of William Wagner, with full credit. Thanks very much for any assistance you can offer here. Josh Silver Philadelphia
Posted by: Josh Silver   |   Jun 2, 2013 1:39 PM
Thank you for your articles, with a utilitarian interest, honestly, in your writing on the Wagner Free Institute of Science [partly at "...blog/1588.htm" - with being happy to post that url but the software here not allowing for the full address:)!] I am researching the Institute, partly for an upcoming (and non-paid) presentation and wanted to ask if I might use your article's reproduction for the Thomas Sully portrait of William Wagner, with full credit. Thanks very much for any assistance you can offer here. Josh Silver Philadelphia
Posted by: Josh Silver   |   Jun 2, 2013 1:39 PM
George, Mary Laney passed away last November. I was one of her pall bearers. She had a bad last year. However, I am glad that you remembered her and her great work. I will post your report at St Christopher's and pass this along to her husband Earl. Best wishes Peter Hunt
Posted by: Peter Hunt   |   Mar 28, 2013 7:12 PM
Hello, my name is Martin. I came across [http://www.philadelphia-reflections.com/blog/1705.htm] and noticed a ton of great resources. I recently had the honor of becoming a part of a new non promotional project on AlcoholicCirrhosis.com. We decided to put together a brief guide about cirrhosis, and the dangers of drinking. We have received a lot of positive feedback and I wanted to suggest that we get listed on the above mentioned page under The National Institutes of Health. Let me know what you think and if you have any further requirements or suggestions.
Posted by: Martin   |   Jan 1, 2013 8:51 AM
I FIND THIS VERY INTERESTING, INDEED. I AM HOWEVER, SEARCHING FOR THE ANCESTOR WE HAVE BEEN TOLD WAS JOSEPH M. WILSON OF JORDAN TOWNSHIP IN WHITESIDE CO. IL USA. MY HUSBAND WAS ORPHANED AND WITH LITTLE CONTACT WITH HIS FATHERS SIDE OF THE FAMILY THE 9TH OF 10 SURVIVING CHILDREN SINCE ALL ARE DECEASED BUT, ONE). I HAVE HOPED TO FIND HIS CONNECTION AS TO THE STORIES RELATED BY SEVERAL OF HIS DECEASED RELATIVES THAT WE ARE CONNECTED TO THE WILSON MILL FAMILY HISTORY. OF JOSEPH AND FRANCES. MY HUSBAND WAS ALSO, FAMILY TO: GRANDFATHER RANSOM (ISABELLA)WILSON & HIS BROTHER WILLIAM; OF ELKHORN GROVE CARROLL CO. IL USA AND HIS SON JOSEPH WILSON(NANCY). I?WE( MY SONS AND NEPHEWS NEICES AND GRANDDAUGHTERS IN COLLEGE... WERE HOPING THAT NOW THAT I AM ON THE COMPUTER AND WITH YOUR HELP THRU THE GENELOGICAL SOCIETY TO YOUR ADDRESS WE MAY FIND THE FAMILY WE SEEK. MY LATE HUSBAND AND I DROVE PAST THE SITE OF THE FIELD WHERE JOSEPH AND FAANCES ARE BURIED , THE CEDARS ARE GONE AND IT IS NOW FIELD. I HAVE BEEN HOPING TO FIND THE LINK FOR OVER 30 FAMILY TO PAY TRIBUTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE GONE BEFORE AND PERSEVERED TO BRING US THE LIFE WHICH WE ENJOY AND SERVE, TODAY. I RECEIVED ONLY THIS WEEK BY A FLUKE AN EMAIL WITH PHOTOS FROM A 3RD COUSIN THAT FOUND MY EMAIL ON A COUSINS EMAIL ADDRESS AFTER INQUIRING AND INTRODUCING HIMSLEF: AND HE TOOK THE TIME TO SEND MANY PHOTOS AND HISTORY OF GRANDPARENTS AND FAMILY AS WE HAVE HAD NONE. WE STILL DON'T HAVE A PHOTO OF HIS MOTHER AND FATHER. WHAT I HAVE OF THE TREE, I AM ANXIOUS TO SHARE WITH FAMILY THAT IS SEEKING HISTORY, AS I STILL AM HOPEFUL TO FIND IT IN TIME FOR THE DEADLINE AUG. 30 TYPED AND DELIVERED TO MY MARTIN HOUSE MUSEUM WHERE I AM A MEMBER. MY HUSBAND WAS A MASTER MASON WHILE IN LODGE WITH THE COUPLE THAT DONATED THE HOUSE TO BE A MUSEUM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THE GRAT WORK YOU HAVE ALL DONE ON THIS HISTORY. WE WERE LIFE MEMBERS OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH BUT , THERE IS NOT ONE IN OUR TOWN, SO I FOUND THE REFORMED CHURCH,OF WHICH, I AM VERY HAPPY TO BE A PART. THANK YOU .
Posted by: SUSAN WILSON   |   Aug 12, 2012 12:49 AM

Please Let Us Know What You Think


(HTML tags provide better formatting)

Because of robot spam we ask you to confirm your comment: we will send you an email containing a link to click. We apologize for this inconvenience but this ensures the quality of the comments. (Your email will not be displayed.)
Thank you.