Friday, January 27, 2012
Poor Cannon
Bad weather for skiing. It blew hard all last night, rattling the windows, with a trace of snow. But now it warmed up to nearly 40 F and its raining. Bad for the skiing.
Circustime on CNN
Caught last night's debate on CNN. Arrhg. It was a circus, complete with steam calliope, three rings of newsies pontificating, and a truly clueless ringmaster.
The ringmaster was Woof Blitzen, a sawed off little guy who doesn't shave and has oatmeal for brains. He managed to get Mitt and Newt to trash each other on stage, it took Rick Santorum to point out that they both sounded like idiots while doing it.
Give me debates on Fox any day.
Then they got going on NASA. None of the candidates had a clue about the real issue. Since we scrapped the shuttle, we cannot get astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) except by paying the Russians. That makes it a Russian Space Station, since the Russians control all access. We have two commercial boosters (Space-X 's Falcon and Atlas V) that have plenty of boost to loft capsules full of astronauts and supplies up to the ISS . So does NASA use a well proven and paid for existing booster? No way. NASA started an expensive new booster program (Constellation) and managed to spend every penny they had before Congress shut the program down. Since then NASA has been completely wrapped up in turf wars. We should just flat build a capsule, pop it on top of a Falcon or an Atlas V, and launch. NASA seems incapable of doing this. So cut NASA out of the picture and let a contract to Space-X or Lockheed to get on with the job.
None of the candidates understood these issues.
The ringmaster was Woof Blitzen, a sawed off little guy who doesn't shave and has oatmeal for brains. He managed to get Mitt and Newt to trash each other on stage, it took Rick Santorum to point out that they both sounded like idiots while doing it.
Give me debates on Fox any day.
Then they got going on NASA. None of the candidates had a clue about the real issue. Since we scrapped the shuttle, we cannot get astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) except by paying the Russians. That makes it a Russian Space Station, since the Russians control all access. We have two commercial boosters (Space-X 's Falcon and Atlas V) that have plenty of boost to loft capsules full of astronauts and supplies up to the ISS . So does NASA use a well proven and paid for existing booster? No way. NASA started an expensive new booster program (Constellation) and managed to spend every penny they had before Congress shut the program down. Since then NASA has been completely wrapped up in turf wars. We should just flat build a capsule, pop it on top of a Falcon or an Atlas V, and launch. NASA seems incapable of doing this. So cut NASA out of the picture and let a contract to Space-X or Lockheed to get on with the job.
None of the candidates understood these issues.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Bo-o-ring!
Obama's State of the Union that is. Ran for an hour and a quarter, promised pie in the sky for nearly everyone without ever getting into specifics. Never used the words "Keystone XL", "deficit", "Solyndra", "Iranian nuclear weapons", "cap and trade", "capital gains", "global warming", or "health insurance".
Raved on and on about ending tax breaks for corporations that "ship jobs overseas". Strange, I never heard of THAT tax break before. It probably exists only in the minds of Democrats.
He got a lot of standing ovations. I could not be sure on account of the camera angle, but it looked like only democrats stood up to clap for him.
There is a republican slam video going around showing clips of Obama saying the same damn thing at his State of the Union speech this year, last year and the year before. That pretty well sums it up, this guy has run out of ideas. And a good thing too.
Raved on and on about ending tax breaks for corporations that "ship jobs overseas". Strange, I never heard of THAT tax break before. It probably exists only in the minds of Democrats.
He got a lot of standing ovations. I could not be sure on account of the camera angle, but it looked like only democrats stood up to clap for him.
There is a republican slam video going around showing clips of Obama saying the same damn thing at his State of the Union speech this year, last year and the year before. That pretty well sums it up, this guy has run out of ideas. And a good thing too.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
TSA hassles Congressmen
Back when I was an Air Force officer, USAF doctrine on Congressmen was very firm. Treat them with courtesy and respect, get them any information they ask for right away, fly them anywhere they want to go, and furnish them with an official car and a driver. Be nice.
Why? Two reasons really. The Air Force is the armed force of a democracy, it is under the control of the civilian government, and Congressmen are that civilian government. Showing respect to a Congressmen is like showing respect to the flag. Plus, Congressmen write the Air Force budget, treat them properly and the service might get more funding next year.
Now we come the the TSA, who hassled Senator Rand Paul the other day. TSA apparently doesn't believe in showing respect to anyone, let alone Congressmen. And they are stupid enough to think they are immune to budgetary reprisals. That is an atrocious attitude for the security forces of a democracy.
Why? Two reasons really. The Air Force is the armed force of a democracy, it is under the control of the civilian government, and Congressmen are that civilian government. Showing respect to a Congressmen is like showing respect to the flag. Plus, Congressmen write the Air Force budget, treat them properly and the service might get more funding next year.
Now we come the the TSA, who hassled Senator Rand Paul the other day. TSA apparently doesn't believe in showing respect to anyone, let alone Congressmen. And they are stupid enough to think they are immune to budgetary reprisals. That is an atrocious attitude for the security forces of a democracy.
Health Care according to me
My concern is that the US spends entirely too much money on health care. We spend twice as much as any other country on earth, 19% of our GNP. For spending twice as much, the health in the US is no better than any other country. In short we spend twice as much and get less than other countries.
Health care does not create wealth, it consumes it. Health care spending does not produce goods or services than can be sold, exported, or consumed. The US cannot compete against foreign countries when US products bear a 19% markup to pay for the workers health care, and our foreign competitors only pay 10%. Manufacturing is "outsourcing", moving overseas, in order to avoid ruinous US health care costs.
Why is US health care so expensive? Simple. For the majority who have health insurance, it's all paid for. The providers, facing cost increases, merely raise their fees. The patients don't care, they don't have to pay for it, that's what insurance is for. So why not do that extra CAT scan, just to be sure, do that extra doctor's office visit, do some extra blood work, it's all paid for. I remember Uncle Remus, where Brer Rabbit claimed to be making a dollar a minute. My doctor does better. My last yearly office visit cost my insurance company $500 for fifty minutes. That's ten dollars a minute.
If patients had to pay for health care out of pocket, a lot less money would be spent. Insurance is needed to cover the big stuff, because the big stuff can cost more than a house, and few people have that kind of money. But the routine stuff, yearly physicals, children's earaches and sore throats, a few stitches here or there, most of us can handle out of pocket. You used to be able to buy "hospitalization only" policies for $3000 a year, as opposed to "everything is covered" policies that cost $12000 a year. With the $9000 savings you can do a lot of routine stuff. And, since it's your money, you will bargain for fees less than ten dollars a minute. Obamacare outlawed those, all that is legal now is the $12000 covers everything policy.
Competition would bring down the price of health insurance. If insurance companies were allowed to sell policies nationwide, policies would cost less. Up here in the northwoods there are only TWO health insurance companies selling policies. If we could buy our insurance from any company in the US of A, we could find better prices out of state.
Competition would bring down the cost of medines. We ought to be able to buy pills from any decent first world country, like Canada, England, Japan, or pick your favorite. We can't because US drug companies have wined and dined the FDA into forbidding imports, so that they can charge ridiculous prices ($2 a pill) to US patients.
Too bad none of these made the Wall St Journal 's list of "crucial" health care issues.
Health care does not create wealth, it consumes it. Health care spending does not produce goods or services than can be sold, exported, or consumed. The US cannot compete against foreign countries when US products bear a 19% markup to pay for the workers health care, and our foreign competitors only pay 10%. Manufacturing is "outsourcing", moving overseas, in order to avoid ruinous US health care costs.
Why is US health care so expensive? Simple. For the majority who have health insurance, it's all paid for. The providers, facing cost increases, merely raise their fees. The patients don't care, they don't have to pay for it, that's what insurance is for. So why not do that extra CAT scan, just to be sure, do that extra doctor's office visit, do some extra blood work, it's all paid for. I remember Uncle Remus, where Brer Rabbit claimed to be making a dollar a minute. My doctor does better. My last yearly office visit cost my insurance company $500 for fifty minutes. That's ten dollars a minute.
If patients had to pay for health care out of pocket, a lot less money would be spent. Insurance is needed to cover the big stuff, because the big stuff can cost more than a house, and few people have that kind of money. But the routine stuff, yearly physicals, children's earaches and sore throats, a few stitches here or there, most of us can handle out of pocket. You used to be able to buy "hospitalization only" policies for $3000 a year, as opposed to "everything is covered" policies that cost $12000 a year. With the $9000 savings you can do a lot of routine stuff. And, since it's your money, you will bargain for fees less than ten dollars a minute. Obamacare outlawed those, all that is legal now is the $12000 covers everything policy.
Competition would bring down the price of health insurance. If insurance companies were allowed to sell policies nationwide, policies would cost less. Up here in the northwoods there are only TWO health insurance companies selling policies. If we could buy our insurance from any company in the US of A, we could find better prices out of state.
Competition would bring down the cost of medines. We ought to be able to buy pills from any decent first world country, like Canada, England, Japan, or pick your favorite. We can't because US drug companies have wined and dined the FDA into forbidding imports, so that they can charge ridiculous prices ($2 a pill) to US patients.
Too bad none of these made the Wall St Journal 's list of "crucial" health care issues.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Health Care according to the WSJ
Special six page section in today's Wall St Journal devoted to "six crucial health care issues" with pro and con articles on each one. Somehow the Journal's six crucial issues" are not my crucial issued. The Journal lists:
1. Should everyone be required to have health insurance?
Of course the medics love this one, it would ease their burden of indigent care. Doctor's have to treat all patients, it looks really bad should they pitch someone out on the street 'cause they don't have any money. If everyone is required to buy health insurance, that problem goes away.
2. Should healthy people take cholesterol lowering drugs to prevent heart disease?
Jeeze, you'd think this question should have a solid statistical answer, you know compare life expectancy of people taking cholesterol lowering drugs with those that don't. Apparently this hasn't happened or the Journal was able to find some doctors who don't believe cholesterol lowering drugs actually do much. The drugs are pretty cheap, the one I'm on, Simvastatin, is only $4 a month from Walmart. Lipitor is coming off patent and should get cheap soon.
3. Should we create a medical ID number to tag patient's electronic medical records with?
This is a crucial question? Once your medical records are computerized, hackers will get them and sell them to employers, political enemies, nosy neighbors, the cops, and a whole bunch of people you would rather not see them. A special "unique" ID number won't make much difference.
4. Should doctors use email to communicate with patients?
I think they are trying to say that doctor's could cut back on office visits if they accepted and answered email queries from patients. This is crucial? In actual fact, the doctor is always going to say, "Why don't you come in and we'll have a look".
5. Should drug patents be extended?
That's obvious. The drug companies will say "Yes" and the rest of us will say "No".
6. Can "Accountable Care Organizations" (ACOs) raise quality and reduce costs?
Who knows? But this sounds like Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) all over again.
1. Should everyone be required to have health insurance?
Of course the medics love this one, it would ease their burden of indigent care. Doctor's have to treat all patients, it looks really bad should they pitch someone out on the street 'cause they don't have any money. If everyone is required to buy health insurance, that problem goes away.
2. Should healthy people take cholesterol lowering drugs to prevent heart disease?
Jeeze, you'd think this question should have a solid statistical answer, you know compare life expectancy of people taking cholesterol lowering drugs with those that don't. Apparently this hasn't happened or the Journal was able to find some doctors who don't believe cholesterol lowering drugs actually do much. The drugs are pretty cheap, the one I'm on, Simvastatin, is only $4 a month from Walmart. Lipitor is coming off patent and should get cheap soon.
3. Should we create a medical ID number to tag patient's electronic medical records with?
This is a crucial question? Once your medical records are computerized, hackers will get them and sell them to employers, political enemies, nosy neighbors, the cops, and a whole bunch of people you would rather not see them. A special "unique" ID number won't make much difference.
4. Should doctors use email to communicate with patients?
I think they are trying to say that doctor's could cut back on office visits if they accepted and answered email queries from patients. This is crucial? In actual fact, the doctor is always going to say, "Why don't you come in and we'll have a look".
5. Should drug patents be extended?
That's obvious. The drug companies will say "Yes" and the rest of us will say "No".
6. Can "Accountable Care Organizations" (ACOs) raise quality and reduce costs?
Who knows? But this sounds like Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) all over again.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Newt!
Well, Newt came thru like gangbusters and the GOP nomination is still open. And we still haven't killed off Ron Paul or Rick Santorum. But it surely looks like a showdown between Newt and Mitt.
The real question is who has the best chance of beating Obama? Both Newt and Mitt have some baggage that doesn't help. Newt has a long history of supporting and defending damn near everything under the sun. So does Mitt. Newt has two exwives and two ugly divorces. Mitt is a rich man who pays capital gains rates.
In my estimation Mitt should have handled the Bain Capital attacks. He had his supporters, Chris Christy and the Wall St Journal step up with solid defenses, but Mitt said nothing. Mitt should have said "At Bain I invested money into [list of winner companies]. Those companies are doing well today and employ [pick a good defensible number] people, who would be on unemployment today except for my investments in their companies. "
Mitt never came forward with a tax overhaul plan. 9-9-9 might not be fiscally possible but it was clear and simple and we voters had no trouble figuring out what it would mean to us. I have no idea what a Romney administration would mean to my taxes. Mitt has learned the lesson of the media too well, don't say anything at all because whatever you say gains you enemies, never friends. He has been very adroit at coming out four square for motherhood and apple pie and never saying anything of substance. We voters notice. Particularly from a man who has stood on both sides of abortion, single payer health care, gun control, tax hikes, and many other things. If you look at Mitt's record, you can't tell where he is coming from, and waffling on the debate platform doesn't help him.
Gingrich sounds very good on the debate stage, and we love to hear him raking newsies over the coals. He figures the newsies will never give him any decent coverage so why not let 'em have it, right between the eyes? It's a good show, and there are enough obnoxious newsies out there to furnish a target rich environment right up to November. Gingrich sounds feisty and we voters want someone to go to Washington, take names and kick ass. Gingrich puts on a good show, although a thoughtful voter might think that trashing Congressmen the way he did poor Juan Williams could be counterproductive.
But, who can win against Obama? Up til last night, I would have said "Mitt". Now I am not so sure. I want a candidate who can win because four more years of Obama will wreck the country, even worse than it is now. I am not yet convinced that Newt is electable. And we have endless primaries yet to go.
The real question is who has the best chance of beating Obama? Both Newt and Mitt have some baggage that doesn't help. Newt has a long history of supporting and defending damn near everything under the sun. So does Mitt. Newt has two exwives and two ugly divorces. Mitt is a rich man who pays capital gains rates.
In my estimation Mitt should have handled the Bain Capital attacks. He had his supporters, Chris Christy and the Wall St Journal step up with solid defenses, but Mitt said nothing. Mitt should have said "At Bain I invested money into [list of winner companies]. Those companies are doing well today and employ [pick a good defensible number] people, who would be on unemployment today except for my investments in their companies. "
Mitt never came forward with a tax overhaul plan. 9-9-9 might not be fiscally possible but it was clear and simple and we voters had no trouble figuring out what it would mean to us. I have no idea what a Romney administration would mean to my taxes. Mitt has learned the lesson of the media too well, don't say anything at all because whatever you say gains you enemies, never friends. He has been very adroit at coming out four square for motherhood and apple pie and never saying anything of substance. We voters notice. Particularly from a man who has stood on both sides of abortion, single payer health care, gun control, tax hikes, and many other things. If you look at Mitt's record, you can't tell where he is coming from, and waffling on the debate platform doesn't help him.
Gingrich sounds very good on the debate stage, and we love to hear him raking newsies over the coals. He figures the newsies will never give him any decent coverage so why not let 'em have it, right between the eyes? It's a good show, and there are enough obnoxious newsies out there to furnish a target rich environment right up to November. Gingrich sounds feisty and we voters want someone to go to Washington, take names and kick ass. Gingrich puts on a good show, although a thoughtful voter might think that trashing Congressmen the way he did poor Juan Williams could be counterproductive.
But, who can win against Obama? Up til last night, I would have said "Mitt". Now I am not so sure. I want a candidate who can win because four more years of Obama will wreck the country, even worse than it is now. I am not yet convinced that Newt is electable. And we have endless primaries yet to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)