Saturday, December 24, 2011
Air Jordans
Shopping frenzy over $180 athletic shoes. Shootings,fights,injuries. Marketing at it's best.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Everyone's Appalled, Nobody Wants to Act
Invariably, when I start a discussion with things like: "$3M for a 30 second advert at the Super Bowl is ridiculous", "top tier athletes get paid way too much", or "owners, networks and players have no incentive to keep costs down"; I get enthusiastic agreement. However, when I suggest that we do something about it by boycotting the Super Bowl, I get that look like I've got two heads! "Boycott the Super Bowl"? "I've got to watch the Super Bowl". "Why would you boycott the Super Bowl"?
Well, my friends, the entire feeding frenzy that generates the obscene amounts of money is all about getting your eyeballs on a product. So, by watching the game, no matter how much you are aghast at the outlandish costs, you are contributing to the problem. Join me in boycotting Super Bowl XLVI. Don't watch it!
Well, my friends, the entire feeding frenzy that generates the obscene amounts of money is all about getting your eyeballs on a product. So, by watching the game, no matter how much you are aghast at the outlandish costs, you are contributing to the problem. Join me in boycotting Super Bowl XLVI. Don't watch it!
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Healthier Lifestyle Drives Healthcare Costs UP
Popular wisdom has it that if we live a healthier lifestyle, we'll keep the cost of healthcare down. I suggest that perhaps the opposite is true.
Not too many years ago, we got old, we got sick and we died. Sometimes we didn't even get old, we just got sick and died. We really didn't think much about a healthy lifestyle. We smoked, we watched a lot of TV, there were very few joggers. We rode a bicycle of we liked it, not to get any cardio benefit out of it. We ate trans fats and loaded up on cholesterol laden foods. We got cancer, heart failure or complications from diabetes. There wasn't much to be done except go home to die.
We now live longer than in the past for two main reasons: we live a healthier lifestyle and medical science has advanced to the point that they can now cure or slow down previously terminal diseases. While that is all well and good, it doesn't come free, and we have not yet figured out how to pay for our new-found health.
Our obsession with health leads to several costly things. The most glaring one is that, since we live longer, we are more likely to need nursing home care due to Alzheimer's, dementia or some other debilitating illness. Like it or not, no matter how healthy we are, our bodies eventually wear out. While there have been significant strides made in the area of prolonging life by lifestyle, medication,surgery and machines, there has been very little progress in dealing effectively with end of life issues. Collectively, we have not come to a realization that there is some point beyond which it is not worth keeping someone alive. As such, we spend enormous amounts of money on people who would choose death if it were an option.
Another costly effect of our healthy lifestyle is that we are no longer content to sit in front of the TV with our knee elevated when it is stiff and sore. We want to run, cycle, play golf and kayak. Not a problem, get a knee replacement, hip replacement, shoulder replacement.... or even two of each. These are not inexpensive procedures. I'll be the first one in line to get one as soon as I can no longer swing a golf club, but it should be recognized that these expensive procedures are part of the COST of a healthier lifestyle.
While it's somewhat related to the first issue, another costly result of living "healthier" and longer is that, in the long run, we need more medical care and medication. Again, like it or now, no matter how healthy we are, our bodies will wear out. We'll go to the doctor, we'll have surgery, we'll get medicine. First one pill, then two, then three. Some are necessary, like insulin for a diabetic. Others solve problems we didn't even know we had until we saw it on TV (didn't you always wonder why you were carrying around that beaker of green liquid?). The more different medicines we take, the more unpredictable are the interactions. Some mixed side effects lead to the prescription of yet another medicine.
So, if I don't smoke and get lots of exercise, I'm much less likely to get lung cancer and die when I'm 50. But, since I live past 50, I'll have a hip replacement, a knee replacement, a coronary bypass, treatment for prostate cancer, and extended physical therapy for a torn rotator cuff. I'll eventually be taking medicine for gout, overactive bladder, blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and arthritis. I start to forget things and wander off in the grocery store. Finally, my wife can no longer take care of me, so it's off to assisted care, then a full blown nursing home where, in my lucid moments over a period of 8 years, I wish my life could end.
Again, I do NOT mean to imply that smoking from age 16 and getting cancer and dying at age 50 is a preferred life scenario. What I am saying is that the healthy lifestyle and longer life leads to expenses that neither we as individuals nor the country as a whole were able to anticipate or plan for. So as we continue to invent new cures, prolong life and fill up our nursing homes, we will continue to cripple ourselves with unsustainable cost increases.
What to do? The first order of business should be to figure out a way by which a healthy person can define, unambiguously, the point beyond which he/she no longer wants to live. When that point is reached, a humane, legal and socially acceptable means to end life should be available. We've got to quit avoiding this issue and figure out a way to deal with it. I want that option for myself and I know many people who think the same way.
Second, maybe it's time to slow down the pace of medical advancement. Or, if we're going to continue, we've got to consider the results of that advancement in the context of what is affordable. OOPS, is that starting to sound like rationing? As much as I hate to use that emotion-laden word, we already do it and to manage our health care costs in the future, we've got to get it out in the open and have an honest dialog about how to do it. We can either ration the development of new technology (by constraining the available research dollars), or ration the use of the technology (say, by constraining the number of a given procedure to be performed each year). Alternatively, we can come up with some kind of single payer system where we, as a nation, decide how much we want to spend on health care, we tax the citizens and businesses to collect that much money and we budget the expenditures to achieve that cost. Of course there won't be enough for EVERYONE to get ANY procedure at ANY time they want it. Of course, there will be abuse. Of course, the rich will be able to buy services outside the system. Those are issues to be addressed, not issues that invalidate a single payer system.
It's easy to bash "big pharma" or "greedy insurance companies", but they are only part of the problem. Our culture is another big part of the problem. We've got to think seriously about how our current expectations for health care are not affordable and part of solving that problem should be managing those expectations.
Not too many years ago, we got old, we got sick and we died. Sometimes we didn't even get old, we just got sick and died. We really didn't think much about a healthy lifestyle. We smoked, we watched a lot of TV, there were very few joggers. We rode a bicycle of we liked it, not to get any cardio benefit out of it. We ate trans fats and loaded up on cholesterol laden foods. We got cancer, heart failure or complications from diabetes. There wasn't much to be done except go home to die.
We now live longer than in the past for two main reasons: we live a healthier lifestyle and medical science has advanced to the point that they can now cure or slow down previously terminal diseases. While that is all well and good, it doesn't come free, and we have not yet figured out how to pay for our new-found health.
Our obsession with health leads to several costly things. The most glaring one is that, since we live longer, we are more likely to need nursing home care due to Alzheimer's, dementia or some other debilitating illness. Like it or not, no matter how healthy we are, our bodies eventually wear out. While there have been significant strides made in the area of prolonging life by lifestyle, medication,surgery and machines, there has been very little progress in dealing effectively with end of life issues. Collectively, we have not come to a realization that there is some point beyond which it is not worth keeping someone alive. As such, we spend enormous amounts of money on people who would choose death if it were an option.
Another costly effect of our healthy lifestyle is that we are no longer content to sit in front of the TV with our knee elevated when it is stiff and sore. We want to run, cycle, play golf and kayak. Not a problem, get a knee replacement, hip replacement, shoulder replacement.... or even two of each. These are not inexpensive procedures. I'll be the first one in line to get one as soon as I can no longer swing a golf club, but it should be recognized that these expensive procedures are part of the COST of a healthier lifestyle.
While it's somewhat related to the first issue, another costly result of living "healthier" and longer is that, in the long run, we need more medical care and medication. Again, like it or now, no matter how healthy we are, our bodies will wear out. We'll go to the doctor, we'll have surgery, we'll get medicine. First one pill, then two, then three. Some are necessary, like insulin for a diabetic. Others solve problems we didn't even know we had until we saw it on TV (didn't you always wonder why you were carrying around that beaker of green liquid?). The more different medicines we take, the more unpredictable are the interactions. Some mixed side effects lead to the prescription of yet another medicine.
So, if I don't smoke and get lots of exercise, I'm much less likely to get lung cancer and die when I'm 50. But, since I live past 50, I'll have a hip replacement, a knee replacement, a coronary bypass, treatment for prostate cancer, and extended physical therapy for a torn rotator cuff. I'll eventually be taking medicine for gout, overactive bladder, blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and arthritis. I start to forget things and wander off in the grocery store. Finally, my wife can no longer take care of me, so it's off to assisted care, then a full blown nursing home where, in my lucid moments over a period of 8 years, I wish my life could end.
Again, I do NOT mean to imply that smoking from age 16 and getting cancer and dying at age 50 is a preferred life scenario. What I am saying is that the healthy lifestyle and longer life leads to expenses that neither we as individuals nor the country as a whole were able to anticipate or plan for. So as we continue to invent new cures, prolong life and fill up our nursing homes, we will continue to cripple ourselves with unsustainable cost increases.
What to do? The first order of business should be to figure out a way by which a healthy person can define, unambiguously, the point beyond which he/she no longer wants to live. When that point is reached, a humane, legal and socially acceptable means to end life should be available. We've got to quit avoiding this issue and figure out a way to deal with it. I want that option for myself and I know many people who think the same way.
Second, maybe it's time to slow down the pace of medical advancement. Or, if we're going to continue, we've got to consider the results of that advancement in the context of what is affordable. OOPS, is that starting to sound like rationing? As much as I hate to use that emotion-laden word, we already do it and to manage our health care costs in the future, we've got to get it out in the open and have an honest dialog about how to do it. We can either ration the development of new technology (by constraining the available research dollars), or ration the use of the technology (say, by constraining the number of a given procedure to be performed each year). Alternatively, we can come up with some kind of single payer system where we, as a nation, decide how much we want to spend on health care, we tax the citizens and businesses to collect that much money and we budget the expenditures to achieve that cost. Of course there won't be enough for EVERYONE to get ANY procedure at ANY time they want it. Of course, there will be abuse. Of course, the rich will be able to buy services outside the system. Those are issues to be addressed, not issues that invalidate a single payer system.
It's easy to bash "big pharma" or "greedy insurance companies", but they are only part of the problem. Our culture is another big part of the problem. We've got to think seriously about how our current expectations for health care are not affordable and part of solving that problem should be managing those expectations.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Headline: MSG Threatens TV Blackouts
My good friends at Time Warner just informed me that MSG (a NYC sports network) is raising their rates by 53%. It's time we stopped this vicious cycle. Players demand larger contracts, owners and leagues charge more for TV rights, TV Networks up the advertising, cable and satellite rates. Guess who pays in the end?
I watch a lot of sports on MSG, but I'm willing to give it up. This happens year after year. Some network asks for 53% and maybe they will settle for 25% and everyone will think it's a good deal. Well, I DON'T. Let them try to make ends meet with no cable or satellite TV revenue, and no advertising revenue (since nobody will be watching, why would advertisers pay?). Those of us who pay the bills have to do something about this or nobody will.
If you're a Time Warner customer who is being "threatened" by the loss of MSG, please let them know that they can take MSG and put it where the sun don't shine. What's more, if they DO negotiate a new rate that is a nickel above the rate of inflation, we'll start an effort to boycott MSG.
I watch a lot of sports on MSG, but I'm willing to give it up. This happens year after year. Some network asks for 53% and maybe they will settle for 25% and everyone will think it's a good deal. Well, I DON'T. Let them try to make ends meet with no cable or satellite TV revenue, and no advertising revenue (since nobody will be watching, why would advertisers pay?). Those of us who pay the bills have to do something about this or nobody will.
If you're a Time Warner customer who is being "threatened" by the loss of MSG, please let them know that they can take MSG and put it where the sun don't shine. What's more, if they DO negotiate a new rate that is a nickel above the rate of inflation, we'll start an effort to boycott MSG.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tebowing
There are almost daily news reports about athletes an non-athletes "Tebowing". On the field, on the court, in the halls. Does this signal a resurgence of Christianity among US youth?
I think not. While there are undoubtedly many Christians who have added the Tebow move to their repertoire of religious gestures, most of the newbies who are drawing all the attention are doing it because it's COOL. A sports hero is doing it. Everyone is talking about it. I'll do it too. I want to belong. I would bet that if some new superstar saluted with the "sign of the horns", we would have an epedemic of that. How would the media and school administrators react to that?
I think not. While there are undoubtedly many Christians who have added the Tebow move to their repertoire of religious gestures, most of the newbies who are drawing all the attention are doing it because it's COOL. A sports hero is doing it. Everyone is talking about it. I'll do it too. I want to belong. I would bet that if some new superstar saluted with the "sign of the horns", we would have an epedemic of that. How would the media and school administrators react to that?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Two Month Extension for Payroll Tax Cut
I don't know how many of you have jobs, but if you do, I'm sure at least 98% of you are expected to perform. You have a quota, target, goal, expectation. In most cases, if you continually miss your objectives, you're OUT!.
If you're expected to get XYZ done by December 31, what happens if you don't? When congress can't get it's job done, what happens? Well... we'll just fuck around for another 2 months and maybe we'll figure it out by then. Or maybe not.
In the meantime, every payroll department of every industry in the USA is wondering how much tax to withhold from employees. And, then they might have to update it 2 months later?
What do we pay these people to do????? How long have they had to plan for this problem????
I would suggest that you write to your Representative and Senator, but I've done that. Without exception, every one of them says they are not part of the problem. So what can you do? If NONE of the current elected officials are the problem, and there is a problem, it seems to me that maybe they ALL should go. What do you think?
If you're expected to get XYZ done by December 31, what happens if you don't? When congress can't get it's job done, what happens? Well... we'll just fuck around for another 2 months and maybe we'll figure it out by then. Or maybe not.
In the meantime, every payroll department of every industry in the USA is wondering how much tax to withhold from employees. And, then they might have to update it 2 months later?
What do we pay these people to do????? How long have they had to plan for this problem????
I would suggest that you write to your Representative and Senator, but I've done that. Without exception, every one of them says they are not part of the problem. So what can you do? If NONE of the current elected officials are the problem, and there is a problem, it seems to me that maybe they ALL should go. What do you think?
New Deal Between NFL and TV Networks
Yipeeeeeeeeeeee!!! The NFL and Fox, CBS and NBC have finalized a deal for televising football through the 2022 season!! I'm so happy!!
But hang on a minute. The deal includes a 7% yearly increase. When was the last time you got a 7% increase? Oh.... and forget about promotions and job switches. When was the last time you got 7% for just doing the same job (albeit doing it well)?
And just where do the networks get the $3.1 billion (2022 cost)? Mostly from advertising I suspect. Where do the advertisers get their money? Well, ummmmm, who is there besides the people at the bottom of the food chain that buy the products.
Another source of revenue is the cable and satellite networks. Who pays for that? You got it. Next time your cable rates go up, don't be so fast to jump on Time Warner's case.
Here is just one more case where the people providing the money for this ridiculously expensive sport have nothing to say about how much it costs. Well, it's time we started showing that we've had enough. Join the Super Bowl boycott (http://www.bicephalic.com) now! Get the t-shirt at the Cafe Press Bicephalic Shop .
But hang on a minute. The deal includes a 7% yearly increase. When was the last time you got a 7% increase? Oh.... and forget about promotions and job switches. When was the last time you got 7% for just doing the same job (albeit doing it well)?
And just where do the networks get the $3.1 billion (2022 cost)? Mostly from advertising I suspect. Where do the advertisers get their money? Well, ummmmm, who is there besides the people at the bottom of the food chain that buy the products.
Another source of revenue is the cable and satellite networks. Who pays for that? You got it. Next time your cable rates go up, don't be so fast to jump on Time Warner's case.
Here is just one more case where the people providing the money for this ridiculously expensive sport have nothing to say about how much it costs. Well, it's time we started showing that we've had enough. Join the Super Bowl boycott (http://www.bicephalic.com) now! Get the t-shirt at the Cafe Press Bicephalic Shop .
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
NTSB Recommends Cell Phone Ban
The NTSB is calling for a ban on cell phone use, including hands free devices EXCEPT for devices installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. Can someone explain that exception to me?? Doh.... pressure from the auto industry lobby maybe??????
Friday, December 9, 2011
$254M to play baseball?????
Is there nothing that the consumer can do to stop this nonsense?? Albert Pujols is certainly a great baseball player, but this kind of contract drives the cost of everything from a seat at the stadium to the the price of a beer at the corner store. The fans are the ones that have to pay, yet we seem to have no way to control the cost. After the Super Bowl Boycott, we'll start boycotts of brands that advertise sporting events that include over priced players.
Smart Phone
My somewhat dated Motorola Razor clam-shell phone does everything I want/need it to do (make and receive phone calls). So why do I feel self conscious when I whip it out in the mall or an airport? Marketing and peer pressure are definitely at work here.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Super Bowl Boycott: 2012
Even before the playoff teams for the 2012 Super Bowl have been determined, I'll make my first call to boycott the event. I think it's time we made a stand against way in which the media over hypes the event with the sole purpose of shoving advertising down our throats so that we'll run to the store and spend more money to pay for the huge advertising bills, the TV rights and the players outrageous salaries.
To start the campaign off, refer to the following video featuring Michael Douglas that was shown at the beginning of the 2011 Super Bowl. Look closely at the events to which the Super Bowl is compared. Now, isn't that just a little "over the top"? The Super Bowl is the culmination of a long season rewarding two teams for being (arguably) the best. But..... it is a GAME played for entertainment. Nothing more. It's not D-Day, Iwo Jima or 9-11.
Let's start thinking of fun things we can do on Feburary 5, 2012 besides watching this over hyped extravaganza.
Payroll Tax Revisited
If you look past to my Payroll Tax posts of last December and listen to what's going on in Congress right now, you'll find that I hit this one right on the head. Both sides of the aisle are claiming that we cannot afford a TAX INCREASE while the economy is still fragile. Well, if you hadn't cut the Payroll Tax last year, you wouldn't be in this mess!!
Social Security is intended to be a self funded benefit. Until now, it has been. Keeping the Payroll Tax artificially low to "stimulate" the economy is not the answer to our problems.
I argued against reducing the Payroll Tax last year, and I oppose extending this ill advised reduction this year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
