Let me start by saying this is one of the most horrible things I can imagine. My heart goes out to all of those in some way affected by this tragedy.
I wonder, though, if the sensationalism of the media actually fuels this kind of activity. I heard one network state that this was the 2nd worst mass killing behind Virginia Tech. How long will it be before someone tries to break the record? Why does NBC news need to spend the entire 1/2 hour of news talking about it, then an additional "special report" after that? Granted, it's news, but how much can you, or need you, say about it? Who knows what really motivates these sick, sick, sick people. But could the glory of all the press coverage be part of it?
Maybe it's time to get back to reporting the news instead of entertaining with the news.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Right to Work
Unions have done some great things to help the working class rise up from the oppression of the "owners". People fought and died to have the right to join a union. Now, people have a right to join a union, without interference from their employer, yet in many states, they are not allowed to say, "This union isn't doing me any good, I don't want to be a part of it". I don't get it. What's wrong with being able to opt out of union membership? If the union has something worthwhile to sell, they should have no problem with membership. If they don't have anything worthwhile, why should people be compelled to buy?
Friday, September 14, 2012
Health Care: Pre-existing Conditions
Now that the convention is over and Mitt is the anointed Republican candidate, his story is starting to shift in an attempt to appeal to the masses. While the rhetoric before the convention was REPEAL OBAMACARE, now he is saying that parts of the law are good and should be kept. One of the parts that he likes is not allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
First, by admitting that insurance companies should be compelled by law to insure a certain class of people is an admission that the free market economy will NOT deliver the best result for the people in all cases. It is not in any insurance company's interest to insure someone known to be sick.
Second, given that insurance is to be provided, how is it to be paid for. There are basically three scenarios. 1. You just add them to the pool of those already insured, in which case the cost of insurance goes up for everyone in order to cover the added expense of insuring people with known health issues. 2. You create "high risk pools" into which these people fall and for which insurance companies will provide coverage. Unfortunately, insurance companies are "for-profit" entities and they must set the premiums at a level that, on average, will cover the expenses of the group of sick people plus administrative overhead and profit. To take a simple example, let's say the "high risk pool" consists of people with cancer, the treatment of which costs $50,000/year. In order for the insurance company to survive, it must charge $50,000/year plus 15% for administration and profit. Who can afford that. 3. You can spread the risk, and cost across all people by insuring the healthy as well as the infirm. This is how insurance works, the people who are fortunate enough to never need it are the ones who pay for the less fortunate. This is exactly what the "individual mandate" in the affordable healthcare law is supposed to enable.
If you already have insurance and you really don't care if someone else does or not, I guess you're going to ignore this line of reasoning. Just remember though: as we learned in 2008, most of us are one "economic downturn" away from being jobless or switching jobs. When that happens, perhaps your current beloved insurance will no longer be available. If you've got diabetes, you're screwed.
Of the 3 options above, the only one that seems reasonable is exactly what the Affordable Care Act is trying to do. The biggest issue I have with it is that it keeps the "for-profit" insurance companies in the middle of the whole thing. Get them out of the way and go for a Single Payer system and we'll be on our way to a modern, affordable health care system.
First, by admitting that insurance companies should be compelled by law to insure a certain class of people is an admission that the free market economy will NOT deliver the best result for the people in all cases. It is not in any insurance company's interest to insure someone known to be sick.
Second, given that insurance is to be provided, how is it to be paid for. There are basically three scenarios. 1. You just add them to the pool of those already insured, in which case the cost of insurance goes up for everyone in order to cover the added expense of insuring people with known health issues. 2. You create "high risk pools" into which these people fall and for which insurance companies will provide coverage. Unfortunately, insurance companies are "for-profit" entities and they must set the premiums at a level that, on average, will cover the expenses of the group of sick people plus administrative overhead and profit. To take a simple example, let's say the "high risk pool" consists of people with cancer, the treatment of which costs $50,000/year. In order for the insurance company to survive, it must charge $50,000/year plus 15% for administration and profit. Who can afford that. 3. You can spread the risk, and cost across all people by insuring the healthy as well as the infirm. This is how insurance works, the people who are fortunate enough to never need it are the ones who pay for the less fortunate. This is exactly what the "individual mandate" in the affordable healthcare law is supposed to enable.
If you already have insurance and you really don't care if someone else does or not, I guess you're going to ignore this line of reasoning. Just remember though: as we learned in 2008, most of us are one "economic downturn" away from being jobless or switching jobs. When that happens, perhaps your current beloved insurance will no longer be available. If you've got diabetes, you're screwed.
Of the 3 options above, the only one that seems reasonable is exactly what the Affordable Care Act is trying to do. The biggest issue I have with it is that it keeps the "for-profit" insurance companies in the middle of the whole thing. Get them out of the way and go for a Single Payer system and we'll be on our way to a modern, affordable health care system.
Dredge the Rivers!
State Senator Tom Libous was interviewed about the need to dredge the rivers, presumably to avoid floods such as the one in September 2011. First, Mr. Libous stated that he's not an expert on this kind of stuff. And, he stated, even if he did know something about it, the rivers are under control of the Army Corps of Engineers, not state or local government. But Mr. Libous, not having any credentials or authority, said we should dredge the rivers.
To me this whole interchange was mildly amusing, until I realized that thousands of ignorant people will take up the chant and potentially wind up spending my tax money to to do something that will have little, if any effect on the potential for flooding in the future.
Just exactly what was the point of that interview anyhow??
To me this whole interchange was mildly amusing, until I realized that thousands of ignorant people will take up the chant and potentially wind up spending my tax money to to do something that will have little, if any effect on the potential for flooding in the future.
Just exactly what was the point of that interview anyhow??
Saturday, September 1, 2012
12 Million Jobs
I WILL CREATE 12 MILLION JOBS!!!! Trust me, vote for me... just don't ask me how.
Haven't we heard this before???
Haven't we heard this before???
Can't Wait For DNC
I can't wait for the Democrats to trot out a group of people unemployed due to Bain Capital actions. This is better than any reality TV show! It's such an advantage to go 2nd!!
Humanizing Mitt
So, we found out a lot about Mitt Romney, the "person", through incredibly well scripted and staged testimonials. But when Mitt took the stage, it was the same old MITT. What a let-down. Rubio was great! Eastwood was entertaining. Mitt was Mitt. Exactly what are you going to replace "Obamacare" with Mr. Romney??????
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Political Ad Mute-cott
Over the next few months, there will be enormous amounts of money spent to capture our eyes and ears by candidates running for office. With the presidential race soon to be in full swing, assisted by the fully funded Super PACs, we're about to be deluged with information and dis-information.
How about if we band together and shut out the noise! Keep your remote handy and every time you see a political ad start on TV, press the MUTE button. When you're driving in the car and you hear one on the radio, turn the volume down for 30 seconds. Sure, it takes a little effort, but the only reason these people spend obscene amounts of money is because we listen and they think they have a chance to capture our vote. If nobody is listening, they lose. And we win by taking the responsibility to figure out which candidate best fits our personal views by doing our own research and finding out for ourselves, rather than letting some high paid advertising agency jamming twisted truths (at best) or lies down our throats.
Remember, every time you hear or see a political ad, MUTE IT. It's not easy... these advertisements are made to be engaging... to capture our attention.... to make us believe. Don't do it. Turn it off. Don't fall for the sound-bites. You will feel better for taking control of your own opinions and the country will be better with citizens that make the effort to find "truth" rather than being fed "engineered truth".
SEE IT - MUTE IT
HEAR IT - MUTE IT
How about if we band together and shut out the noise! Keep your remote handy and every time you see a political ad start on TV, press the MUTE button. When you're driving in the car and you hear one on the radio, turn the volume down for 30 seconds. Sure, it takes a little effort, but the only reason these people spend obscene amounts of money is because we listen and they think they have a chance to capture our vote. If nobody is listening, they lose. And we win by taking the responsibility to figure out which candidate best fits our personal views by doing our own research and finding out for ourselves, rather than letting some high paid advertising agency jamming twisted truths (at best) or lies down our throats.
Remember, every time you hear or see a political ad, MUTE IT. It's not easy... these advertisements are made to be engaging... to capture our attention.... to make us believe. Don't do it. Turn it off. Don't fall for the sound-bites. You will feel better for taking control of your own opinions and the country will be better with citizens that make the effort to find "truth" rather than being fed "engineered truth".
SEE IT - MUTE IT
HEAR IT - MUTE IT
Friday, May 18, 2012
Eliminate Lead Poisoning Risk
Headline in USA Today: New lead poisoning limits put 365,000 at risk. My question is: If you can put people at risk by changing the guidelines in one direction, can you not reduce the risk by changing it in the other? If the CDC declares that any amount of lead is safe, does that make it so?
Monday, May 14, 2012
Anti-Obesity Drug: Attacking The Wrong End
The FDA is closer to approving the anti obesity drug,Lorqess. The drug works by suppressing the appetite. My question is: Do people over eat because they are hungry or necause they love food and the associated dopamine rush?
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Facebook Relationships Too Easy??
Long, long ago, somehow you became aware of a friend's birthday. By some process, you made the effort to "remember" this birthday and you made the effort to send the person a card, or wish them a happy birthday.
In the Facebook age, I post my birthday in my profile. My friends have an app that sends me a "happy birthday" message when my birthday comes up. I haven't looked, but there's probably an app that will allow me to respond "thank you" to all of my automated birthday wishes.
If there is no effort involved in a relationship, how much value is there in that relationship? Have we devolved into relationships between apps, instead of meaningful relationships between people?
In the Facebook age, I post my birthday in my profile. My friends have an app that sends me a "happy birthday" message when my birthday comes up. I haven't looked, but there's probably an app that will allow me to respond "thank you" to all of my automated birthday wishes.
If there is no effort involved in a relationship, how much value is there in that relationship? Have we devolved into relationships between apps, instead of meaningful relationships between people?
Monday, March 12, 2012
Contraception Coverage - ObamaCare
Through all the rhetoric, I think we've totally missed the point!!
I don't think anyone disagrees that everyone should have access to reasonably priced health insurance.
The first place we have a difference of opinion is in the definition of "everyone". Some would include all US citizens as "everyone" while others would define "everyone" as those who had a job and could afford to pay for their own "affordable health insurance". We'll leave that debate for another post.
Fundamentally, what the government is trying to do is establish the minimum standards for health insurance that is to be "affordable". Of course, we can get affordable insurance via the unrestrained free market, but what will the level of coverage be?
Before the dreaded ObamaCare, if you didn't have a job that provided health insurance and you weren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, you were out of luck. Either you couldn't afford the insurance premiums or you were denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition. How do we get the free market system engaged to solve that problem? Perhaps we allow insurance companies to compete across state lines? However we do it, one thing is for sure: The free markets will produce a glut of insurance products that are definitely affordable, but only to the insurance issuing agency. Coverage will be gerrymandered to minimize the payout/premium ratio. That's how it works folks. Corporations (including health care corporations) exist to make money.
What gets lost in the high-profile debate between the Government and the Catholic Church is that the Government is merely trying to establish a baseline for reasonable coverage that we want to get at a reasonable cost. Yes, there are sticky situations such as the inclusion of contraception in the baseline, but the important issue is that the administration is attempting to establish a baseline at all.
Regardless of what you may think from the above, I fully support the repeal of ObamaCare. But I support it for a completely different reason than the talking head Republicans who are delighting the President every time they make a public statement. I support a repeal because I do not believe ObamaCare went far enough. The free markets can deliver neither affordable health care nor affordable health insurance. The objectives of free markets are at odds with the objectives of health care. There needs to be some middle ground; managed and funded by a central agency that budgets what this country can afford to spend on health care. Otherwise, we have health care for the rich and nothing for the not-so-rich.
If you know me you won't be surprised. Let's all work toward a Single Payer system for universal, affordable healthcare for everyone.
I don't think anyone disagrees that everyone should have access to reasonably priced health insurance.
The first place we have a difference of opinion is in the definition of "everyone". Some would include all US citizens as "everyone" while others would define "everyone" as those who had a job and could afford to pay for their own "affordable health insurance". We'll leave that debate for another post.
Fundamentally, what the government is trying to do is establish the minimum standards for health insurance that is to be "affordable". Of course, we can get affordable insurance via the unrestrained free market, but what will the level of coverage be?
Before the dreaded ObamaCare, if you didn't have a job that provided health insurance and you weren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, you were out of luck. Either you couldn't afford the insurance premiums or you were denied coverage because of some pre-existing condition. How do we get the free market system engaged to solve that problem? Perhaps we allow insurance companies to compete across state lines? However we do it, one thing is for sure: The free markets will produce a glut of insurance products that are definitely affordable, but only to the insurance issuing agency. Coverage will be gerrymandered to minimize the payout/premium ratio. That's how it works folks. Corporations (including health care corporations) exist to make money.
What gets lost in the high-profile debate between the Government and the Catholic Church is that the Government is merely trying to establish a baseline for reasonable coverage that we want to get at a reasonable cost. Yes, there are sticky situations such as the inclusion of contraception in the baseline, but the important issue is that the administration is attempting to establish a baseline at all.
Regardless of what you may think from the above, I fully support the repeal of ObamaCare. But I support it for a completely different reason than the talking head Republicans who are delighting the President every time they make a public statement. I support a repeal because I do not believe ObamaCare went far enough. The free markets can deliver neither affordable health care nor affordable health insurance. The objectives of free markets are at odds with the objectives of health care. There needs to be some middle ground; managed and funded by a central agency that budgets what this country can afford to spend on health care. Otherwise, we have health care for the rich and nothing for the not-so-rich.
If you know me you won't be surprised. Let's all work toward a Single Payer system for universal, affordable healthcare for everyone.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Cost of a College Education
Who benefits most from people having a college education? Certainly the person who gets the degree benefits. But don't the corporations that hire these graduates benefit more than the graduates themselves? Yes, I know that corporations contribute to the universities in the towns within which they do business, but perhaps we could consider a "reverse-dowery" approach to funding the cost of education. Corporations would pay a fee, dependent on the "reputation" of the university that a candidate attended. The fee would go toward payment of the tuition of the applicant.
This would have a couple obvious advantages. Universities that produced graduates that excelled in their field would fetch higher "fees". In other words, the MARKET would determine the best universities. Also, the cost of education would be driven by the market that the education supports. If corporations aren't willing to spend what a university education costs, then either universities have to figure out how to reduce their cost or corporations have to figure out how to get along without degrees as currently defined. Eventually equilibrium will be established and the unreasonable cost of higher education will be abated.
This would have a couple obvious advantages. Universities that produced graduates that excelled in their field would fetch higher "fees". In other words, the MARKET would determine the best universities. Also, the cost of education would be driven by the market that the education supports. If corporations aren't willing to spend what a university education costs, then either universities have to figure out how to reduce their cost or corporations have to figure out how to get along without degrees as currently defined. Eventually equilibrium will be established and the unreasonable cost of higher education will be abated.
$2.50/gal Gasoline
Republican candidates would say that if we fully exploit our own energy resources a driller delivers a barrel of oil to the refinery and gets $50 so we can have $2.50 gas. But, he can sell that oil on the world market for $100/barrel. Why do you think he is going to sell it for $50? Is the government going to make him do it? What do you say Newt? Ron? Mitt? Rick? Share with us how this works.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Contraception Deception
It seems to me that our President is trying to get out of hot water with a little sleight of hand on the contraception issue. The original rule said religiously affiliated employers must provide full contraception coverage. Obviously this didn't sit well with Catholic leadership (though the average woman in the pew could care less since most of them used some form of contraception regardless of what the church said).
The new rule says that insurers (not the employer) must offer free coverage to women working at religiously affiliated institutions. Just where, exactly, are the insurance companies going to get the money to provide this "free" coverage? Might they raise the cost of insurance (in which case, isn't the employer still paying for it)? Might the government pay them, in which case the money comes from the taxpayers, which for the most part are the employees, so it's not really "free".
I don't get it. The original rule said the employer had to provide the coverage, it didn't say that women had to take advantage of it! Apparently, the bishops don't trust their female parishioners to follow their made-up rules without financial consequences.
The new rule says that insurers (not the employer) must offer free coverage to women working at religiously affiliated institutions. Just where, exactly, are the insurance companies going to get the money to provide this "free" coverage? Might they raise the cost of insurance (in which case, isn't the employer still paying for it)? Might the government pay them, in which case the money comes from the taxpayers, which for the most part are the employees, so it's not really "free".
I don't get it. The original rule said the employer had to provide the coverage, it didn't say that women had to take advantage of it! Apparently, the bishops don't trust their female parishioners to follow their made-up rules without financial consequences.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Bradying
Well.... I did do a post about "Tebowing" (Dec 18, 2011).... it's only fair that we give equal time to "Bradying". A picture is worth more than I could ever write though.
Bill Maher: ‘Atheism is a Religion Like Abstinence is a Sex Position’
This is just too good to not share:
Monday, February 6, 2012
Superbowl 2012
So, for another year it's all over. I must admit that I watched the game and I enjoyed it. But it was the game that I enjoyed, not so much the spectacle and extravagance. Somehow I feel taken-advantage-of, knowing that advertisers are paying $3.5M for 30 seconds of my eyeballs and all I get for it is a) the opportunity to watch a football game and b) higher cable, Coke, Doritos, Chevy and Chrysler prices. Can it really be true that someone who wasn't already going to buy a Chevy truck is going to buy one because only a Chevy truck and Twinkies will survive Armageddon?
Anyhow, I wonder how many "occupiers" watched the game with a Bud in one hand and a hand full of Doritos in the other, contributing to the pockets of the one-percenters they were watching.
Perhaps next year the "Boycott Superbowl" movement will get more traction. The sports madness has got to stop somehow.
Anyhow, I wonder how many "occupiers" watched the game with a Bud in one hand and a hand full of Doritos in the other, contributing to the pockets of the one-percenters they were watching.
Perhaps next year the "Boycott Superbowl" movement will get more traction. The sports madness has got to stop somehow.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Health Insurance
Why do I feel like we're about to be screwed yet again. Over the last couple years, we have been "tempted" by health insurance alternatives that lower monthly premiums at the expense of higher deductibles and co-pays. When you do the math, unless you know you are going to have some major medical event, it appears that you will come out ahead with the higher deductible plan. In my case, even a worst case scenario only exposes me to $2000 risk. So, the insurance company is offering me the "opportunity" to manage my healthcare costs and share the resulting savings with them. Nice of them isn't it?
But, what's really going on here? For years we have been told that the most important aspect of managing an illness of any kind is early detection and intervention. Let me tell you something folks. 90% of the people out there who have been told to "manage their own healthcare costs" and whose deductible and co-pay have doubled are going to think twice before heading out the door to the doctor. Yeah, I've got this funny pain in my chest.... but if I wait a few days, it will probably go away. Oh, that lump on breast, I think it's been there a while, I don't think it's anything serious. I've been feeling very tired lately. I guess I just need more sleep.
These high deductible plans, at least in my case, are an alternative right now. I can choose the old plan (which still has a deductible and co-pay) or the high deductible. My fearless prediction is that most people who don't have a known medical condition will jump to the high deductible plan. In a couple years the insurance company song will be: "Well, nobody wants these low deductible plans anymore, so we don't offer them". The healthy will be ok. Unfortunately it is the sick, who insurance is supposed to protect, that will pay most dearly.
But, what's really going on here? For years we have been told that the most important aspect of managing an illness of any kind is early detection and intervention. Let me tell you something folks. 90% of the people out there who have been told to "manage their own healthcare costs" and whose deductible and co-pay have doubled are going to think twice before heading out the door to the doctor. Yeah, I've got this funny pain in my chest.... but if I wait a few days, it will probably go away. Oh, that lump on breast, I think it's been there a while, I don't think it's anything serious. I've been feeling very tired lately. I guess I just need more sleep.
These high deductible plans, at least in my case, are an alternative right now. I can choose the old plan (which still has a deductible and co-pay) or the high deductible. My fearless prediction is that most people who don't have a known medical condition will jump to the high deductible plan. In a couple years the insurance company song will be: "Well, nobody wants these low deductible plans anymore, so we don't offer them". The healthy will be ok. Unfortunately it is the sick, who insurance is supposed to protect, that will pay most dearly.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Ron Paul
What's not to like about Ron Paul....... if you're young, white, male, Christian and employed. Think about it. You'll be male and white forever. Don't be too sure of the rest.
Marine Urination
This should be real simple. Turn the assholes over to the Taliban. Not only that, but get a video of what the Taliban do to them. Nothing more to be said.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Alabama is #1..... Or NOT??
#2 Alabama beats #1 LSU so they are now #1, right? Makes sense to me. But wait a minute. Over two games between these two teams only one touchdown was scored. Who else did they play anyhow? Did they play #3? How about #7? The debate goes on, as it does every year.
Next on the table is: "Let's have a playoff, then we'll know for sure". One game playoffs are a farce. If Alabama and LSU played again next week, LSU may well win again. It's a crap shoot.
The bottom line is, who cares anyhow? I mean what the fuck is the big deal? Sure, it probably means more money for the school that gets the prize. If one of my alma mater's was #1, I'd be pretty proud.... and I'd even watch a few games. But I'd be pretty proud if they were #2 or #3 too. It's a university for god's sake. The sport is taking on a level of importance far beyond it's true place in the university and in society. It is, after all, just recreation. For those that go on to the "business" of football, it's just entertainment.
It's fabulous that we have pee-wee football programs, junior high football programs, high school football programs, college football programs, semi-professional football and professional football. In the early years, it's great exercise. It's a great place to learn some physical skills and develop some mental toughness. It's a way to prepare yourself for the life ahead. In the later years, for a very small percentage, it's a good way to earn some money while playing a game you love.
I think football should continue at ALL levels, but the importance we put on it(primarily measured by the resources we throw at it) must be scaled back. If we don't get the sports industry under control, it will become the economic "bust". The whole system is not sustainable the way it is currently run. Unfortunately, those in control will continue to run up the bills and the hype until the public turns their back and says "enough". Then the system will go into an uncontrolled collapse costing thousands of jobs causing economic ripples through TV networks, college athletic departments, team owners and the players themselves.
I know what will happen, everyone will cover their eyes ignore what is happening. That's why the dot com bust caught everyone by surprise. That's why the housing bubble caught everyone by surprise. Everyone can see what's going on, but nobody wants to do anything about it. Big changes are coming. You heard it here first.
Next on the table is: "Let's have a playoff, then we'll know for sure". One game playoffs are a farce. If Alabama and LSU played again next week, LSU may well win again. It's a crap shoot.
The bottom line is, who cares anyhow? I mean what the fuck is the big deal? Sure, it probably means more money for the school that gets the prize. If one of my alma mater's was #1, I'd be pretty proud.... and I'd even watch a few games. But I'd be pretty proud if they were #2 or #3 too. It's a university for god's sake. The sport is taking on a level of importance far beyond it's true place in the university and in society. It is, after all, just recreation. For those that go on to the "business" of football, it's just entertainment.
It's fabulous that we have pee-wee football programs, junior high football programs, high school football programs, college football programs, semi-professional football and professional football. In the early years, it's great exercise. It's a great place to learn some physical skills and develop some mental toughness. It's a way to prepare yourself for the life ahead. In the later years, for a very small percentage, it's a good way to earn some money while playing a game you love.
I think football should continue at ALL levels, but the importance we put on it(primarily measured by the resources we throw at it) must be scaled back. If we don't get the sports industry under control, it will become the economic "bust". The whole system is not sustainable the way it is currently run. Unfortunately, those in control will continue to run up the bills and the hype until the public turns their back and says "enough". Then the system will go into an uncontrolled collapse costing thousands of jobs causing economic ripples through TV networks, college athletic departments, team owners and the players themselves.
I know what will happen, everyone will cover their eyes ignore what is happening. That's why the dot com bust caught everyone by surprise. That's why the housing bubble caught everyone by surprise. Everyone can see what's going on, but nobody wants to do anything about it. Big changes are coming. You heard it here first.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Charles Barkley
Why is Charles Barkley on NFL in a shirt two sizes too big? Can you spell MONEY; WEIGHT WATCHERS? Very subtle marketing maybe? Or maybe not so subtle.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
