19. September 2009 by admin.

I have been wanting to write something about President Obama’s health care plan, but have been having trouble getting all my thoughts in order.  I know:

• Government spending on health care in this country (at all levels) per capita is slightly higher than in countries with ’socialized medicine.’
• Private spending on health care in the US is about the same per capita as public spending, so we collectively spend a little more than twice as much on health care.
• In countries with socialized medicine, there are often shortages of doctors, and waiting lists for specialized treatments.  And sometimes people die from not having receive treatments that would be more readily available in the US.
• On the other hand, on general measures of public health, such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and obesity, the US is behind other countries with socialized medicine.
• The US is the fount of medical innovation in the world, chiefly because someone who comes up with a good idea can turn a profit from it.
• People in the US go bankrupt every day from the cost of health care.  An extended illness or cancer can easily wipe out an individual’s savings.  Insurance can help, but often has its own limitations and horror stories.
• The cost of health care is going up rapidly, much faster than the general rate of inflation.  My health insurance premium went up 20% this year, and that’s consistent with past years.  Back when I was an employee, my company would moan every year about how the price if insurance had gone up, and that they would absorb most of the cost, but our co-pays would have to go up.
• Medicare, the government insurance program for the elderly, tries to limit its costs by setting rates at which it will reimburse for services, but does not try to limit the services themselves.  This is called ‘not getting between the doctor and the patient.’

Some first thoughts:

• If the cost of health care continues to go up, it will upend not only the government’s budget, but everyone else’s as well.
• It would be tempting to believe that we could somehow ‘cut the waste’ and magically reduce the cost of health care without actually reducing the care that is delivered.  Perhaps we can trim a few percent, but not enough to solve the problem.
• It’s one matter for the government to take measures to control its own costs.  That’s entirely reasonable.  It’s quite another for the government to try to solve everyone’s cost problem.
• It would be spectacularly bad for the government to do something that would kill the innovative, capitalist component of health care.

More to follow….

Posted in Health Care, Dysfunctional Government, Barack Obama | No Comments »

12. September 2009 by admin.

Yesterday was the eighth anniversary of the terrorist attack that destroyed the World Trade Center.  The site is still basically a hole in the ground, with construction proceeding at a glacial pace.

So how do we commemorate a day in which we got our ass whipped because we were unprepared?

It would seem appropriate to spend a few moments in quiet contemplation about the events of that day, those who died, the nature of our enemy, and the challenge that they represent.  But that’s not what what’s happening.

For two hours yesterday morning, they recited the names of those who died in the collapse of the Twin Towers, as they have done every 11 September since 2001.  That’s entirely appropriate.

But what is getting lost is how they died, and what we should do besides stopping the city for two hours to remember them.  The danger is still out there, biding its time, contemplating the next opportunity to strike.

It’s been contemplated to include an exhibit on the terrorist hijackers at the World Trade Center memorial.  Of course, we should: not to honor them, but to remind ourselves of the nature of our enemy, and to rededicate ourselves to the battles we face.  When we ultimately win the war against the terrorists, the exhibit can reasonably be turned into something else, as it will have served its purpose.

But I’m in the minority here: most have reacted with horror to the thought of memorializing the hijackers alongside their victims.   So how did the victims die?  Lightning strikes?  An earthquake?  Catastrophic elevator implosions?  Do we want to forget the people who brought about the destruction of 11 September–and are gathering their forces to do it again–even as we spend billions sending our young people off to war?

Or is it that in our politically correct culture, we can’t bring ourselves to identify a group of people as ‘the enemy’?

This brings us to the alternate, post-Bush, commemoration of 11 September: the ‘national day of service’ proposed by President Obama.  It’s a charming thought, and good things can get done, but it doesn’t address what happened that day and the danger that it still represents.

We don’t remember 7 December, ‘a date that will live in infamy,’ very much anymore.  But its time had passed: we fought the Japanese, we won, and now, two generations or so later, they are important allies.  Hopefully, the same will one day happen to 11 September.

But not yet.

Posted in World Trade Center, Things Falling Apart, Terrorism | No Comments »

3. September 2009 by admin.

As of this month, it is now illegal in the European Community to import or manufacture frosted or 100-watt incandescent light bulbs.  Stores that carry them can sell out their stock, and that’s what they’ve been doing: across the continent, people are running to purchase the last of the old-school light bulbs.

The incandescent bulbs are supposed to be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs that, according to legend, last ten times longer and use one-quarter of the electricity.

I wish I could like the new bulbs.  Newer versions do a decent job of matching the color of an incandescent light bulb, and they do use less power.  But we need light bulbs in our house, and last night I went out and bought… incandescent.

My big problem with them is that besides allegedly lasting ten times as long, they also cost ten times as much.  It would be a fair deal if it were true.  But the compact fluorescent bulbs that I’ve tried actually last 6-8 months, about the same as incandescent bulbs.  So the amount of money that I save on electricity, which is supposed to more than cover the increased cost of the bulb, doesn’t break even.

And my experience in my home is not unique.  A couple of years ago, the management in our apartment building replaced all the light bulbs in the hallways with compact fluorescents.  More than half of them have since been replaced by traditional bulbs.

And there are other issues:

• Incandescent bulbs are light and simple to produce, and there could be an economic case for continuing to manufacture them in this country.  Compact fluorescent bulbs are electronic devices, almost universally imported from China.
• I don’t have the figures, but I believe that it takes less in terms of energy, raw materials, and industrial toxins to make and transport an incandescent bulb as compared to fluorescent.  It’s probably still favorable even if one compares ten incandescent bulbs against one fluorescent bulb.
• Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury, which is toxic.  In New York City, households can still throw them in the trash, but businesses must recycle them.  In the future, households may be required to recycle them as well.
• When an incandescent bulb fails, it goes out, and doesn’t draw any more power.  A failed compact fluorescent may still draw power: it just doesn’t out out any light.

So I’m off the fluorescent bulbs for now, or at least until the Light Bulb Police come after me.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »