To every Republican/conservative lawmaker:
Before you accept that invitation to debate the latest topic on a national cable news channel, renounce the "hypocritic oath" that you seem to have taken when we weren't looking. And yes, I did make up a word. On both sides of the aisle, you spew talking points without any regard comments you made last year, last month, or even last week. It's getting old, and I'm sick of it.
On health care: before mentioning tort reform again, be prepared to explain how the Federal government is supposed to foist its will on the state legislatures. Medical malpractice suits are carried out at the state level. We conservatives hold the sovereignty of states so sacred... have an argument for how you'll get around an inconvenient truth in this case.
On social spending: be prepared to justify the flight of billions of dollars on martial campaigns across the globe with no official declaration of war. Though they may be just, your argument for war (and against the advance of socialism) often centers on, "the constitutional authority to do so". The Constitution is not a-la-carte.
On illegal immigration: we often site the rule of law, and its enforcement when discussing what to do with those that entered this country illegally, or overstayed their lawful presence. So I implore you, if the law is good enough for this issue, it should be good enough for the trial of enemy combatants. If it's a military tribunal you want, do so under the very same umbrella of law that you cited previously. Otherwise, be prepared to tell the viewers why some laws related to national security can be ignored, while others must be enforced posthaste.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Science and Politics of Avatar
Let’s mix it up a bit and throw in a movie review. Not your standard movie review though. Here I’ll attempt to satiate the intellectual appetite of my fellow science geeks. In closing, I’ll return to this blog’s theme and address the politics of James Cameron’s record breaking science fiction thriller.The Science
Kudos to James Cameron’s scientific advisory team for getting so many things right. I watched the movie with a virtual propeller-laden beanie placed firmly on my head, and at almost every turn, I thought to myself, ‘that’s probable’. Great job overall!
Avatar is set on Pandora, an earth-like moon orbiting a gas giant planet somewhere in our interstellar neighborhood. It takes the protagonist a respectable 6 years to reach Pandora. What a refreshingly realistic time frame – Alpha Centauri perhaps?
The astrophysical lighting and shading was always right. Pandora’s sister moons always cast their shadows on the right spot (relative to their sun) of the gas giant parent. It was great to finally see a movie that paid attention to these subtle but important details.
Floating mountains? At first, this was a big miss to me. For a movie that got so many scientific details right, why in the world would Cameron allow things to get so far away from ‘reality’? And then it hit me – not all at once, but in retrospect after I left the theatre. Here’s my take on it:
In a particular scene, the entire night sky was awash in aurora borealis. Inside Fred’s brain… “Hmmm – based on the clear day/night delineation, I don’t think they’re near either pole… there must be some serious magnetic fields on that planet.” And In a separate scene, and another part of Fred’s brain… “Look at all of those rocky arcs coming out the ground. Cool. They’re like geophysical rainbows.” And then… “Field lines! Magnetic field lines! Those rocks are forming along magnetic field lines!”
So, I propose that the floating mountains were doing so because of a significant magnetic force – at least strong enough to balance the force of gravity. Does the math work out? Can magnetic fields actually be strong enough to allow big rocks to float? At this point, I don’t care (and I’m too lazy to crunch the numbers). It was cool enough visually, and important enough to the plot that I’ll accept the likelihood. At least there’s a plausible explanation based on science. Once again, well done, guys.
If one would (correctly) assume that the laws of physics and chemistry that govern evolutionary biology here on earth are present on Pandora, it should come as no surprise that plants on Pandora could grow and form logarithmic spirals. The math is good enough for sea shells, sunflowers, and submarine hunting here on earth - it must be good enough for life on another planet. A nice touch!
The next one is a combined hit and miss. I noticed that almost all of the animals on Pandora had 6 legs (or 6 appendages). This suggests a common evolutionary ancestry – a hit. Well done guys. How then does one explain the very humanoid, 4 limbed appearance of the Navi people on Pandora? Why not at least give the Navi small, unusable T-Rex arms just under their pits? I guess you can’t have it all… I guess Cameron needed us movie-goers to identify with the Navi as ‘people’. If they were too alien, this would’ve been harder. I did at least notice one subtle difference in their anatomy – the Navi had only 3 fingers and an opposable thumb (we obviously have 4).
Pollen eating horses? Big pollen eating horses? Not that I have a problem with pollen eating horses. It’s just that their size suggests a need to consume a lot of calories. Okay, maybe the pollen on Pandora is like cooking oil, but let’s not have our cake and eat it too - if you’re going to assume similar evolutionary hallmarks and an earth-like biosphere, you’ve gotta at least take the big parts with you.
The Politics
Surprise, Surprise - an anti-corporation, anti-military movie from Hollywood. I don’t know much about James Cameron, but based on Avatar’s plot, I’m going to take a guess that he’d rather hang out with Michael Moore than Pat Buchanan.
In Avatar, a large corporation (RDA) is behind the strip mining and exploitation of a distant planet for a presumably rare mineral called Unobtainium. The stuff is worth 20 million a kilo. No mention of Euros, Dollars, Shillings, or whatever, but we can assume that 20 million a kilo at least affords a profit margin greater than the rate of inflation (do we take time dilation into account when calculating inflation for products mined so far away:)
For sure, RDA’s corporate suits were demonized. They cared nothing about the indigenous Navi people. The only thing that mattered was “the cheddar”. Oh how simple and easy it is to get at the evil rich. But let’s lay down our pitch forks and torches for a second and ask the question that Cameron conveniently avoids - what’s up with this Unobtainium stuff anyway? Is it a critical ingredient in a cure for Cancer? In an ironic twist, does it provide earth with a “green”, inexhaustible energy source? We never find out. All we know is that Unobtainium is being mined for a profit, and that’s ‘bad’.
Just like our Exxon, which by the way has helped the United States gain highest standard of living on the planet, RDA is bad. Just like the evil pharmaceutical industry that has provided us with life saving, life improving drugs, RDA is bad. Personally, I’m getting sick of people that benefit GREATLY from record profits in a capital, corporate driven economy, vilifying the very system that has made them zillionaires!
And what about the military? Not only was the lead antagonist a Marine, he was on Pandora for the money. Soldiers that are motivated by profit? Can it get any worse!? Cameron adds cherry on the stereotypical sundae by having one Marine shout “Get some! Get some!” as he shoots the natives. Can his revulsion be any more overt? Ignore the facts. Just sit back in your comfy movie seat, put on those 3D glasses, and forget everything you’ve ever read about our military. Ignore the facts about, say, liberating Europe or saving Haitian earthquake victims. They are for warriors, and since war is bad, they’re bad.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Right Ain't Wrong
The Republican Party is not a racist party. No tenet of conservative thought excludes or oppresses anyone based on race, sex, or class. Indeed, the Republican Party has a diverse and colorful history that defies your 21st century impression.
The main stream media has done a wonderful job of creating an association between the right and racism. They have done so by associating terms like “individual liberty” and “self reliance” with characteristics like “cold-hearted”, “indifferent”, and of course, “racist”. They’ve managed to create this association despite overwhelming evidence and matters of historical fact to the contrary.
There’s a page on the new GOP website that’s essentially a party time line.
www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment
Several historical achievements and milestones are highlighted. To be fair, there is a focus (to the point of being obvious) on milestones related to race and sex. But can you blame the GOP for selecting these events and persons? Someone has to set the record straight. I’ll accept the slant because the account is rooted in fact. It demonstrates a long history of firsts and accomplishments by Republicans of all races and both sexes, and for the benefit of the same.
I will complement my point by submitting to you that ties to racism are clearer and ever present within the Democratic Party. The ideology of entitlement has done more to oppress people of color and impede our collective ascendency than any group, event, principle, or law in the past 80 years. Hundreds of well intended, “compassionate” examples abound. I won’t cite any here – just ask any liberal politician what they’ve done, “for the people”… Your head will spin. Instead, I’ll make my point by counter example.
Let’s consider the NCAA’s proposition 48. Back in the 1980’s, this proposal raised the minimum SAT score of all student-athletes to a floor of 700. The naive assumption was that low-income, inner city blacks would be “shut out” of scholarship opportunities and the chance to escape the poverty and misery of their upbringing. Proposition 48 was deemed “racist”.
Proposition 48 passed. So what happened next? Were Division I college basketball teams suddenly taken over by white boys that couldn’t jump? No. Black high school student-athletes raised their game to meet the new academic standards. They continued to secure athletic scholarships. They graduated from college at higher rates because they were better prepared. The proposition, which was called “racist”, has actually improved the lives of thousands of African Americans. Imagine that – higher expectations yielded a better outcome.
If you’re Black, and a Democrat, ask yourself, ‘why?’ If your political ideology and sense of what’s best for this country line up with the left, that’s fine. But if you don’t know, or consider yourself a Dem because “my parents are”, or because “the left cares about us”, examine your reasoning. Personally, I’d like to see about a 50/50 split in the Black community, right vs. left. At least then, the Dems couldn’t take our votes for granted, and actually be held to account for the impact of their actions in our communities.
The main stream media has done a wonderful job of creating an association between the right and racism. They have done so by associating terms like “individual liberty” and “self reliance” with characteristics like “cold-hearted”, “indifferent”, and of course, “racist”. They’ve managed to create this association despite overwhelming evidence and matters of historical fact to the contrary.
There’s a page on the new GOP website that’s essentially a party time line.
www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment
Several historical achievements and milestones are highlighted. To be fair, there is a focus (to the point of being obvious) on milestones related to race and sex. But can you blame the GOP for selecting these events and persons? Someone has to set the record straight. I’ll accept the slant because the account is rooted in fact. It demonstrates a long history of firsts and accomplishments by Republicans of all races and both sexes, and for the benefit of the same.
I will complement my point by submitting to you that ties to racism are clearer and ever present within the Democratic Party. The ideology of entitlement has done more to oppress people of color and impede our collective ascendency than any group, event, principle, or law in the past 80 years. Hundreds of well intended, “compassionate” examples abound. I won’t cite any here – just ask any liberal politician what they’ve done, “for the people”… Your head will spin. Instead, I’ll make my point by counter example.
Let’s consider the NCAA’s proposition 48. Back in the 1980’s, this proposal raised the minimum SAT score of all student-athletes to a floor of 700. The naive assumption was that low-income, inner city blacks would be “shut out” of scholarship opportunities and the chance to escape the poverty and misery of their upbringing. Proposition 48 was deemed “racist”.
Proposition 48 passed. So what happened next? Were Division I college basketball teams suddenly taken over by white boys that couldn’t jump? No. Black high school student-athletes raised their game to meet the new academic standards. They continued to secure athletic scholarships. They graduated from college at higher rates because they were better prepared. The proposition, which was called “racist”, has actually improved the lives of thousands of African Americans. Imagine that – higher expectations yielded a better outcome.
If you’re Black, and a Democrat, ask yourself, ‘why?’ If your political ideology and sense of what’s best for this country line up with the left, that’s fine. But if you don’t know, or consider yourself a Dem because “my parents are”, or because “the left cares about us”, examine your reasoning. Personally, I’d like to see about a 50/50 split in the Black community, right vs. left. At least then, the Dems couldn’t take our votes for granted, and actually be held to account for the impact of their actions in our communities.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Racists? Or Opposed to Fundamental Transformation?
adj. fun·da·men·tal - of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Monday, September 14, 2009
I’m Coming Out of the Closet
I’ve made a decision. I’m coming out. I’m no longer afraid of the conversation. So here it is…
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Hark! All Ye Hypocrites!
To the conservatives attending town hall meetings on health care this Summer:
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Doctor, get off my back! That costs too much!
By way of example, I'll tell you the real problem with health care in America. It's got less to do with tort law and access, and more to do with who's name is in the top left corner of the check.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
