krislaughs: (star trek - hotkirk)
So.

It has been DISTURBINGLY quiet here the last two weeks. On the one hand, it's nice being done in the afternoon. On the other, I get so worried about the business and job market, that i get kinda twitchy having all this free time. Can't win, eh?

~

I've been thinking a lot about health care, in light of the recent travesty-disguised-as-debate, but also because I am in a parallel field to human medicine, just purchased my first real own-it-yourself-and-not-just-because-school-requires-it health insurance, and am disgusted with the direction that our national health and health care is going as well as most of the media coverage of the 'debate'.

I just read this article, How American Health Care Killed My Father, (Published Sept 2009 in The Atlantic) and it rather blew me away. In a good way because he pointed his experience out as no more than that, did not place blame on the typical players, and gave extremely interesting examples of how we could fix the status quo. If only our elected officials could see past the health care lobbies and do it, we stand at a moment where real change is possible. quote from the article )

In fact, the suggestions he makes at the end of the piece are exactly the health care regime I provide for my dog-- who is much more efficiently and completely covered than most humans I know. Veterinary clinics exist in the free market. They will quote prices, sell you care packages, and let you make an informed decision on the price and quality of routine care you pay for out of pocket. He has insurance to cover catastrophic events; hit by car, GDV, cancer, etc. And I save to cover the larger routine bills, like dental cleanings under general anesthesia (the equivalent of his health savings account).

And, while I don't necessarily believe that health care should be wholly a free market commodity, it works for veterinary medicine where we provide care for the companions who live in 63% of American households-- 88 million cats, 74 million dogs, 13 million horses, no small number of patients. It's an interesting scale model of the system he suggests.

It also shows the pitfalls of such a system, when people *can't* afford enough care for their loved ones. These are also topics he touches upon but would need to be examined further.

I dunno. It made me think. Feel free to discuss. That's enough deep thought for me for the night.

I'm going to have another glass of wine and watch some Leverage (Yes, I started it, damn Netflix and 'watch instantly' options), Castle (because deep down, we all ♥ Nathon Fillion), or Star Trek ToS (because, goddamnit, I want to see the movie again but it's not out on DVD).

Happy long weekend!
krislaughs: (obama kid)
I don't usually get overly political on here, but I really felt the need to vent my outrage on this one. Remember that $700,000,000,000 dollar bailout planned to add liquidity to Wall St? Yeah, that one that now looks as though it's going to pass?

I'm not saying the country doesn't need the bill-- it needs the bill as much as it needs a functional banking sector (and I'll let you decide how much that is)-- what disgusts me tonight, it what ELSE they've tacked onto the legislation in order to get it passed.

Our legislators are Pigs in a Pork spending heaven. Tax breaks are going to groups like auto racing tracks and Virgin Islands Rum, which, while I'm not knocking car racing or rum, is hardly central to our economic well-being as a nation.

"The Congressional Budget Office said the package of breaks - including obvious pork and some more defensible tax-relief measures - will add about $112 billion to budget deficits over the next five years because the bill doesn't contain enough offsetting revenue hikes to keep the budget balanced."

ONE HUNDRED TWELVE BILLION on a 700 billion dollar bill. That's a 16% increase to its cost. Particularly of note is how those noble Alaskan Republicans like Sarah Palin are really fighting to end this kind of spending.

Another measure inserted into the bill appears to be a bald-faced bid aimed at winning the support of Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who voted against the original version when it went down in flames in the House on Monday.

That provision - a $223 million package of tax benefits for fishermen and others whose livelihoods suffered as a result of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill - has been the subject of fervent lobbying by Alaska's congressional delegation.


And for a blogger who takes to task another guy who's promised to end this kind of spending, this guy says it better than I can.

Today John McCain was on Morning Joe, touting his usual line about how it’s a disgrace this bill was full of wasteful pork. And how a president has to take a stand no matter how important the bill is and veto it.

And yet he voted for it. Mr McCain apparently thinks he can have his cake (ranting against pork-barrel spending) and vote it, too.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Profile

krislaughs: (Default)
krislaughs

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 02:58 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
September 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2017