I have big news today. My dad has started a blog.
My dad has come up here a few times before (1 2 3), and each time he does I feel compelled to say how much respect and admiration I have for him. He is the principal of a private Christian grade/junior high school which for all intents and purposes he built from the ground up over the last 24 years. Six years ago he and a few others started a school in Tanzania, which he has been diligently supporting and equipping since then. He regularly sends teachers from his school or takes trips himself to train Tanzanian educators. He also sends over books and materials and serves the school in more ways I'm unaware of, I'm sure.
He was also the lead singer of the 60's teenage phenomenon "The Squires," pictured above. (Don't worry, this picture has been submitted to My Parents Were Awesome.)
A few years back while I was in college I had a discussion with a few close friends and the subject of private education came up. I was surprised to hear that my friends were mostly against it; they resisted the idea of ever sending their children to a Christian school. I had so much respect for my dad's work, but at the same time so much love for them, that it kindof upset me to hear this. After a few weeks I spoke with my dad about it and basically asked the question, "why Christian education?" His answer seemed so full of wisdom to me. He said he was not primarily interested in building a Christian school, he was interested in building a good school, and his faith influenced that ambition. He said that when my friends or I settle down and have kids, we should look around and try to find the best education we can for our children. If that's at a public school, great, if it's a private Christian school, that's great too.
About that time I was working in the summers as a janitor at the school (well, actually at the church which houses the school), and one afternoon I was doing some cleaning outside a room where my dad was holding a staff meeting with all the teachers. As I worked I kept being struck by how much laughter there was coming from the meeting. My dad was speaking and it seemed every few minutes there was a chuckle or at times a loud burst of laughter. I remembered the haggard look that many of my high school teachers had in their eyes most of the time, and I wondered how much laughter there was at their staff meetings. I doubt it was much.
I envy the calling my dad has. One of the most significant ways I want to emulate him is by finding a calling similar to his one day. One that God has given me along with the gifts to complete it, one that serves and benefits others, one that will have a lasting impression on those it touches (like his two schools undoubtedly have and will).
But—this isn't why I started this post. I started it to tell you my dad has a blog now, and if you're interested in the wonderings of a wise father who has spent many years not just studying faith and education, but actually getting his hands dirty in the difficult but crucial work of teaching our children well—you should join me in following along.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Fear and Loathing in Middle America, or Brief Conversations with Tea Party Protesters
One of Erin's and my favorite new hobbies since moving to D.C. is protest watching. We love to get immersed in the crowds and feel the passion and intensity of the moment. So last weekend we took the opportunity to spend a few hours on Saturday and Sunday to experience the Tea Party health care reform protests at the Capitol.
I went in expecting craziness, expecting that people who hated a relatively middle-of-the-road health care reform bill enough to travel to D.C. and protest it all weekend were going to be a little extreme. But I admit I did not expect to be as affected by the experience as I was.
The signs and chants were what you might expect: "Hands Off My Medicare!," "USA: Under Socialist Attack," "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire," "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies," "Spreading the Wealth Since 1917: Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and Obama," and "I Drove My Pickup Truck." What you might not expect is that some of them were signed by U.S. Representatives:
At one point a crowd of hundreds took to their knees to say the Lord's Prayer, while a guy in the front held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The utter sacrilege in that theocratic moment appalled me. At another point a Representative from Indiana stood on the hood of a car and warned the crowd about the poisonous contents of the bill, about the dangers of a President chiding the Supreme Court (an action, I may note, that President Reagan took as well), about Nancy Pelosi addressing her fellow Democrats as "comrades." I could almost hear the lines from my high school performance in The Music Man running in the background ("Heed that warning before it's too late! Watch for the tell-tale signs of corruption!").
As I walked through the crowd, the question that kept burning in my gut was where these passionate small-government folks were two years ago? Where was their concern for fiscal responsibility when Bush set fire to our balanced budget with two wars, a Medicare expansion, an expensive education reform program, and a huge tax cut—all of which were individually much more expensive than this health care legislation? Where was their respect for civil liberties when the Bush Administration tapped phones without a warrant, created the Patriot Act, and tortured prisoners of war? Where was their love of limited government when Bush launched an interventionist war and increased the size of government more than any other president since LBJ? After a while I couldn't take it any longer, and I started asking the protesters.
The first few either had no answer, or claimed that the problem wasn't as big as it is now, which is just blatantly false. But then I struck up a conversation with a quiet mother who gave me an answer which had some weight to it: the recession. The recession has put 10% of the country out of work, and it has served as a wakeup call for those who hold the government responsible.
I think she's right. The recession has left millions wondering where they will find a job, how to provide for their families, and for some, where their next meal will come from. It doesn't take a PhD in Psychology to walk through crowds like these and sense that they are largely motivated by fear. Fanatical distrust, as I have called it in the past, in the face of an unsure future.
So I'm tempted to do what I have in the past, and explain away this irrational fear as an understandable reaction to the unfortunate economic conditions in our country. I'm tempted to assume that the extremist manifestations of this fear are held by a very small portion of America. That their extreme libertarian tendencies had little impact on the 2008 election, that this is simply my generation's round of populism, and that historically populism has had little impact on policy.
But these protests provoked me to feel that the fear we face today might be just a little bit deeper than that. Fox News is now the number one cable news channel in the country, with more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and in my opinion it is a menacing source of blatant fear mongering, the greatest fountain of unbridled propaganda in the United States today. The top five TV and radio news programs in the country include The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck—men who are all hell-bent on portraying Obama and the left as an evil, racist, socialist, communist, moronic group of tyrants. Glenn Beck's incoherent conspiracy theories about the slightest hints of progressivism leading us on a death trail to fascism and socialism are so laughable that I try my best to ignore him, but can I when he sells fear so well that it reaches into the homes of three million Americans every weeknight?
There is no question that the vitriol created by this group has derailed our national political conversation—the recent health care legislation is a perfect example. I took pains to analyze the ideas of both parties over the last year, and consequently I believe there are a lot of problems with the bill. But there are no death panels in it. No plans to euthanize seniors. No government takeovers. No epic spending increases. Nothing that will increase cancer rates. No federal funding for abortion. There are, however, Republican ideas in the bill. But you'd never know any of this listening to the right. Legitimate concerns about the legislation have been pushed aside by whining and screaming and outright lies.
Three years ago the Republican party claimed that a president sending soldiers into a very unpopular war was a sign of conviction and integrity. Now they're claiming that a president signing a bill which 48% of the public does not support (many because they don't think the legislation is liberal enough) is a sign of tyranny. Can that kind of insincerity be reconciled with real debate?
Yet the Tea Party grows even darker. I've written here before that I feel they are motivated by an aversion to President Obama himself. At one point during our time at the protest, a young black counter-protester whose mother had been diagnosed with cancer in November appeared and started chanting, "Save the bill!" After a while an argument ensued, which was broken up by the police after a protester yelled back, "You should like this bill, 'cause your kind are the ones that get all the abortions!" Later I learned that the group had yelled racial slurs at some black Congressmen, including Georgia Representative John Lewis—who still has the scars on his head from the fractured skull he suffered at the hands of the Alabama Police in the marches on Selma and Montgomery during the Civil Rights era.
I know I should not answer fear with fear. I know I should not let actions like these overwhelm my perception of the party of Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower. But good grief they have the nation's most popular news channel, most popular news and radio programs, a former Vice Presidential candidate, and the ability to convince 100% of the Republicans on the hill to avoid every opportunity of bipartisanship from a center-left administration and vote in one giant block against major legislation while screaming about their newfound love of liberty in the face of tyrannical straw men. At times it is hard to feel the Tea Party has no influence.
It was especially hard to feel this at dusk on Saturday evening, when five Republican representatives from rural Midwestern districts stood on the Capitol steps grinning, leading prayers, and giving prom-queen waves while shouting compliments into a megaphone to the "true Americans" on the ground. It was a spectacle ripped from the pages of every classic political novel—the greasy Congressmen trading fear and flattery for some political capital to spend in November as the sun set behind the dome. A dark scene—dark enough to make a guy feel that despite my concerns about the bill, there is some comfort to be had in the knowledge that this madding crowd went home disappointed.
I went in expecting craziness, expecting that people who hated a relatively middle-of-the-road health care reform bill enough to travel to D.C. and protest it all weekend were going to be a little extreme. But I admit I did not expect to be as affected by the experience as I was.
The signs and chants were what you might expect: "Hands Off My Medicare!," "USA: Under Socialist Attack," "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire," "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies," "Spreading the Wealth Since 1917: Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and Obama," and "I Drove My Pickup Truck." What you might not expect is that some of them were signed by U.S. Representatives:
At one point a crowd of hundreds took to their knees to say the Lord's Prayer, while a guy in the front held up a copy of the U.S. Constitution. The utter sacrilege in that theocratic moment appalled me. At another point a Representative from Indiana stood on the hood of a car and warned the crowd about the poisonous contents of the bill, about the dangers of a President chiding the Supreme Court (an action, I may note, that President Reagan took as well), about Nancy Pelosi addressing her fellow Democrats as "comrades." I could almost hear the lines from my high school performance in The Music Man running in the background ("Heed that warning before it's too late! Watch for the tell-tale signs of corruption!").
As I walked through the crowd, the question that kept burning in my gut was where these passionate small-government folks were two years ago? Where was their concern for fiscal responsibility when Bush set fire to our balanced budget with two wars, a Medicare expansion, an expensive education reform program, and a huge tax cut—all of which were individually much more expensive than this health care legislation? Where was their respect for civil liberties when the Bush Administration tapped phones without a warrant, created the Patriot Act, and tortured prisoners of war? Where was their love of limited government when Bush launched an interventionist war and increased the size of government more than any other president since LBJ? After a while I couldn't take it any longer, and I started asking the protesters.
The first few either had no answer, or claimed that the problem wasn't as big as it is now, which is just blatantly false. But then I struck up a conversation with a quiet mother who gave me an answer which had some weight to it: the recession. The recession has put 10% of the country out of work, and it has served as a wakeup call for those who hold the government responsible.
I think she's right. The recession has left millions wondering where they will find a job, how to provide for their families, and for some, where their next meal will come from. It doesn't take a PhD in Psychology to walk through crowds like these and sense that they are largely motivated by fear. Fanatical distrust, as I have called it in the past, in the face of an unsure future.
So I'm tempted to do what I have in the past, and explain away this irrational fear as an understandable reaction to the unfortunate economic conditions in our country. I'm tempted to assume that the extremist manifestations of this fear are held by a very small portion of America. That their extreme libertarian tendencies had little impact on the 2008 election, that this is simply my generation's round of populism, and that historically populism has had little impact on policy.
But these protests provoked me to feel that the fear we face today might be just a little bit deeper than that. Fox News is now the number one cable news channel in the country, with more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined, and in my opinion it is a menacing source of blatant fear mongering, the greatest fountain of unbridled propaganda in the United States today. The top five TV and radio news programs in the country include The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck—men who are all hell-bent on portraying Obama and the left as an evil, racist, socialist, communist, moronic group of tyrants. Glenn Beck's incoherent conspiracy theories about the slightest hints of progressivism leading us on a death trail to fascism and socialism are so laughable that I try my best to ignore him, but can I when he sells fear so well that it reaches into the homes of three million Americans every weeknight?
There is no question that the vitriol created by this group has derailed our national political conversation—the recent health care legislation is a perfect example. I took pains to analyze the ideas of both parties over the last year, and consequently I believe there are a lot of problems with the bill. But there are no death panels in it. No plans to euthanize seniors. No government takeovers. No epic spending increases. Nothing that will increase cancer rates. No federal funding for abortion. There are, however, Republican ideas in the bill. But you'd never know any of this listening to the right. Legitimate concerns about the legislation have been pushed aside by whining and screaming and outright lies.
Three years ago the Republican party claimed that a president sending soldiers into a very unpopular war was a sign of conviction and integrity. Now they're claiming that a president signing a bill which 48% of the public does not support (many because they don't think the legislation is liberal enough) is a sign of tyranny. Can that kind of insincerity be reconciled with real debate?
Yet the Tea Party grows even darker. I've written here before that I feel they are motivated by an aversion to President Obama himself. At one point during our time at the protest, a young black counter-protester whose mother had been diagnosed with cancer in November appeared and started chanting, "Save the bill!" After a while an argument ensued, which was broken up by the police after a protester yelled back, "You should like this bill, 'cause your kind are the ones that get all the abortions!" Later I learned that the group had yelled racial slurs at some black Congressmen, including Georgia Representative John Lewis—who still has the scars on his head from the fractured skull he suffered at the hands of the Alabama Police in the marches on Selma and Montgomery during the Civil Rights era.
I know I should not answer fear with fear. I know I should not let actions like these overwhelm my perception of the party of Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower. But good grief they have the nation's most popular news channel, most popular news and radio programs, a former Vice Presidential candidate, and the ability to convince 100% of the Republicans on the hill to avoid every opportunity of bipartisanship from a center-left administration and vote in one giant block against major legislation while screaming about their newfound love of liberty in the face of tyrannical straw men. At times it is hard to feel the Tea Party has no influence.
It was especially hard to feel this at dusk on Saturday evening, when five Republican representatives from rural Midwestern districts stood on the Capitol steps grinning, leading prayers, and giving prom-queen waves while shouting compliments into a megaphone to the "true Americans" on the ground. It was a spectacle ripped from the pages of every classic political novel—the greasy Congressmen trading fear and flattery for some political capital to spend in November as the sun set behind the dome. A dark scene—dark enough to make a guy feel that despite my concerns about the bill, there is some comfort to be had in the knowledge that this madding crowd went home disappointed.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Quotes: Belief, Love, and Achieving Everything
"It's time to believe in what you know." Alexi Murdoch via Anna
"Love is about surrender." Miska Collier
"Let nothing perturb you, nothing frighten you. All things pass. God does not change. Patience achieves everything." Mother Teresa via Erin Smith
"Love is about surrender." Miska Collier
"Let nothing perturb you, nothing frighten you. All things pass. God does not change. Patience achieves everything." Mother Teresa via Erin Smith
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Secret to Saving Journalism? iTunes.
Two years ago I wrote here that music should be free. I wrote that online piracy cannot be stopped. That DRM would die. That RIAA would give up on suing supposed pirates. That the big labels would dwindle. That technology would advance to a point where compression would no longer be needed, and CD quality music would be easily and freely shared online.
Most of that has come true. DRM is dead. The RIAA has stopped suing its customers. We are much closer to a world where MP3 compression isn't needed. But as a result of these events coming to pass, I've started buying DRM-free music on iTunes. I've started experiencing what everybody has been talking about since Apple launched the iTunes store—just how easy it is to buy music online these days. It turns out Steve Jobs was absolutely right, as he has been so many times in the past: when compared with all the dangers of downloading unlicensed music—viruses, wait times, lost connections, mislabeled files—it's much easier to pay for music online than it is not to, thanks to Apple (and a few latecomers like Amazon.com). Apple's greatest genius wasn't an MP3 player with a gigabyte of storage or a free piece of software (iTunes) that sold lots of hardware (iPods)—it was making paying for something easier than not paying for it.
Consequently I'm no longer sure that music should be completely free. If corporations stop taking legal action against file sharers and instead provide them with a better alternative, perhaps we can choose a third road between throwing "music pirates" in jail and letting everyone freely duplicate and distribute music over the internet. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I now find myself hoping that online apps like Grooveshark, which make it easy to avoid paying for online music, will get shut down. Studies have shown that people who download the most illegal music also buy the most legal music online. The key is making it easier for them to buy.
Perhaps this is the key for print journalism too. Print journalism is hurting because of the advent of the internet. Online news is now more popular than newspapers in the U.S. Getting the New York Times for free online makes people wonder why they should buy the cow when they get the milk for free. Paying for journalism online isn't easy. So what if someone made an iTunes store for news?
Imagine a piece of software that allows you to read articles from all your favorite newspapers, sort of like Google Reader but more powerful and easier to use. Articles show up in this app in their entirety; you don't have to go to the paper's annoying, ad-laden website to read it. You can purchase newspaper subscriptions for a small cost, and you get all the paper's content in your app with no ads whatsoever. The app itself is free.
Imagine this app is available everywhere: on your computer, on the web, on your phone, on your Kindle, everywhere. Imagine you can share and discuss articles with friends who have the app. Friends who aren't subscribed to a certain newspaper won't be able to read the articles you share with them from that paper more than once or after a certain period of time. Imagine you can integrate other free sources of information into the app, like blogs or other RSS feeds.
An app like this may already be in the works behind closed doors at Apple for debut on the iPad at some point in the future. And at least one company I know of—journalismonline.com—has already started on a quest to create something similar. The big question is whether customers are willing to pay enough for this app to make it worthwhile for newspapers. A Pew research study recently found that only 7% of American internet users said they would be willing to pay for online news. But many people, including myself, used to say they'd never pay for music online either. I'm willing to bet an iTunes-level innovation would change their minds. My wallet is ready.
Note: Much of the shift in my views on copyright can also be attributed to Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a fantastic book on intellectual property in the modern era, which is available appropriately and completely free here.
Image: Capt Kodak
Most of that has come true. DRM is dead. The RIAA has stopped suing its customers. We are much closer to a world where MP3 compression isn't needed. But as a result of these events coming to pass, I've started buying DRM-free music on iTunes. I've started experiencing what everybody has been talking about since Apple launched the iTunes store—just how easy it is to buy music online these days. It turns out Steve Jobs was absolutely right, as he has been so many times in the past: when compared with all the dangers of downloading unlicensed music—viruses, wait times, lost connections, mislabeled files—it's much easier to pay for music online than it is not to, thanks to Apple (and a few latecomers like Amazon.com). Apple's greatest genius wasn't an MP3 player with a gigabyte of storage or a free piece of software (iTunes) that sold lots of hardware (iPods)—it was making paying for something easier than not paying for it.
Consequently I'm no longer sure that music should be completely free. If corporations stop taking legal action against file sharers and instead provide them with a better alternative, perhaps we can choose a third road between throwing "music pirates" in jail and letting everyone freely duplicate and distribute music over the internet. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I now find myself hoping that online apps like Grooveshark, which make it easy to avoid paying for online music, will get shut down. Studies have shown that people who download the most illegal music also buy the most legal music online. The key is making it easier for them to buy.
Perhaps this is the key for print journalism too. Print journalism is hurting because of the advent of the internet. Online news is now more popular than newspapers in the U.S. Getting the New York Times for free online makes people wonder why they should buy the cow when they get the milk for free. Paying for journalism online isn't easy. So what if someone made an iTunes store for news?
Imagine a piece of software that allows you to read articles from all your favorite newspapers, sort of like Google Reader but more powerful and easier to use. Articles show up in this app in their entirety; you don't have to go to the paper's annoying, ad-laden website to read it. You can purchase newspaper subscriptions for a small cost, and you get all the paper's content in your app with no ads whatsoever. The app itself is free.
Imagine this app is available everywhere: on your computer, on the web, on your phone, on your Kindle, everywhere. Imagine you can share and discuss articles with friends who have the app. Friends who aren't subscribed to a certain newspaper won't be able to read the articles you share with them from that paper more than once or after a certain period of time. Imagine you can integrate other free sources of information into the app, like blogs or other RSS feeds.
An app like this may already be in the works behind closed doors at Apple for debut on the iPad at some point in the future. And at least one company I know of—journalismonline.com—has already started on a quest to create something similar. The big question is whether customers are willing to pay enough for this app to make it worthwhile for newspapers. A Pew research study recently found that only 7% of American internet users said they would be willing to pay for online news. But many people, including myself, used to say they'd never pay for music online either. I'm willing to bet an iTunes-level innovation would change their minds. My wallet is ready.
Note: Much of the shift in my views on copyright can also be attributed to Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a fantastic book on intellectual property in the modern era, which is available appropriately and completely free here.
Image: Capt Kodak
Tags:
Music,
News,
Predictions,
Sci-Tech
Monday, March 22, 2010
Piano, Improv, and the Internet: All My Favorite Things in One YouTube Phenomenon
You know what this blog doesn't have enough of? Stupid internet videos. Politics, religion, technology, quotes, getting my mind blown by five things every week... this blog can get a little too serious, even for me.
So here's a little piece of internet ephemera to lighten the mood. You may have heard of the latest internet sensation, Chatroulette. It's a website that instantly connects you to a random stranger to video chat with. It's just new and dumb enough to have caused the media to jump on it, afraid of missing the next big tech thingamabob.
Two weeks ago one clever musician decided to put his laptop in front of his piano and improvise songs about the people he met on Chatroulette. The results were so hilarious that the magnificent Ben Folds decided to join in the fun at one of his shows in Charlotte, in part because he bears such a strong resemblance to the original Chatroulette improviser I'm sure.
Piano? Improv? The Internet? Ben Folds? This has my name all over it. Here are the hilarious videos. Be forewarned, they contain some language.
Of course, Congress did just pass historic health care legislation a little while ago. More on that to come later this week...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Top 5 Things Which Have Recently Blown My Mind
1. Teddy Roosevelt, the most badass president of all time, once gave a speech with an undressed bullethole in his chest.
2. Companies that make software to help you do your taxes actually lobby the government to make tax forms harder to complete. Jerks.
3. You have to earn 2.5 times as much to be as happy working for someone else as you would be working for yourself.
4. Couples who met on eHarmony accounted for 2% of all U.S. marriages in 2007.
5. I grew up near America's gayest city.
Bonus thing: North Korea at night.
2. Companies that make software to help you do your taxes actually lobby the government to make tax forms harder to complete. Jerks.
3. You have to earn 2.5 times as much to be as happy working for someone else as you would be working for yourself.
4. Couples who met on eHarmony accounted for 2% of all U.S. marriages in 2007.
5. I grew up near America's gayest city.
Bonus thing: North Korea at night.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Thirty Thoughts on American Health Care, Part II
This post is Part II of my post series Thirty Thoughts on American Health Care. Here is Part I, which contains an introduction as well as thoughts 1–15.
16. The United Kingdom has a "socialized" health care system, in which all doctors are government employees. Canada has a "single-payer" system, in which all health care is run by private industry but it is paid for completely by the government. President Obama and the current bill do not advocate adopting either system.
17. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a health care reform bill that is very similar to what the Democrats have proposed for the nation; it includes mandated coverage, a penalty for not having coverage, an insurance exchange, and provides free or subsidized care for those who cannot afford it. The number of uninsured Massachusetts residents dropped to around 5% as a result of the bill, but the cost of the program has been much larger than projected. It is notable that though it was seldom mentioned in the 2008 presidential campaign, Governor Mitt Romney signed the bill into law.
18. One unique and effective health care system that many people have looked to for reform ideas in the last year exists in Sweden, where private insurers are required to offer coverage to all citizens, regardless of age or medical history. Those people, in turn, are obligated to buy health insurance. This results in a system with more coverage and less costs than the U.S. system, all without the stigma of government run or funded health care.
19. Some analysts argue that Obama's health care plan is at least as conservative as Richard Nixon's.
20. The Congressional Budget Office (an independent, trustworthy group which predicts the future costs of proposed bills) agrees with Obama that despite Republican claims to the contrary, the current health care bill will reduce the deficit, in stark contrast to past Republican policies such as the Bush tax cuts. However, the current bill relies on members of Congress to approve very large tax increases and cuts to Medicare reimbursements, which are so politically unpopular that they are very unlikely to actually happen. Republicans have been touting tort reform (limits on medical malpractice lawsuits) as an important component in reducing health care costs, but the CBO found that it would only reduce national health care spending by 0.5%.
21. Even though most Americans support the idea of a public option, it now appears very unlikely to make it into the final bill. As a counter-measure, Democrats have proposed allowing seniors to buy into Medicare. How this is going to keep from ballooning the deficit by adding members to a system that is already killing us financially is lost on me.
22. One of the least-talked about but perhaps most important reforms proposed is the creation of health insurance exchanges.
23. There is substantial evidence that the current bill will cover more of the uninsured and will not have a massive impact on the deficit. However, there is also evidence that it will not fundamentally reform the health care system, leaving problems like the disconnect between patients/doctors and costs untouched. Consequently, there's a good chance it will not significantly curb health care costs in the future.
24. In case you didn't know, all those "death panel" accusations made by Palin and friends were a bunch of baloney. So are the claims some politicians (such as Congressman Mike Rogers) have made that the current health care bill will decrease cancer survival rates for women in the U.S.
25. Many Republicans have called for an end to state barriers for health insurance—ridding the country of laws which require you to get health insurance in your state to increase competition. This was also a part of John McCain's health care plan in '08. Democrats fear that if such a reform were to take place, the large insurance companies would all set up shop in the state with the least regulations, further crapifying American health care.
26. One element of the current bill is the "Cadillac Tax," which proposes to tax wealthy health care plans and encourage businesses to find cheaper plans for their employees. Some economists think this will result in better wages and better care for employees.
27. Do not count on any member of Congress reading any health care bill they do or do not pass.
28. I am pretty concerned about the effect of the current bill's requirement that businesses provide health care for employees. I spoke to a former small business owner last month who said she never would have been able to keep her doors open if she had been given such a requirement. In fact, many have speculated that Wal-Mart's support of the employee health insurance mandate is an effort to drive smaller businesses out of business. On the other hand, Hawaii has had such a mandate since 1974, and small businesses there don't seem to be floundering because of it.
29. Last year, Nancy Pelosi said, "I think we would do almost anything to pass a health care bill." Isn't that a little concerning?
30. Then there's the politics. A lot of folks out there are saying Obama overreached, that he tried to do too much too fast (health care overhaul in a recession??), that he overestimated his abilities. I disagree. I think Obama's mistake was not in trying to do too much, but placing too much faith in Congress and allowing the far-right to steal the conversation. Obama's expectation that Congress could create and pass a massive bill like this in six months in a bitterly divided political climate was wishful thinking. He should have known better. And as much as centrists like me love to hear his measured, thoughtful approaches to issues, his abandonment of his campaign fervor left the doors wide open for the crazies to rush in with their "death panel" and "socialism" claims. Health care reform is the change Obama promised, it is something that we should all have the audacity to hope for. The country needed to hear a message of strength like that to diffuse the screaming on the right. It didn't, and now the bill is in the hands of a handful of Democrats who are scared stiff of the November elections and a public which doesn't support it.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Thirty Thoughts on American Health Care, Part I
Ugh, health care. Don't you feel the same way at this point? Our country has been talking about the issue for a year now and I can't say I'm much closer to fully understanding the problem, much less the potential solutions, than I was last March. However I have ingested quite a lot of information. So in the absence of understanding, I thought I'd share some of the most interesting things I've learned and opinions I've gathered, and maybe it will help you on the road to figuring out what you support. Then maybe you can let me know!
I've cataloged these ideas into thirty shorty snippets, most of which have links for further reading. These links are not articles I just googled and then cut-and-pasted. I have read every article linked to in this post, and I recommend them. In fact, the two This American Life episodes linked to in this post are probably the most intriguing pieces I've found on the American health care experiment. This stuff can be painfully, painfully boring and these episodes aren't. I highly recommend them.
Because thirty items is a lot for one blog post, I've decided to split this post into two parts with fifteen ideas each. Part I is below; I'll post Part II on Monday.
1. The U.S. spends a larger percentage of its GDP (16%) on health care than any other country in the world (50% more than any other country, actually), yet the World Health Organization ranks our health system at 37th—the lowest ranking in the developed world and below such countries as Colombia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Compared to other countries, we get a less effective system for our money.
British Medical Journal: Health care in US ranks lowest among developed countries
CNN: Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed
WHO: World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
2. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country that does not ensure that all citizens have health care coverage.
Wikipedia: Health care in the United States
3. Though some are skeptical of the results, a study found that medical costs were the leading cause of bankruptcy (62% of all bankruptcies) in 2007.
Consumer Reports Health: Health care related bankruptcy is on the rise, study says
4. The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million Americans lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007, or about 15% of the population. However, there are factors that may cause that number to be misleading, such as the fact that 20% of the uninsured make over $75,000 a year.
Factcheck.org: The 'Real' Uninsured
5. Some have speculated that health care costs—not deficits, debts, or bailouts—are what will cause a financial collapse in America's future. From 2000 to 2006, the cost of family coverage rose 87% while consumer prices rose 18% and the pay of workers increased 20%. At the current rate of growth, in nine years the average American family will pay $38,000 per year for health care. However, costs in other countries (such as the "socialized medicine" U.K.) are rising faster.
Times Online: Health care, not bailouts, could break America
NYT: Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as Inflation
BusinessWeek: Where are Health care Costs Rising the Fastest?
6. There is an economics concept called "Baumol's cost disease," after NYU economist William J. Baumol, which states that because the need for labor in the health care industry is fixed but wages are not, there is no way to slow health care costs so that they increase more slowly than inflation.
7. Health care costs are the single greatest contributor to rising government spending, because they contribute directly to the big three entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For the past thirty years, health care costs have been outpacing per-capita GDP growth by 2%. If Republicans are serious about reigning in deficits, they need to be serious about health care reform. Waiting for the recession to end is no excuse, it is not a long-term contributor to rising deficits in comparison.
I've cataloged these ideas into thirty shorty snippets, most of which have links for further reading. These links are not articles I just googled and then cut-and-pasted. I have read every article linked to in this post, and I recommend them. In fact, the two This American Life episodes linked to in this post are probably the most intriguing pieces I've found on the American health care experiment. This stuff can be painfully, painfully boring and these episodes aren't. I highly recommend them.
Because thirty items is a lot for one blog post, I've decided to split this post into two parts with fifteen ideas each. Part I is below; I'll post Part II on Monday.
1. The U.S. spends a larger percentage of its GDP (16%) on health care than any other country in the world (50% more than any other country, actually), yet the World Health Organization ranks our health system at 37th—the lowest ranking in the developed world and below such countries as Colombia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Compared to other countries, we get a less effective system for our money.
British Medical Journal: Health care in US ranks lowest among developed countries
CNN: Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed
WHO: World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
2. The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized country that does not ensure that all citizens have health care coverage.
Wikipedia: Health care in the United States
3. Though some are skeptical of the results, a study found that medical costs were the leading cause of bankruptcy (62% of all bankruptcies) in 2007.
Consumer Reports Health: Health care related bankruptcy is on the rise, study says
4. The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million Americans lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007, or about 15% of the population. However, there are factors that may cause that number to be misleading, such as the fact that 20% of the uninsured make over $75,000 a year.
Factcheck.org: The 'Real' Uninsured
5. Some have speculated that health care costs—not deficits, debts, or bailouts—are what will cause a financial collapse in America's future. From 2000 to 2006, the cost of family coverage rose 87% while consumer prices rose 18% and the pay of workers increased 20%. At the current rate of growth, in nine years the average American family will pay $38,000 per year for health care. However, costs in other countries (such as the "socialized medicine" U.K.) are rising faster.
Times Online: Health care, not bailouts, could break America
NYT: Health Care Costs Rise Twice as Much as Inflation
BusinessWeek: Where are Health care Costs Rising the Fastest?
6. There is an economics concept called "Baumol's cost disease," after NYU economist William J. Baumol, which states that because the need for labor in the health care industry is fixed but wages are not, there is no way to slow health care costs so that they increase more slowly than inflation.
7. Health care costs are the single greatest contributor to rising government spending, because they contribute directly to the big three entitlement programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For the past thirty years, health care costs have been outpacing per-capita GDP growth by 2%. If Republicans are serious about reigning in deficits, they need to be serious about health care reform. Waiting for the recession to end is no excuse, it is not a long-term contributor to rising deficits in comparison.
8. Researchers have found that the cost of health care varies enormously between states, but there is no obvious connection between expensive care and better outcomes. A research group at Dartmouth has found that some medical procedures vary widely by geography—for instance, in the mid-70's, women below the age of 70 in Lewiston, Maine had a 70% chance of having a hysterectomy. However, women in Lewiston appeared to be in no greater health than women from surrounding areas where the procedure was less common. It appears that certain expensive procedures become in vogue for doctors and patients, with little actual effect on health. It's a troubling fact that has tremendous implications for health care reform.
This American Life: More Is Less
9. It seems to me that a—if not the—fundamental problem causing the soaring health care costs in the U.S. is not health insurance companies, but the fact that doctors and patients are completely disconnected from the costs associated with the treatment they get. If a doctor prescribes or a patient demands a treatment, there is almost no consequence to these parties for the cost of the treatment—it's handled by the patient's insurer. There is no incentive for patients or doctors to cut costs. When I had a kidney stone last year, my doctor ordered a CT scan even though she was absolutely sure from my classic symptoms that my diagnosis was a kidney stone. She ordered the test just to be safe, and I didn't question her. Why would I? Neither her nor I had any incentive to avoid the test.
9. It seems to me that a—if not the—fundamental problem causing the soaring health care costs in the U.S. is not health insurance companies, but the fact that doctors and patients are completely disconnected from the costs associated with the treatment they get. If a doctor prescribes or a patient demands a treatment, there is almost no consequence to these parties for the cost of the treatment—it's handled by the patient's insurer. There is no incentive for patients or doctors to cut costs. When I had a kidney stone last year, my doctor ordered a CT scan even though she was absolutely sure from my classic symptoms that my diagnosis was a kidney stone. She ordered the test just to be safe, and I didn't question her. Why would I? Neither her nor I had any incentive to avoid the test.
10. To connect patients more directly with the cost of their health care, many people feel that the employer-based health insurance system (which currently covers 59% of the population) needs to be ended. This would also keep an employee's health insurance coverage stable when an he/she changes jobs (which happens much more often than it has in the past). It hurts our economy when people choose not to change jobs because they're scared of losing health coverage. Ending employer-based health insurance tax subsidies was part of John McCain's health care proposal when he ran for president, but I think the inadequate tax credit he offered to make up the costs hurt him pretty badly.
11. While ending employer-based health insurance would connect patients closer with costs, it may also hurt the quality of the health insurance plans available. Health insurance companies prefer employer-based care because when a company purchases a group policy, it is required by law to enroll every employee. The health insurance company gets all the healthy employees with all the unhealthy ones, which creates a risk pool, giving the company a much safer bet that it's going to make money than if it just insured an individual. Individuals tend to look for care when they get sick, employees get care when they start work. Therefore health insurance companies can provide better care at better rates for group insurance. Ending the tax subsidy will by design increase the number of individual policies and decrease group policies, potentially decreasing the overall quality of the plans in the market. However, if insurance coverage was mandated for every citizen, this could possibly be avoided.
12. Two health care reforms that have substantial bipartisan support are strengthening laws against denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and stopping a practice called rescission, in which an insurance company digs up a reason to drop coverage for a particularly expensive patient (one who is requiring more than the average amount of care). This practice gets to the heart of the ugly truth about health insurance: health insurance companies have a lot to gain from denying very sick people coverage. And many times they do, as explained by former health care executive Wendell Potter.
13. Despite Obama's claims to the contrary, insurance companies in the U.S do not have exorbitant profit margins. Health insurance is the 87th most profitable industry in the U.S. The pharmaceutical industry is much more profitable than the health insurance industry, and has contributed to health care costs in America by pushing expensive drugs on patients, but the president has been silent about curbing costs there.
14. Many months ago I heard a representative from an organization of health insurance companies explain the need for a coverage mandate on the radio, and I thought her argument was strong. She said that if health insurance companies are required to accept everyone and cannot discriminate because of pre-existing conditions, this will encourage people to only purchase coverage when they're sick, which would destroy a system that's built on the idea of the healthy paying for the unhealthy—or at least send costs skyrocketing. She argued the most effective way to prevent this is to mandate that all people have health insurance, like we do car insurance for drivers. This way young, healthy people who can afford coverage cannot escape paying into the system until they're older, and will help bring costs down. Made sense to me, and apparently it now does to Obama as well, despite disagreeing with Hilary's support for a mandate in the '08 campaign.
15. Besides the problem of how to allow for those who cannot afford coverage, it appears to me that the danger of mandated health insurance is that a few companies own the vast majority of private plans in the U.S. A mandate would leave the door wide open for these companies to collude and drive up premiums on their customers, who will be fined by the government if they drop their coverage. The Democrat's answer to this is the public option—give people an affordable, government-funded (not government run, despite what the Republicans are screaming) option for them to compete with. What I don't understand is if the public option is cheaper (and since it's funded with public money, I don't see how it wouldn't be—publicly funded care is universally more efficient than private care), why wouldn't everyone (especially employers) switch to it? And if they do, we're stuck with government-funded health insurance. Of course, many folks don't think that would be so bad—especially Canadians, who love their publicly-funded health care so much they voted the guy who created it "the greatest Canadian" ever.
Update: Part II
Image: anolobb
Update: Part II
Image: anolobb
Monday, March 8, 2010
Quotes: Great Minds, Efficient Government, and a Good Deal of Rubbish
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt via Costa
"Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship." Harry S Truman
"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish." Robert Jackson
"Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship." Harry S Truman
"The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish." Robert Jackson
Thursday, March 4, 2010
C-3PO on Your Phone in Ten Years
Today I've got another prediction for this decade: your cell phone will have real-time language translation in the next ten years.
Both Google and Microsoft are working on technologies that will take the words you speak into your cell phone, translate them into another language, and speak those translated words in a synthesized human voice to the person you're calling—doing all of this so fast that there will be no discernible delay in the conversation. Set your phone to translate into German, call your German friend, and have a normal conversation—her in German and you in English. Incredible.
Google has already created software to translate text from one language to another, and it's currently prowling the web, honing its skills by taking in massive amounts of information about language. With an increase processing power and the accuracy of speech-to-text technology, we are going to see a usable, spoken version of this technology come to fruition very soon. Ten years is an overestimate. Some people say it could be as few as two.
Having this technology on your cell phone will pretty much be like having your own C-3PO! All you'll need to do is buy your phone a gold cover and program it to say "we're doomed" in an anxious voice once in a while. Oh—and make sure it's a Droid.
Sources:
Download Squad: Microsoft reveals translating phone
Times Online: Google leaps language barrier with translator phone
Image: Vlad B.
Both Google and Microsoft are working on technologies that will take the words you speak into your cell phone, translate them into another language, and speak those translated words in a synthesized human voice to the person you're calling—doing all of this so fast that there will be no discernible delay in the conversation. Set your phone to translate into German, call your German friend, and have a normal conversation—her in German and you in English. Incredible.
Google has already created software to translate text from one language to another, and it's currently prowling the web, honing its skills by taking in massive amounts of information about language. With an increase processing power and the accuracy of speech-to-text technology, we are going to see a usable, spoken version of this technology come to fruition very soon. Ten years is an overestimate. Some people say it could be as few as two.
Having this technology on your cell phone will pretty much be like having your own C-3PO! All you'll need to do is buy your phone a gold cover and program it to say "we're doomed" in an anxious voice once in a while. Oh—and make sure it's a Droid.
Sources:
Download Squad: Microsoft reveals translating phone
Times Online: Google leaps language barrier with translator phone
Image: Vlad B.
Tags:
Predictions,
Sci-Tech
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Do Yourself a Favor and Buy a Laser Printer
As unlikely as it may seem, one of the best computer tips I ever got came from my mom—who is a wonderful woman, but not the most tech-savvy. After owning several inkjet printers and paying through the nose for years, my mom figured out she could save a ton of money and frustration by buying a laser printer instead.
The ink for inkjet printers is so expensive that they are now being sold like razor blades—manufacturers will sell you an under-priced printer just to get you hooked on ink. Sometimes you can even buy a whole new printer for less money than you can replace the ink cartridges for. Inkjets are also a hellacious pain to use, as this comic hilariously illustrates.
Enter the laser printer. For $100 you can pick up the Brother HL-2140. It's small, reliable, easy to setup and use, and it can churn out 23 pages per minute. Ink costs $30 for a cartridge that will print you 1,500 pages.
Compare that to a pain-in-the-ass, 16 page-per-minute HP Deskjet D1660: the printer is only $30, but the ink is $30 for 600 pages. You'll have made up the price difference after 2,000 pages on the Brother. Oh, and with the Deskjet you'll get 500Mb of HP software attached to the driver to slow down your computer and try to convince you to buy more HP stuff to make up for that $30 price tag.
Now what I haven't told you yet is that color laser printers and ink are pretty expensive. If you go the laser route, you're going to want one that just does black. But here's the thing—you don't need color! You really don't! Let's be real, the pictures you print out of an inkjet printer don't look that great, especially after you've printed a few. If you're like me, you started taking the stuff you really want to look good to a print shop or drugstore years ago. Most of the time you just use color to print everything in dark blue once your black cartridge runs out.
So cut yourself loose! Put your inkjet printer up on Craigslist and go get yourself a fast, money-saving laser printer. Or if you're like most young folks in this world of ubiquitous information access, dump your printer altogether and use your cell phone, email, and the internet to get information where it needs to go. You'll be happy you did.
Image: chaz6.com
The ink for inkjet printers is so expensive that they are now being sold like razor blades—manufacturers will sell you an under-priced printer just to get you hooked on ink. Sometimes you can even buy a whole new printer for less money than you can replace the ink cartridges for. Inkjets are also a hellacious pain to use, as this comic hilariously illustrates.
Enter the laser printer. For $100 you can pick up the Brother HL-2140. It's small, reliable, easy to setup and use, and it can churn out 23 pages per minute. Ink costs $30 for a cartridge that will print you 1,500 pages.
Compare that to a pain-in-the-ass, 16 page-per-minute HP Deskjet D1660: the printer is only $30, but the ink is $30 for 600 pages. You'll have made up the price difference after 2,000 pages on the Brother. Oh, and with the Deskjet you'll get 500Mb of HP software attached to the driver to slow down your computer and try to convince you to buy more HP stuff to make up for that $30 price tag.
Now what I haven't told you yet is that color laser printers and ink are pretty expensive. If you go the laser route, you're going to want one that just does black. But here's the thing—you don't need color! You really don't! Let's be real, the pictures you print out of an inkjet printer don't look that great, especially after you've printed a few. If you're like me, you started taking the stuff you really want to look good to a print shop or drugstore years ago. Most of the time you just use color to print everything in dark blue once your black cartridge runs out.
So cut yourself loose! Put your inkjet printer up on Craigslist and go get yourself a fast, money-saving laser printer. Or if you're like most young folks in this world of ubiquitous information access, dump your printer altogether and use your cell phone, email, and the internet to get information where it needs to go. You'll be happy you did.
Image: chaz6.com
Monday, March 1, 2010
Top 5 Facts that Should Change the World
I finished Jessica William's 50 Facts that Should Change the World 2.0 last weekend. On the whole I wouldn't recommend the book. It's incredibly depressing and the essays Williams writes about each fact are more lamentations and calls to action than actual analysis of the issues. However, I would recommend going to Amazon.com and reading the table of contents; I think you'll get 99% of what I did out of reading the whole thing. The facts are well-researched and documented, not to mention thought-provoking, and they're really what make the book worth it.
Here are the top five facts which enlightened me the most (in no particular order). I have written or will write blog posts on some of these and other facts from the book.
1. Ninety-four percent of the world's executions in 2005 took place in just four countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the USA.
2. Black men born in the US today stand a one in three chance of going to jail.
3. A third of the world's population is at war.
4. There are 27 million slaves in the world today (more than at any other time in human history).
5. More people die each year from suicide than in all the world's armed conflicts.
(Dis)Honorable Mentions:
Every cow in the European Union is subsidized by $2.50 a day. That's more than what 75% of Africans have to live on.
In Kenya, bribery payments make up a third of the average household budget.
Two million girls and women are subjected to female genital mutilation each year.
Some 120,000 women and girls are trafficked into Western Europe every year.
Every day, one in five of the world's population -- some 800 million people -- go hungry.
Here are the top five facts which enlightened me the most (in no particular order). I have written or will write blog posts on some of these and other facts from the book.
1. Ninety-four percent of the world's executions in 2005 took place in just four countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the USA.
2. Black men born in the US today stand a one in three chance of going to jail.
3. A third of the world's population is at war.
4. There are 27 million slaves in the world today (more than at any other time in human history).
5. More people die each year from suicide than in all the world's armed conflicts.
(Dis)Honorable Mentions:
Every cow in the European Union is subsidized by $2.50 a day. That's more than what 75% of Africans have to live on.
In Kenya, bribery payments make up a third of the average household budget.
Two million girls and women are subjected to female genital mutilation each year.
Some 120,000 women and girls are trafficked into Western Europe every year.
Every day, one in five of the world's population -- some 800 million people -- go hungry.
Tags:
Global Issues,
Literature,
Top 5s
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







