Health Care

After hearing and participating in several debates about health care I noticed a rather pervasive trend. In nearly all of the conversations, the topic of wait times came up and the discussion usually ran in one of two ways:

Person 1: If you give everyone health care, wait times will go up.
Person 2: That's not true - wait times for emergency surgery and the like are much lower in nations with universal health care.
Person 1: So you concede that wait times are greater in non-emergency situations.

OR

Person 1: If you give everyone health care, wait times will go up.
Person 2: What does it matter if they wait longer - as long as everyone is covered.

While I find these statements to be factual, I realized that both sides viewed the argument as Person 1 framed it. In both examples - indeed in all of the discussions - the conservative provided the language of the debate, hampering the liberal viewpoint.

The most important part of this realization was that both sides talked about the wait time for scheduled surgeries. This totally misrepresents the liberal's position as it does not take into account all people who need the surgery.


Let us look at some numbers to illustrate my point:
First, let's assume that people choose to schedule surgery appointments upon diagnosis of a need. Second, let's set the average wait time for a scheduled elective surgery X in America at 6 weeks and in Canada at 12 weeks. For a discussion framed in a conservative viewpoint, this is all that is needed to prove that, for surgery X, wait times are longer.

Now, let us say that 100 people in each country are diagnosed with a need for surgery X. In Canada, all 100 people would receive surgery X, with an average of 12 weeks. In the United States, however, a different picture emerges: first, we would have to exclude the ~15 people who do not have insurance, but need the surgery; second, we would have to exclude the ~10 people who did not have insurance that covered such a surgery (the under-insured); third, we would have to exclude the people who could not afford, in time or money, the surgery (a non-zero number, but one I will not guess because I'm too lazy to dig up statistics on such people).

So, less that 75 of the Americans will receive the surgery in an average of 6 weeks, the rest will most likely spend the rest of their lives with a lower quality life due to the lack of care. Assuming that at least 25 of the people denied surgery X live at least an average of 48 weeks (less than a year) after surgery would have been scheduled, the U.S. average wait jumps to 12 weeks (and climbs while those denied live on).


Hopefully this spells out my viewpoint - the wait time from scheduling to surgery is indeed lower in America, but the time from diagnosis to surgery is not only shorter, but more inclusive, in Canada (and other nations with Universal Health Care).

Some news!

First, the good news: Blackwater has been banned from Iraq!

Secondly, an observation: only 8 people have died and 500+ sickened in this peanut butter related market correction. I'm certainly glad we've relaxed our oversight standards over the past 28 years to let the market work unhindered.

Finally, a call to action: while Obama has made an excellent step forward for all discriminated people whom can afford lawyers by signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we must change the way we view personal income. It is outrageous to think that any benefits of keeping one's income secret outweighs the societal advantages of publicly disclosing it.

Indiana Roads

As mentioned in this post:

"Oh, and before I go, might I say that Indiana's road department is just plain bad. When you approach an intersection and see a sign saying "Begin right turn only lane," you shouldn't have to cross over a bike lane to get out of the left turn only lane that appeared instead of the aforementioned (and non-existent) right turn only lane. I would chalk this up to a mistake if this hadn't happened to me in multiple locations over the past few years. This and other experiences lead me to believe that Indiana's road department has a different person work every fifty feet of road way. Merge left after an intersection my ass."

I have proof! (click to enlarge)
Approaching an intersection with a right turn lane that merges through a bike lane:
The next intersection after that one:

Another intersection, after merging right:
So you merge through a bike lane to turn right - standard operating procedure for South Bend. It works as marked here:
But what the hell is going on here? This is the next intersection, and you have to merge through a bike lane to go straight, otherwise you will end up in the left-turn only lane:
I can't wait to be done with Indiana!

Not NPR!

It turns out that NPR is going to have a $25 million shortfall this year. This calls for action! I encourage you to write a letter to your congressperson and senators!

Mine:


My name is [Mopish Jones] and I am proud to say you earned my vote in both the 2006 and 2008 elections. With the economy in trouble, the citizens of this nation and of your constituency have seen congress pass a $700 billion dollar bail-out for the financial sector and have seen the House pass a $14 billion dollar bail-out for the auto industries. With such massive sums being given to failing industries, would it be possible to find $25 million (0.18% of the auto industry bailout) to help offset the funding shortfall of one of America’s jewels, National Public Radio?

In a time of chaos, it is extremely important to keep the public informed. With an audience of 26.4 million listeners a week and, in my opinion, the best journalism available in broadcast media, I believe it would be a travesty to see any loss of service from NPR. In addition to keeping the program “Day to Day” and “News and Notes,” 64 people would be able to stay employed and a possible 21 people would be able to find new employment if the funding shortfall was offset. Finally, if congress were to approve a larger sum, subsequent improvement of obsolete equipment at NPR stations could serve as one facet of a larger infrastructure improvement program, possibly putting thousands of people around the country to work (including many people in Ohio’s sixth district).

Thank you for considering this proposal, I appreciate any and all actions you may take to ensure the continued excellence of National Public Radio.

Link

I've had several arguments about this:

NEW DEAL ECONOMICS

-Mo

My letter to the Editor

Unfortunately for me, my October 28th letter to the editor was not published. It deals with a recent debate over whether or not a progressive income tax/socialism is good. Here it is in full:

As far as socialism goes, I think everybody's lumping two distinct ideas together; collective control of the means of production and distribution of goods is not the same as a progressive income tax.

First of all, wanting a progressive income tax does not automatically make one a socialist (I don't think Adam Smith was a socialist – read "The Wealth of Nations" or "Overtaxed" in Oct 27^th's The New Yorker if you are short on time). Progressive income taxes built this country – during our most productive years (the decades following WWII), we had a 90% tax on the richest Americans. We weren't hurting economically then. Going from 35% to 39% on the highest tax bracket won't hurt us now.

Second, taxes are the cost of a market. National defense, enforcing the rule of law, educating the public, and providing a free flow of information are all goods paid for by taxes in the interest of streamlining the market. Those who receive the most utility from our capitalist society can afford to pay a higher percentage in order to maintain that utility (note: having a population able to participate in the market is a benefit of these goods).

Third, a progressive income tax is useful to deter the concentration of wealth. While it is illegal to have a monopoly, people with enough money can side-step the law or pay to have it changed (I'm just speaking the truth). A progressive income tax does discourage and penalize people, but it does so to protect the free market.

Fourth, liberalism is not socialism. Socialism is strictly an economic system. Socialism is not a dictatorship, it is not a democracy, it is not a tax code, and it is not a worldview. Socialism is a system of explicitly allowing everyone to participate in the decision of how goods are produced and distributed rather than through 'market forces.' In both capitalism and socialism, a person of great stature (political, wealth, etc) has the potential of altering (wrecking) the optimal system.

Fifth (and my final point), I feel it is necessary to bring these "socialist" scare tactics down to scale: if you believe every American should own stock, you're a socialist; if you believe that workers should be allowed to collectively bargain, you're a socialist; if you believe that people should be rewarded for hard work, you're a socialist (creating a direct causation is controlling the distribution of goods – we are currently operating under a slight correlative system); if you believe that CEO's should be responsible to their companies, you're a socialist; if you live in Alaska and like receiving your $3,000/year check, you're a socialist.

So, class realities and liberal/conservative worldviews aside, know what you are talking about; collective control of the means of production and distribution of goods is not the same as a progressive income tax!

One Month Later...

Okay, I realize I haven't been the best of bloggers - I'll try to post something fairly regularly from now on!