I read a quote in a Newsweek article about Iran, which bother me:
Newsweek: Gen. Michael Hayden, the CIA director, has warned the Bush White House that cracking down too harshly on Iranian operatives in Iraq could spark a wider military confrontation with Iran.
Pretending like they aren't there will not make them go away. Allowing them to operate will result in more bombs killing our troops. I don't understand the head in the sand philosphy. The Iranians don't want a wider military confrontation. They threaten it, but in reality they want a slow bleed until the American public gets tired of the war and pulls out.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Embryonic Stem cells still show no progress.
Adult stem cells yet again show progress. You wouldn't know they were adult stem cells again...the media never makes the distinction for you.
Of course the House of Lords (the US Senate) voted to fund embryonic stem cell research which shows no progress. I have a major problem with government funded research regardless of hope. If there is no progress, private organizations will end funding for useless options. However, the government may keep throwing money at a failed therapy for political reasons. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research only legitimizes the abortion industry.
Diabetics using stem-cell therapy have been able to stop taking insulin injections for the first time, after their bodies started to produce the hormone naturally again. In a breakthrough trial, 15 young patients with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes were given drugs to suppress their immune systems followed by transfusions of stem cells drawn from their own blood.
Of course the House of Lords (the US Senate) voted to fund embryonic stem cell research which shows no progress. I have a major problem with government funded research regardless of hope. If there is no progress, private organizations will end funding for useless options. However, the government may keep throwing money at a failed therapy for political reasons. Federal funding of embryonic stem cell research only legitimizes the abortion industry.
WASHINGTON - A stubborn Senate voted Wednesday to ease restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, ignoring President Bush's threat of a second veto on legislation designed to lead to new medical treatments. The 63-34 vote was shy of the margin that would be needed to enact the measure over presidential opposition, despite gains made by supporters in last fall's elections.
"Not every day do we have the opportunity to vote to heal the sick," said Claire McCaskill (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., a senator less than 100 days following a tough 2006 campaign in which the stem cell controversy played a particularly prominent role. "It is a noble cause," she added.
"We're going to use federal money, indirectly or directly, to destroy embryos," countered Sen. Tom Coburn (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., echoing Bush's argument against the measure. Coburn said claims of imminent scientific breakthroughs from embryonic stem cell research are unsubstantiated and that adult stem cells have been shown to be useful in a variety of cases.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
What's Wrong with Healthcare in America
Healthcare in America has gotten ridiculously expensive as I will demonstrate. The "easy" answer to go to government healthcare, like European countries, but this is a worse option.
So my wife went to the hospital to get 5 stitches in her knee. The stitches were sewn by an LPN (a not quite an RN). She also got a teatnus shot. This ended up costing $1320. This took less than 1/2 hour plus 1 1/2 hours waiting.
How on Earth does a half-hour work cost $1320?
To begin the first problem is that you don't know the price until you are done. I think the healthcare industry is the only industry where you do not know the price of something before you get the service. The receptionists "can't tell you." So you have no idea what you are going to be charged. You can't say, "$1320?! I'm going elsewhere!."
Most companies charge as a rate, about 2-3 times what the person is paid per hour. If you take your car to get the transmission fixed and they charge you $70/hr for labor, that means that the mechanic probably gets about $28/hr. Another $28-35 dollars go to overhead (receptionist), the rent, the lights, the accountant, etc. The small balance is profit. Even law firms generally charge 3 times what they pay their lawyers, and they have fancy furniture, expensive subscriptions to LexusNexus, etc.
How much can a shot of teatnus cost? When drug companies come out with a new medication, you can expect the price to be high because you have to pay for the drug development, along with all of the failed drugs. The teatnus vaccine, on the other hand, has been around for a long time. Thus it shouldn't be very expensive. Similarly, the swabs and alcohol should be minimal.
An LPN can't be that expensive. They only need 1 or 2 years of schooling, without any degrees. Hiring lesser trained employees, to do simpler tasks, should reduce the overall cost of healthcare. Perhaps they make $35 / hour. That would be over $65K/year if they worked their standard 36 hour weeks all year.
So if the shots and supplies cost a generous $50, that means the labor rate for an LPN is over $2500/hr. Even if you got billed for a full hour, that is still 36 times the hourly rate!
Now, I took my new kitten to the vet to get a checked out and get all of its shots for about $120. A vet sees the cat. While a vet is lower on a totem poll than a doctor, he requires a lot more school, and hence costs a lot more, than an LPN. So a vet can see a cat, give it shots, and run some other minor tests, for $120.
So the first question people reading this might have, is "Did insurance pay for it?" It shouldn't matter whether "insurance pays for it." (which is hasn't). You either pay for it then or pay for it in premiums... or your company pays for it in premiums which meanst they can't give you as good of a raise. Half the problem with healthcare is that some people don't see the cost directly as cash out of pocket, so they don't care. They only care when rates go up, but that is only at the end of the year. After a few weeks, they stop caring.
The problem is that there is little to regulate demand. If you only have a $25 copay, you might go to the doctor for every sniffle. Then the doctor might recommend an MRI. Since you are only paying $25, you say sure and get the MRI. This all gets billed to the insurance company who, in turn, raises your premiums.
Illegals and degenerates cost the system as well. This attitude would be considered, by some, as "mean" and "cheap." However, if you declare that other person should pay for someone else, that is not generosity. You can't spend other people's money and consider yourself generous. True generosity, would be donating your own money to charities which would pay for other's healthcare.
Lawsuits have also increased the cost of care. If a jury awards $48 million to someone, where do you think that money come from? However, there isn't much risk in doing stitches as there is in surgery. So, stitches, shouldn't carry any cost due to risk.
With government healthcare, it gets worse. It gets hard to regulate demand. Thus you have hypochondriacs who might get seen quickly, but someone who needs heart surgery waits for 18 months. Some have their cancer surgeries pushed back repeatedly until the cancer becomes unoperable. (That's the European way to reduce healthcare costs... let them die!) You also get a quality deteioration. If you compare American hospitals to those in Britian, you will see British hospitals are much dirtier, and have antique equipment.
So what to do?
Make people pay the first, perhaps, $1500 per year, of everything. Cover the rest. There is no reason why people should expect not to pay anything for their healthcare.
Require hospitals to be more upfront with their charges. If you find out your trip to the doctor for a cold might cost you $400, you might wait and see if it gets better on its own. This will also keep the people who are hypochondriacs at bay.
However, you are still covered from the catostrophic accidents or cancer. So for every 1000 people there is 1,500,000 paid in to cover the big claims. At $1500, you can take advantage of risk pooling and handle this.
Allow for tax deductions, regardless of income, AMT, standard deduction, to charities that deal with healthcare. Have "accelerated deductions"... i.e, for every dollar you donate, you can deduct, a $1.25.
Of course, the big problem to overcome, is that many do not want real solutions. They want socialism, and government controlled healthcare.
So my wife went to the hospital to get 5 stitches in her knee. The stitches were sewn by an LPN (a not quite an RN). She also got a teatnus shot. This ended up costing $1320. This took less than 1/2 hour plus 1 1/2 hours waiting.
How on Earth does a half-hour work cost $1320?
To begin the first problem is that you don't know the price until you are done. I think the healthcare industry is the only industry where you do not know the price of something before you get the service. The receptionists "can't tell you." So you have no idea what you are going to be charged. You can't say, "$1320?! I'm going elsewhere!."
Most companies charge as a rate, about 2-3 times what the person is paid per hour. If you take your car to get the transmission fixed and they charge you $70/hr for labor, that means that the mechanic probably gets about $28/hr. Another $28-35 dollars go to overhead (receptionist), the rent, the lights, the accountant, etc. The small balance is profit. Even law firms generally charge 3 times what they pay their lawyers, and they have fancy furniture, expensive subscriptions to LexusNexus, etc.
How much can a shot of teatnus cost? When drug companies come out with a new medication, you can expect the price to be high because you have to pay for the drug development, along with all of the failed drugs. The teatnus vaccine, on the other hand, has been around for a long time. Thus it shouldn't be very expensive. Similarly, the swabs and alcohol should be minimal.
An LPN can't be that expensive. They only need 1 or 2 years of schooling, without any degrees. Hiring lesser trained employees, to do simpler tasks, should reduce the overall cost of healthcare. Perhaps they make $35 / hour. That would be over $65K/year if they worked their standard 36 hour weeks all year.
So if the shots and supplies cost a generous $50, that means the labor rate for an LPN is over $2500/hr. Even if you got billed for a full hour, that is still 36 times the hourly rate!
Now, I took my new kitten to the vet to get a checked out and get all of its shots for about $120. A vet sees the cat. While a vet is lower on a totem poll than a doctor, he requires a lot more school, and hence costs a lot more, than an LPN. So a vet can see a cat, give it shots, and run some other minor tests, for $120.
So the first question people reading this might have, is "Did insurance pay for it?" It shouldn't matter whether "insurance pays for it." (which is hasn't). You either pay for it then or pay for it in premiums... or your company pays for it in premiums which meanst they can't give you as good of a raise. Half the problem with healthcare is that some people don't see the cost directly as cash out of pocket, so they don't care. They only care when rates go up, but that is only at the end of the year. After a few weeks, they stop caring.
The problem is that there is little to regulate demand. If you only have a $25 copay, you might go to the doctor for every sniffle. Then the doctor might recommend an MRI. Since you are only paying $25, you say sure and get the MRI. This all gets billed to the insurance company who, in turn, raises your premiums.
Illegals and degenerates cost the system as well. This attitude would be considered, by some, as "mean" and "cheap." However, if you declare that other person should pay for someone else, that is not generosity. You can't spend other people's money and consider yourself generous. True generosity, would be donating your own money to charities which would pay for other's healthcare.
Lawsuits have also increased the cost of care. If a jury awards $48 million to someone, where do you think that money come from? However, there isn't much risk in doing stitches as there is in surgery. So, stitches, shouldn't carry any cost due to risk.
With government healthcare, it gets worse. It gets hard to regulate demand. Thus you have hypochondriacs who might get seen quickly, but someone who needs heart surgery waits for 18 months. Some have their cancer surgeries pushed back repeatedly until the cancer becomes unoperable. (That's the European way to reduce healthcare costs... let them die!) You also get a quality deteioration. If you compare American hospitals to those in Britian, you will see British hospitals are much dirtier, and have antique equipment.
So what to do?
Make people pay the first, perhaps, $1500 per year, of everything. Cover the rest. There is no reason why people should expect not to pay anything for their healthcare.
Require hospitals to be more upfront with their charges. If you find out your trip to the doctor for a cold might cost you $400, you might wait and see if it gets better on its own. This will also keep the people who are hypochondriacs at bay.
However, you are still covered from the catostrophic accidents or cancer. So for every 1000 people there is 1,500,000 paid in to cover the big claims. At $1500, you can take advantage of risk pooling and handle this.
Allow for tax deductions, regardless of income, AMT, standard deduction, to charities that deal with healthcare. Have "accelerated deductions"... i.e, for every dollar you donate, you can deduct, a $1.25.
Of course, the big problem to overcome, is that many do not want real solutions. They want socialism, and government controlled healthcare.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Falklands, Round II?
Well, now that the British have been branded as weak over their hostage crisis, Argentina may try a 2nd go at getting the Falklands back.
BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Argentina clung to its claim of sovereignty over Britain's Falkland Islands Monday as the two countries marked the 25th anniversary of their war over the small Atlantic islands.
Vice President Daniel Scioli reaffirmed the government's goal of winning control of the Falklands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas, in a speech before war veterans in Ushuaia, the world's southernmost city.
"The war has not changed the reality: the Malvinas are Argentine, they have always been and they always will be," Scioli said in the capital of Tierra del Fuego province, which would oversee the Malvinas.
"We will recover what is ours," he said at the main ceremony marking the anniversary, attended by hundreds of people. Scioli also urged Britain to sit down for negotiations on the islands.
Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said Argentina would continue pressing its case before international bodies.
"We will do so firmly," Taiana said in the southern city of Rio Grande, where thousands of people attended a vigil honoring fallen Argentine soldiers.
President Nestor Kirchner, who decided not to attend the Ushuaia ceremony, has made the Falklands claim a strategic part of his foreign policy since his 2003 election, telling the United Nations he would seek a peaceful track.
Argentina has stepped up pressure in the lead up to the war's anniversary.
Argentina unilaterally canceled a bilateral oil exploration agreement with Britain and announced sanctions against companies exploring in the disputed area.
As much as 60 billion barrels of crude lie in ocean-bed structures around the archipelago, which has been British since 1833.
Britain and Argentina waged a two month war after Argentina's military government, headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri, invaded the remote South Atlantic islands, 480 kilometers (300 miles) off its coast, on April 2, 1982.
More than 900 people died -- including 649 Argentine and 255 British troops and three islanders -- during air, land and sea hostilities.
Some 12,000 kilometers (8,000 miles) away, Britain's then prime minister Margaret Thatcher, whose "Iron Lady" reputation was forged during the crisis, sent in 110 ships and 28,000 military personnel to retake the islands and liberate the around 3,000 inhabitants.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Adult Stem Cells: 50342, Embryonic: 0
Adult stem cells have once again shown potential in creating a heart valve. This brings the score to Adult stem cells 50,342 to embryonic stem cells 0. Adult stem cells are taken from bone marrow. Embryonic stem cells are derived from mashing up a fetus. To date, embryonic stem cellsjavascript:void(0)
Publish have not produced a benefit to anything, but there are those who keep supporting it in a way to justify abortion.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research like to blur the lines between the two. They like to pretend that opponents of embryonic stem cell research do not like all stem cell research. They dupe those who are vulnerable (i.e., Michael J Fox) to believe that a cure is just around the corner if only those evil conservatives would let them mash up a few more babies.
Publish have not produced a benefit to anything, but there are those who keep supporting it in a way to justify abortion.
Proponents of embryonic stem cell research like to blur the lines between the two. They like to pretend that opponents of embryonic stem cell research do not like all stem cell research. They dupe those who are vulnerable (i.e., Michael J Fox) to believe that a cure is just around the corner if only those evil conservatives would let them mash up a few more babies.
A British research team led by the world's leading heart surgeon has grown part of a human heart from stem cells for the first time. If animal trials scheduled for later this year prove successful, replacement tissue could be used in transplants for the hundreds of thousands of people suffering from heart disease within three years...
By using chemical and physical nudges, the scientists first coaxed stem cells extracted from bone marrow to grow into heart valve cells. By placing these cells into scaffolds made of collagen, Dr Chester and his colleague Patricia Taylor then grew small 3cm-wide discs of heart valve tissue. Later this year, that tissue will be implanted into animals - probably sheep or pigs - and monitored to see how well it works as part of a circulatory system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)