RIP King of Pop

Well I can't say I was particularly surprised by the death of Michael Jackson, but it does seem quite surreal. As a small child he was my idol, as an adult, I abhorred him, whether it be the troubling allegations or his reputation of stabbing anyone in the back including his own family. As a Beatles fan, and in particular a McCartney fan his low blows were particularly cold.

His death is a shame. He was such a troubled person, I can't imagine him ever being happy, except for perhaps in the moment. Many people would dismiss him as a monster, and perhaps they are right. But a vicious dog is typically an abused and neglected dog. For the short term, while respect for his family should be important, perhaps in time we will learn more about the origins of MJ's obvious madness. I think it is an important story to be told.

All controversy aside, the fact that the Thriller album has eclipsed the controversy and held on to its power, speaks volumes about his artistic genius.

I am fixated on the coverage, perhaps in a morbid sort of a way, but really, it has just brought back all these memories of dancing in my bedroom as a kid. I feel as though one more tether to my childhood has been severed, and that I had forgotten it was even there.

GOP can't handle the God factor

Get rid of it.
It should have NO bearing on elections in this country.
Politicians are IMMORAL. They strive for power... they lust for power, and most will do whatever it takes to get there. Most are egomaniacs, most are arrogant, most are radically extroverted people. People should NOT be looking to the likes of these creeps for moral guidance, and certainly not for moral legislation.

More corruption from some losers. It hits the GOP harder than it does the Dems, not because of the media bias, but because they hold their noses up in the air and try to pretend that they know all about family values and what "God" wants. The hard Christian right in the GOP are the prudes and the narcs..... the worst type. The type that preaches about the moral decay but secretly indulges in behaviors more deviant than some of the norms that they look down upon.

Politicians do it in general, but the GOP takes "the lord's name in vain" all too frequently. Until this is beaten out of the party, and they stick to the economy and national security they will pay the price... and by relation we ALL will pay the price as the Democrats, as the alternative, take us further and further into the impractical, unrealistic, non-functioning mess that is Socialism.

South Carolina Gov. Sanford admits extramarital affair
"South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, just back from a secret trip to Argentina unknown to his staff or his wife, admitted Wednesday he has carried on an extramarital affair with a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina."

Sanford took taxpayer-funded trip to Argentina last June

GOP Senator John Ensign Admits Affair
"In a speech "to defend the sanctity of marriage and urge passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment Act," on the Senate floor in 2004, Ensign said "marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded.""

Must read info in the continuing health care fiasco

The following article details myths, and then the facts to myth bust.
I posted a sampling below, but please, if you are concerned about this, if you have participated in the debate, please take the time to read this piece by Elizabeth MacDonald. Everything in italics below are included within the article. The text in black represents my own comments.

Health-Care Myths

Myth: “The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs.”

Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.
And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is “unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates,” the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is “likely to be relatively small.”
source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008,

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

This myth is crucial because this is one of the top talking points proponents of Nationalized Care will cite to support their socialist agenda. Contrary to popular belief, hospitals do not turn people away from the emergency room. While chronic afflictions understandably may not be covered as thoroughly for the uninsured, immediate assistance for acute problems are delivered. The education of the public on healthcare is nothing short of abysmal, however it can probably be said that many understand that treatment can be acquired upon visits to the emergency room, regardless of ones ability to pay. So in response to this many liberals will follow up this debunking of the "limited access to care" response with "The costs of covering the uninsured makes everything more expensive for everyone". While undoubtedly there is truth to this, this piece, sourced to a government document, suggests that it is largely overstated.

Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”
Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.
Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).

Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007,

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2007/May/Mirror%20%20Mirror%20on%20the%20Wall%20%20An%20International%20Update%20on%20the%20Comparative%20Performance%20of%20American%20Healt/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final%20pdf.pdf

Nationalized healthcare means poorer quality of care, poorer access to care, at ironically greater cost to everyone due to long term economic ramifications which will result after the installment of such a system.

Myth: “Insurers cover less today than they did in the past.”
No they’re covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers’ personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006.
Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9924/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

There is a bit of a catch-22 to healthcare costs. As new and improved treatments are developed that improve the quality of life for people, it becomes an anticipated necessity for many. Developing medicine, and providing treatment that once was not covered costs money. 15 years ago many providers were still debating whether or not birth control medication should be covered, and I think it should be. But today we have progressed from this to a point where items such as Viagra are being covered. I don't want to get into the debate of whether or not the latter is a necessity. And further more, regardless of whether the treatment represents an issue of quality of life or necessity, medicine is extraordinarily expensive to develop. Pharmaceutical companies use specialized equipment that has very limited production which creates very high costs. You can't take that out of the equation, if you do, you risk stifling or ending medical advancement. Fighting off death costs big bucks, and someone has to pay for it.

One of the primary problems is the egalitarian nature of people. We have been told too long that everyone is special, that we all deserve a chance. What "a chance" means has changed from "the right to compete- the right for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness", per say..... to I deserve help putting food on the table, to I deserve money for my retirement, to I deserve this... I deserve that." The problems in healthcare as well as in social security, medicare, housing, etc., all can be sourced to the notion that we all have the right to have things without necessarily taking proactive efforts to acquire it. We, as a society, take for granted our lives and expect a certain level of comfort, without taking the strategic measures and cautious outlook on life that we need to. Despite what politicians say the only person who can look out for you, is you. Giving big brother the ability to do it for you will make it tougher for you to make sure it gets done right. After all, politicians at the end of the day, know that the only person looking out for them, is themselves.

As medicine expands further into areas that are less about curtailing death and more about improving quality of life, the cost to everyone will go up. Perhaps a fragment of a solution would be offering a standardized base health insurance that seeks only to cover the absolute necessities for people who have fallen on hard times, or for those who just want to save money. The trouble is when a better option exists everyone thinks it is their "right" to have it.

Just because my neighbor has a bigger house doesn't mean I should. Just because someone has a plasma screen TV or an LCD doesn't mean I need one. Just because some people can spend a lot on their hair... doesn't mean everyone should get a government subsidized trip to the salon... even though most will admit that looking good can improve your mental well being and by relation, your health.

Exploitation

Chiming in on this Pop culture phenomenon.

Jon and Kate.... exploiting their kids, abandoning their marriage because they let fame and money get in the way. Disgusting. Even more so, because sadly it is the norm in this hedonistic self centered morally bankrupt nation. It as though it was never about the joy of having the kids for them, but rather it was their ticket to celebrity. I admit I had seen this show, before the fall-out, and back when the kids were toddlers and infants, when it perhaps wasn't quite as questionable as it now has become. I think the biggest issue with this is their apparent refusal to give up the show for the good of their kids. They already should have a ton of money but I suppose once you get a taste you just want more and more.

Related to the destruction and popular disregard of the importance of family.....This column with the subtitle "Is marriage obsolete?" caught my eye.
On marriage: Let’s call the whole thing off

Sandra Tsing Loh discusses her divorce and proceeds to try and make the case that in our modern life "marriage is obsolete". The interesting thing about her piece to me is that it is nothing more than personal weakness and a lack of communication that appears to result in the demise of her surprisingly lengthy 20 year union.

The entry to the article:
"Sadly, and to my horror, I am divorcing. This was a 20-year partnership. My husband is a good man, though he did travel 20 weeks a year for work. I am a 47-year-old woman whose commitment to monogamy, at the very end, came unglued. This turn of events was a surprise. I don’t generally even enjoy men; I had an entirely manageable life and planned to go to my grave taking with me, as I do most nights to my bed, a glass of merlot and a good book. Cataclysmically changed, I disclosed everything. We cried, we bewailed the fate of our children."

Also from her piece:
"Given my staggering working mother’s to-do list, I cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling our romance. Sobered by this failure as a mother — which is to say, my failure as a wife — I’ve since begun a journey of reading, thinking, and listening to what’s going on in other 21st-century American families. And along the way, I’ve begun to wonder, what with all the abject and swallowed misery: Why do we still insist on marriage? Sure, it made sense to agrarian families before 1900, when to farm the land, one needed two spouses, grandparents, and a raft of children. But now that we have white-collar work and washing machines, and our life expectancy has shot from 47 to 77, isn’t the idea of lifelong marriage obsolete?"

To Sandra Tsing Loh fixing her marriage... and by extension, her family is "a project" that apparently takes second place to writing about this very personal event very publically in order to advance her career....
Sandra Tsing Loh's need for in-the-moment pleasure was more important than the family she's created. Plain and simple. Her husband is admittedly a good man who perhaps could and should have been around more, but this apparently was not good enough for Sandra.

People shouldn't be treated as accessories. They aren't cars. They aren't drugs. It is inherent in our nature to want connection and companionship. It is also inherent in our nature to seek pleasure. One of these things offers instant cheap gratification. Another can last a lifetime. One is achieved easily. One is difficult. To me one seems more rewarding, but, alas, what do I know?

Sandra isn't marriage material, she's right about that. Hind sight is 20-20?

It seems to me (naive as I may be) that one of the primary problems is not just a lack of communication, compromise, and selflessness with couples, but it is just an issue of faith. Not the "I believe in paranormal bearded guy in the sky sort of faith", but rather faith in one's self, and faith in their partner. It seems that fear should be natural in marriage... and there is always the unknown, but I do feel that people really have become accustomed to the idea of marriage having a high likelihood of failure. If people feel they have a high likelihood of growing apart to the point of being irreconcilable... then what the hell is the point. The whole point of the union is to grow and adjust with each other... not to wake up with the "you've changed" epiphany. And the weird thing that people can often put differences due to money, or even simply boredom over an almost certain negative impact on their children... I've got to say I really don't get it. I guess its because I'm from one of those freakish anomalies where my parents are happy and love each other after 32 years together, despite many differences and changes in their lives. And I feel really sad for people who are convinced that this does not exist, and that people like my folks must obviously be living a lie. That is a pretty bleak world view... that may almost certainly doom a person to a level of unhappiness that may be tough to overcome, regardless of whether they keep it out in the open, or let it simmer beneath a steel exterior.

Examples of Wedding Vows.... that apparently go largely ignored by people, and sadly can seem to be nothing more than ceremony.

In sickness, I will nurse you back to health. In health, I will encourage you on your path. In sadness, I will help you to remember. In happiness, I will be there make to memories with you. In poverty, I will do all that I can to make our love rich. And in wealth, I will never let our love grow poor.

When you need someone to encourage you, I want it to be me. When you need a helping hand, I want it to be mine. When you long for someone to smile at, turn to me. When you have something to share, share it with me.

Though life may not always be as perfect as it is at this moment, I vow to always keep my love as pure as it is today. I promise to be there for you in your laughter and your tears, in your sickness and your health, in your comfort and your fears, in your poverty and your wealth. I know that our love is heaven sent, and I promise to be there for you for all your life, come what may.

I guess I think that too many people get married for all of the wrong reasons..... and I guess humanity really kind of pisses me off... and I guess, I generally prefer not to think too much about this kind of stuff because it is depressing. But I confess... it is inevitable.

8 kids.... who gets custody? Sheesh.....

To die for the freedom of others

Is a noble cause that is sadly occasionally necessity in this crazy world. Whether it be a soldier abroad fighting for democracy or a protester in a civilian uprising, we all owe a debt of gratitude for these people.

The uprising in Iran is of course complicating, and the political ramifications are certainly unclear. All of this aside, this movement, regardless of whether or not Mirhossein Mousavi represents a substantial improvement over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, represents the voice of the people, a voice that has apparently been muted by an oppressive tyrannical government. The protesters are the voice of a movement that wants to end the hard-line oppressive rule, and free Iran from an ignorant leader who stifles their economy in order to promote religious intolerance above the well being of his own country men and women.

One example of the many martyrs dying for their people.
Neda, young girl brutally killed in Iran, becoming symbol of rebellion

It is good to see civilians of the world rallying behind the Iranian people. It is a shame that our own leader has let his desire to potentially have diplomatic discussion with the despicable Ahmadinejad, stand in the way of more openly supporting a populace that is literally dying to live without fear of oppression.

Gibbs, Gibbs, Gibbs... tsk tsk.

Gibbs Can't Name Countries Where Single-Payer System Works



Interestingly the google results for this topic have changed dramatically over the past couple of weeks. Even when I search specifically for articles I've previously seen showing the low satisfaction of health care in the UK, Canada, and many European countries, where they were previously easy to find.... they are absolutely drowned by commentary and polls promoting Universal Health Care in the U.S. The left has utilized the Internet to effectively mute the opposition. With Obama getting free air time to spread the propaganda from ABC without opposition, with the super-democrat-majority, and with legions of brain washed people who are somehow both satisfied with their care and yet are convinced that it is somehow of poor quality and availability (figure those polls out..), with these assets the left is going to probably finally see their dream come to fruition.

People don't and probably won't get it, even after it is too late. By the time we are really seeing the heavy damage of socialized medicine perhaps there will be another administration to blame for the country's plight.

Probably one of the most amusing items with the most prominent of the Democrat Health plans on the table:

CBO Cost Estimate on Health-Reform Bill: $1T
"The initial estimate -- for parts of a comprehensive reform plan drafted by Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- would spend $1 trillion over 10 years but end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around than a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance."

CBO: Healthcare bill exceeds $1 trillion
"The 10-year cost of reform could approach $2 trillion if the projections are made from the date that proposals are fully implemented. While the projected cost for a new system may reach $1.5 trillion for 2010-2019, it could run significantly higher for 2013-2022, as healthcare costs rise steadily each year."

So a universal health care bill that is potentially going to cost 2 trillion dollars will leave 2/3 of the 47 million people estimated to be uninsured... uninsured? Obviously at the core of Kennedy's heart is a desire to help the people... not to expand government and take more civil liberties and independence from people, and not to create a larger voting base for the party that supports an expansion of government... no, those obviously are not top concerns for these policy makers. Couldn't be further from their minds.

This health care thing sounds REALLY familiar. That's because in some ways George W. Bush already pulled this stunt when he passed the $550 billion medicare bill, at the time the biggest increase in social spending since FDR. Since the bill's initial passing the cost of it has skyrocketed, and that was during a GOOD economy, not the stagnant, and perhaps slowly declining mess our economy has become and will be over the next several years for Obama's masterpiece.

New White House Estimate Lifts Drug Benefit Cost to $720 Billion
Feb. 8 - The Bush administration offered a new estimate of the cost of the Medicare drug benefit on Tuesday, saying it would cost $720 billion in the next 10 years.

The original cost stated by W was 400 billion, so 720 billion represents a 180% increase in cost. In other words, if this health care thing is ANYTHING like W's debacle (and it will be worse...) then at the very least, you can expect Obama's projected 1 trillion cost to be 1.8 trillion. BUT...... the real scary part is Obama is basing his numbers off of statistics that are ALREADY incorrect. 45.7 million uninsured??? Well those are 2007 numbers.

Worst year for jobs since '45 to the tune of 2.6 million jobs
Weak outlook for jobs, GDP in 2009
UCLA report expects 2 million jobs lost, four straight quarters of GDP decline.
"In the report, senior economist David Shulman said the recession will include four quarters of declining real gross domestic product, and unemployment will rise to 8.5% by late 2009 from the 6.7% reported last month."
Hey wait a minute.... its mid 2009 and isn't the unemployment significantly worse than 8.5%?
U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate Forecast
Currently at 9.2%, the forecast here says it may be 10.9% by the end of the year.
So if the original projection of 8.5% represents 2 million jobs, it seems to me that the correct number should actually be an approximation of 2.6 million (again) (of course it would have been much worse without the stimulus package *wink*)
Totalling 5.2 million people who will probably be soon unemployed.... that is likely a modest increase because doesn't count potential family members that they had on their insurance.

So.... 45.7+5.2= 50.9 million MEANING..... The number of uninsured have already increased by 13% also increasing initial cost estimates by this same value.

What also needs to be considered is the ripple effect.... Much like an ecosystem disrupting one thing will have BROAD ramifications in other areas which on the surface may not seem closely connected. Lets list a few.

1) The public alternative that Democrats desire will employ thousands who will have their salary paid for by you and I (regardless of whether we are on the public system... ironic isn't it?). Regulations will favor the public system which will make it more attractive for individuals and businesses to choose it over the private insurance providers. The private companies will ultimately begin laying people off, and while the government may pick up some of those employees, most will be left without income.

2) Rationing. It is already on the table, this is precisely what Barack's 1.7 trillion cost cutting conversation with providers is about. What does it really mean? Well it means less equipment, less tests, less preventative care, less choice for you to choose. Even when you are willing to pay out of your own pocket if push comes to shove... Sans insurance, you won't be able to. Less equipment means a lower quality of health care. Less preventative medicine. More pain, more going without, even if technically you have health care when you once did not. Less equipment means less demand meaning... layoffs... medical suppliers begin laying people off, as do hospitals etc. This will likely happen over time but it means LESS people in the employment force and MORE people that the government will have to insure, further increasing the costs.

3)Medical Advancement dries up. Pressure for low costing prescription drugs, increased regulation over industry, and more lax patent laws becomes the equalizer for one of the last vestiges of a powerhouse that used to be the US economy. High Tech see you later. If we are lucky we'll have a few generics manufacturers pop up, but it is more likely that they'll choose to locate in more favored locations like India and China. This means... YEP you guessed it, More layoffs, less tax revenue, and more people for the government to insure on that wonderful public system that is supposed to create competition. Oh and yes of course it means poorer quality care.

I could go on.... but I think you get the idea. The main reason these ideas don't work is that to collect tax revenue to support a broad social system you need steady income. The problem is the broad social system actually stifles the economy! How is this sustainable? Perhaps we should ask someone from California, or an ex Soviet maybe? Paying people with the money they pay you???? Ooooh my head hurts.

Bunnies!

These critters were out back of my building in our highly manicured lawn munching on some clover. I caught them out of the corner of my eye as I was taking out the trash. At first I dismissed them as squirrels, however with a closer look I discovered they were in fact a couple of hares from the wilds of Melrose. I ran back up stairs to get the camera. One bunny is something I occasionally see, but two bunnies at once? It had to be documented. The thought crossed my mind after I was out there that the two might be out on a hot date, so after taking these few blinding shots with my flash photography I decided to leave the herbivores in peace with their fresh salad buffet.

Hope you enjoyed this political intermission!

The Obama effect(s)

"President Clinton believed in the public sector, but he thought that his responsibility to the long-term fiscal condition of the country ruled out a significant expansion of the government in the economy as a whole," said William A. Galston, a former Clinton policy adviser who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "What is unmistakably clear is that the trajectory of the Obama administration — whether it's four years or eight years in office — will be the reverse."
Obama’s spending plans pose political risks

"June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said."
House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes

Health care debate could derail over gov't plan
One can only hope.....

Hospitals oppose Obama's Medicare, Medicaid cuts

Why won't Palin go away!!!

Could Palin flap be Letterman's Hugh Grant?

"Sarah Palin would no doubt be horrified by the idea, but there's a chance she could become the same boon to David Letterman's career that Hugh Grant was to Jay Leno's."

Miss Out of Touch Alaska is at it again exhibiting everything that is wrong with the GOP. Her criticism of comments in taste made in a forum that specializes in "comments of poor taste" is nothing short of ridiculous and a continuation of the embarrassment that Palin is to the GOP. She's milking this trying to make good publicity for her self, banking that her own publicity will trump that of Letterman's. However, as the article above suggests she is clearly misguided.

Her accusations are silly to begin with suggesting that Letterman's tasteless humor makes him some sort of deviant pervert. She has gone out on a limb to suggest that he is joking about the raping of her daughter... which is a perversion in itself of the joke Letterman made. Then she's tried to tie it into women's rights etc.. etc... Really? Aside from a few church groups out there who already would have hated Letterman.... is anyone actually buying this crap?

Palin's incompetence continues to shine through. She's trying to make a big deal about some stupid joke ... and hypocritically she makes the same sort of "joke" herself when she says "Willow should stay away from Letterman" with the clear implication that Letterman would be interested in her sexually.

http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/sarah-palin-interview-on-today-show-awkward-moment-with-matt-lauer/19482153

It is playground rhetoric that is at best at a high school level, and quite frankly Palin has never showed me that she has much of a skill set beyond this level. She does have a stellar ability to give a rehearsed speech, but of course the pageants taught her that well.

I cringe to see what sort of other sort of publicity stunts she'll try and pull. She is essentially the Britney Spears of politics, with the exception that Britney has more talent than Palin has political skill... and I think you all know exactly how I feel about Britney's talent.

Picture yourself....

Real `Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' gravely ill

Nice article, sad but touching story.

Barack talking sense?

Obama proposes making 'pay-as-you-go' the law

I'll believe it when I see him signing the legislation.

Irony

Will liberalism destroy a liberal institution?

Globe's largest union rejects wage, benefit cuts
"The Guild is the only one of the Globe's four major unions to reject concessions the Times Co. said it needs to continue operating the Globe, projected to lose $85 million this year without significant cost savings. In early April, the Times Co. said it would shutter the Globe, New England's largest newspaper, unless the paper's unions agreed to a combined $20 million in concessions, with half demanded from the Guild."

How to create wait lists

And so it begins....

House Democrats favor insurance requirement
"House Democrats drafting health care legislation are considering slapping an unspecified financial penalty on anyone who refuses to purchase affordable health insurance, officials said Monday."

Obama said he was against the penalty during the debates, however Obama said a lot of things... something about no military tribunals, something about pulling all of the soldiers out of Iraq, something about being more fiscally responsible than Bush, something about.... well you get the point.

Actually another example is:
"These officials, who include both Democrats and lobbyists briefed on the emerging proposal, also said top lawmakers may call for a new tax on certain health insurance benefits as one of numerous options to help pay for expanding coverage to the uninsured."
Seems like a certain freshman Senator from Illinois was rather critical of John McCain for calling for something like this... mind you upon a health care plan that didn't force long term nationalization of the industry, and also called for a tax credit to families.

But low and behold:
Administration Is Open to Taxing Health Benefits

Referencing the House Democrats favor insurance requirement article again....
"The officials said the emerging legislation will include a government-run insurance option as well as plans offered by private companies. The government option draws near-unanimous opposition from Republicans and provokes concerns among many Democrats, as well, although President Barack Obama has spoken out in favor of it."

This is the nationalization bit. An example of what the Dems are doing can be paralleled to the 401k system... 401k effectively eliminated pensions and retirement plans because of this more attractive government alternative. The companies no longer needed to supply this need and so unless forced by unions they did not. (And for many of the organizations that were forced by Unions... well we know how that has turned out) I actually believe in the 401K system, it is a winning idea from many angles, and has minimal government involvement and promotes investment, and by that it helps support the economy and buffer it to a certain degree from the very trials we are currently going through. And for these reasons the 401k system embodies little similarity national/universal health care. But like 401k, the existence of the government plan will drive all other alternatives out of reach for a majority of the population. Businesses will stop carrying insurance for employees because they'll want people to use the government system. The government will become Walmart.... a monopoly, and when they do all of the pressure to provide exceptional service will disappear, and getting medical service will be much more like going to the DMV. But hey we'll all have it and that's what matters.

Speaking of we'll all have it.....every hypochondriac out there will start going to the hospital. Couple this with cost cutting facility and staff cuts, along with the erosion of preventative medicine.... and we'll finally join the rest of world in the wonder of wait lists and sub par care.... We'll be wishing it took a couple of months to get a Dr. appointment.

What we'll be missing:
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care

June, a week gone by already!

I had a very nice weekend, despite spending part of it at work on Saturday. I had Indian buffet for lunch and that sort of helped to make up for it. Saturday night Kate and I had a great summer feast of cheeseburgers, corn on the cob, and potato salad- as close to the way my Mom makes it as I can manage. I even soaked some sliced cucumbers in vinegar, a family favorite.

Kate and I watched "Into the Wild" which was a pretty good film based on the true story of a misguided youth who embarks on a unusual method of dealing with baggage he carries because of a tumultuous family life.

Saturday Kate and I went biking around the Middlesex Fells Reservation. The weather was gorgeous and I think we both had a pretty good time. We saw a large toad scrambling up an embankment, unfortunately I did not think to take a picture.

It should be an early day for me at work tomorrow, and I plan to bike in too so I'm going to cut this short.

The Turtle

Don't question it.... the turtle is there!!

In political news:

Is Bernanke Nudging Obama on Deficits?

The take home message: (from article)

"Although there was no explicit criticism of the Obama Administration in his prepared testimony, he suggested that deficit reduction needed to go well beyond announced plans. He repeated the projected deficits for fiscal 2009 ($1.8 trillion), 2010 ($1.3 trillion) and 2011 ($900 billion). The ratio of federal debt to GDP (gross domestic product) would go from about 40 percent in 2008 to 70 percent in 2011, the "highest level since the early 1950s." Interestingly, he used the Congressional Budget Office's projections and not the Administration's slightly more optimistic estimates. "With the ratio of debt to GDP already elevated, we will not be able to continue borrowing indefinitely to meet these demands," he said. The implication was that Congress and the White House needed to balance the budget and not merely reduce budget deficits, as the Obama projections indicate."