First things first. A big HAPPY BIRTHDAY! to my brother Donald. See, 44 ain't so bad.
Here's a link to a humorous little flash cartoon about the differences between men and women. It's cute, not too saccharine, and my kid likes it. Take a gander.
http://www.bozzetto.com/flash/fem_male.htm
Take care.
DAL357
Monday, August 13, 2007
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Of rice bowls and men.
Here's an idea whose time has come. Actually, I think it's long overdue, but at least it's here now. Long may it flourish and spread.
What is this idea? Store-based health clinics. Read the link below for the details, but in a nutshell these clinics are nothing less than a free-market reaction to insanely high medical costs. As you might expect, the traditional medical establishment (read monopoly) does not like it one darn bit. Then again, who does like their rice bowl being dipped into?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_he_me/store_based_health_clinics_1;_ylt=AqGX.Gb8L9586QN74qrBNr4E1vAI
A few quotes, and my comments on those quotes, follow.
“But concerns are rising in the medical industry that these operations remain largely unregulated and are prone to conflicts of interest. Some physicians are also concerned that the clinics could disrupt the continuity of care and result in serious underlying health conditions going undetected.”
Yeah, sure. No doubt these “concerned” physicians are offering their services for free to the indigent, and at a greatly reduced rate to the uninsured, to insure a “continuity of care.” About all they’re concerned about is the threat to their monopoly on health care they’ve enjoyed, aided and abetted by their monopoly enforcer, the U.S. Government, for the last century. We’ll see if the government comes to their aid again.
Honestly, I am thinking that big G may let doctors sink or swim this time, not because they care about competition reducing insane health care costs, but because it takes the heat off of them and the perceived need for universal health care, a losing proposition from the start. Actually, I can see the U.S. Government using this to their advantage (but, in the long run, not to ours) and subsidizing the cost of these quick-care clinics for the poor and uninsured. In time, this will lead to inflated prices due to the middle man, in this case Uncle Sam, shielding the true costs of these services from the concerned individual, just like insurance companies do with individuals today. It's human nature not to be too concerned with costs when some anonymous person or organization is footing the bill.
By the way, how many is “some physicians?” One in five, six in a hundred, twelve in a thousand? I strongly suspect the number is either pretty low, or it is pure conjecture, otherwise the reporter would have given real numbers. If you didn’t catch that, you need to read news stories with a more jaundiced eye .
*****
“In June, the American Medical Association urged state and federal agencies to look into whether pharmacy chain-owned clinics urge patients to get their prescriptions filled on site. That followed buyouts of miniclinics by two big-name pharmacy operators: Walgreen bought Conshohocken, Pa.-based Take Care Health Systems in June, and CVS acquired Minneapolis-based MinuteClinic last year.
Dr. Peter Carmel, a trustee on the AMA board, said "the path of abuse is wide open," and the clinics need to be better regulated.”
Oh, this is rich! The AMA, monopoly-monger extraordinaire, given the mutual back scratching that goes on in doctors’ offices between doctors and the pharmaceutical representatives who constantly push their products via free samples and lavish perks, is one to talk. And all a physician has to do to continue these little gifts is to push whatever products the pharma. rep. suggests. This, of course, is okay, or so one is lead to believe by the AMA’s silence on this suspect practice.
Doubtless Dr. Peter Carmel is speaking from experience about wide open paths of abuse, mainly because his profession practically wrote the book on them.
*****
“AMA also wants to ban the practice of health insurance companies waiving or lowering co-payments for clinic patients, which it calls a conflict of interest.”
I’ll bet they do, and who do you think will do the banning? Why, the muscle behind the monopoly, the FedGov, of course. (As an aside, in a free market no monopoly can exist for long without government coercion.) Whose “interest” are they talking about? It certainly isn’t the consumer/patient's interests. Listen closely to the following economics lesson: the less money one has to shell out for the same service offered at a higher price elsewhere is a good thing, not a bad thing (at least for the consumer).
Consumer choice, aka competition in business parlance, helps keep prices far closer to actual value/worth than any mandated price control could ever hope to. In other words, if the government really wants to do something to control medical costs (or costs in any field), they will embrace competitive endeavors, not eschew them, by keeping their hands off. The only thing the government should be doing is insuring that the public does not fall victim to shoddy or fraudulent practices.
*****
“The AMA denies that its criticism of these clinics is being driven by economic interests, though there's no doubt that primary physicians could lose some business as their insured patients go elsewhere for minor ailments.”
Does the AMA actually believe that any thinking individual is going to buy this? Of course it’s about “economic interests,” that’s what all associations and unions, at heart, are about, and as long as there is a free market for consumer choice, that’s cool. The problem occurs when they seek government intervention to stifle competition so as to artificially keep prices high through a lack of choice.
*****
Wouldn't it be great if I could have one tenth of one percent of the money that's going to be thrown around in the attempt to smother this innovative and consumer/patient-friendly idea in its cradle? I could buy a small island and live the rest of my days in leisure.
Take care.
DAL357
What is this idea? Store-based health clinics. Read the link below for the details, but in a nutshell these clinics are nothing less than a free-market reaction to insanely high medical costs. As you might expect, the traditional medical establishment (read monopoly) does not like it one darn bit. Then again, who does like their rice bowl being dipped into?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_he_me/store_based_health_clinics_1;_ylt=AqGX.Gb8L9586QN74qrBNr4E1vAI
A few quotes, and my comments on those quotes, follow.
“But concerns are rising in the medical industry that these operations remain largely unregulated and are prone to conflicts of interest. Some physicians are also concerned that the clinics could disrupt the continuity of care and result in serious underlying health conditions going undetected.”
Yeah, sure. No doubt these “concerned” physicians are offering their services for free to the indigent, and at a greatly reduced rate to the uninsured, to insure a “continuity of care.” About all they’re concerned about is the threat to their monopoly on health care they’ve enjoyed, aided and abetted by their monopoly enforcer, the U.S. Government, for the last century. We’ll see if the government comes to their aid again.
Honestly, I am thinking that big G may let doctors sink or swim this time, not because they care about competition reducing insane health care costs, but because it takes the heat off of them and the perceived need for universal health care, a losing proposition from the start. Actually, I can see the U.S. Government using this to their advantage (but, in the long run, not to ours) and subsidizing the cost of these quick-care clinics for the poor and uninsured. In time, this will lead to inflated prices due to the middle man, in this case Uncle Sam, shielding the true costs of these services from the concerned individual, just like insurance companies do with individuals today. It's human nature not to be too concerned with costs when some anonymous person or organization is footing the bill.
By the way, how many is “some physicians?” One in five, six in a hundred, twelve in a thousand? I strongly suspect the number is either pretty low, or it is pure conjecture, otherwise the reporter would have given real numbers. If you didn’t catch that, you need to read news stories with a more jaundiced eye .
*****
“In June, the American Medical Association urged state and federal agencies to look into whether pharmacy chain-owned clinics urge patients to get their prescriptions filled on site. That followed buyouts of miniclinics by two big-name pharmacy operators: Walgreen bought Conshohocken, Pa.-based Take Care Health Systems in June, and CVS acquired Minneapolis-based MinuteClinic last year.
Dr. Peter Carmel, a trustee on the AMA board, said "the path of abuse is wide open," and the clinics need to be better regulated.”
Oh, this is rich! The AMA, monopoly-monger extraordinaire, given the mutual back scratching that goes on in doctors’ offices between doctors and the pharmaceutical representatives who constantly push their products via free samples and lavish perks, is one to talk. And all a physician has to do to continue these little gifts is to push whatever products the pharma. rep. suggests. This, of course, is okay, or so one is lead to believe by the AMA’s silence on this suspect practice.
Doubtless Dr. Peter Carmel is speaking from experience about wide open paths of abuse, mainly because his profession practically wrote the book on them.
*****
“AMA also wants to ban the practice of health insurance companies waiving or lowering co-payments for clinic patients, which it calls a conflict of interest.”
I’ll bet they do, and who do you think will do the banning? Why, the muscle behind the monopoly, the FedGov, of course. (As an aside, in a free market no monopoly can exist for long without government coercion.) Whose “interest” are they talking about? It certainly isn’t the consumer/patient's interests. Listen closely to the following economics lesson: the less money one has to shell out for the same service offered at a higher price elsewhere is a good thing, not a bad thing (at least for the consumer).
Consumer choice, aka competition in business parlance, helps keep prices far closer to actual value/worth than any mandated price control could ever hope to. In other words, if the government really wants to do something to control medical costs (or costs in any field), they will embrace competitive endeavors, not eschew them, by keeping their hands off. The only thing the government should be doing is insuring that the public does not fall victim to shoddy or fraudulent practices.
*****
“The AMA denies that its criticism of these clinics is being driven by economic interests, though there's no doubt that primary physicians could lose some business as their insured patients go elsewhere for minor ailments.”
Does the AMA actually believe that any thinking individual is going to buy this? Of course it’s about “economic interests,” that’s what all associations and unions, at heart, are about, and as long as there is a free market for consumer choice, that’s cool. The problem occurs when they seek government intervention to stifle competition so as to artificially keep prices high through a lack of choice.
*****
Wouldn't it be great if I could have one tenth of one percent of the money that's going to be thrown around in the attempt to smother this innovative and consumer/patient-friendly idea in its cradle? I could buy a small island and live the rest of my days in leisure.
Take care.
DAL357
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Peeping nation
If there's one thing that identifies the modern American in general, it's his use of television, and movies to a lesser extent, as a replacement for life. No place is this more evident than in the near-sacred worship of television sports, the effect of which has helped make many Americans little more than voyeurs, not to mention repositories for excess calories. Those who never watch televised sporting events, however, should not feel smug.
Why? Read on.
Television, be it sports or any other type of programming, offers only the illusion of life, in neat, little edited pieces precisely calculated to keep eyes glued to the screen and minds anticipating the what will happen next. In small doses this is not necessarily harmful, and it can even be mentally invigorating. The problem comes when television viewing is no longer a simple garnish but a daily, four-course meal. After a while on this type of diet, television seems to be more interesting and full than real life. Once a person has reached this point, and it is more common than one might think, while they are not beyond redemption, they are on the precipice of being so.
The only known antidote is a period of abstinence, say, one week to start, although a month would be better. During this period, one should feel his way out into the world again to experience its wonders. Take interesting walks; visit new places; try several hobbies involving use of the mind as well as the hands and find which one likes best; or, and I know this is going to be anathema to many people under 50, and a few over that milestone, read a book (there, I said it) on a subject that piques your interest.
After your period of self-imposed exile, you may selectively begin to watch a favorite event or program, but as soon as this presentation is over, the television goes off. No channel surfing allowed. The key to your reemergence into the real world is selectivity (along with a fair degree of self discipline, of course). Then, as mentioned above, go do something visceral and tactile.
Excessive television viewing (anything more than 8-10 hours a week, tops) is not a character flaw, but a learned bad habit. Bad habits can be unlearned. One can do this, but it may take a supreme effort, depending upon how deeply the habit is ingrained, which is directly proportional to how long it has been allowed to metastasize. It is worth the effort.
Just as an aside, I've seen people who do little in their free time but sit and watch television; they are almost always unhappy. How could they not be? Television is flat and flavorless compared to other activities, worthy of only the smallest amount of our time, attention, and precious life.
One last point about television. Television is not, as Neil Postman said, [begin paraphrase] a serious medium for discourse on any worthy subject. After all the hype has been burned away, television is nothing more than a medium of visual entertainment [end paraphrase]. Asking television to be a vehicle for serious, in-depth discourse on anything is like asking a Yugo to do the job of a semi-truck; it just ain't gonna work. Television, by its very nature, demands superficial thought; it is not the province of hashing out a reasoned, balanced conclusion. This is where the medium of print--and its handmaiden, private and public verbal discussion--far outshines television, as it always will.
Take care.
DAL357
Why? Read on.
Television, be it sports or any other type of programming, offers only the illusion of life, in neat, little edited pieces precisely calculated to keep eyes glued to the screen and minds anticipating the what will happen next. In small doses this is not necessarily harmful, and it can even be mentally invigorating. The problem comes when television viewing is no longer a simple garnish but a daily, four-course meal. After a while on this type of diet, television seems to be more interesting and full than real life. Once a person has reached this point, and it is more common than one might think, while they are not beyond redemption, they are on the precipice of being so.
The only known antidote is a period of abstinence, say, one week to start, although a month would be better. During this period, one should feel his way out into the world again to experience its wonders. Take interesting walks; visit new places; try several hobbies involving use of the mind as well as the hands and find which one likes best; or, and I know this is going to be anathema to many people under 50, and a few over that milestone, read a book (there, I said it) on a subject that piques your interest.
After your period of self-imposed exile, you may selectively begin to watch a favorite event or program, but as soon as this presentation is over, the television goes off. No channel surfing allowed. The key to your reemergence into the real world is selectivity (along with a fair degree of self discipline, of course). Then, as mentioned above, go do something visceral and tactile.
Excessive television viewing (anything more than 8-10 hours a week, tops) is not a character flaw, but a learned bad habit. Bad habits can be unlearned. One can do this, but it may take a supreme effort, depending upon how deeply the habit is ingrained, which is directly proportional to how long it has been allowed to metastasize. It is worth the effort.
Just as an aside, I've seen people who do little in their free time but sit and watch television; they are almost always unhappy. How could they not be? Television is flat and flavorless compared to other activities, worthy of only the smallest amount of our time, attention, and precious life.
One last point about television. Television is not, as Neil Postman said, [begin paraphrase] a serious medium for discourse on any worthy subject. After all the hype has been burned away, television is nothing more than a medium of visual entertainment [end paraphrase]. Asking television to be a vehicle for serious, in-depth discourse on anything is like asking a Yugo to do the job of a semi-truck; it just ain't gonna work. Television, by its very nature, demands superficial thought; it is not the province of hashing out a reasoned, balanced conclusion. This is where the medium of print--and its handmaiden, private and public verbal discussion--far outshines television, as it always will.
Take care.
DAL357
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
