Canada a model for health care? Umm...no. Not my health care...

Wait Times

42% of Canadians waited 2 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 29% in the U.S
57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the U.S.
21% of Canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of American administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman
50% of Canadian administrators versus none of their American counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery

Technology

Canada has 4.6 MRI scanners per million, the U.S. has 19.5 per million.
Canada has 10.3 CT scanners per million, the U.S. has 29.5 per million.

Heart Attacks

Canadians have a 17% higher risk of dying from heart attacks than U.S. patients.
The five-year mortality rate is 21.4% among Canadians and 19.6% for the U.S.
30% of American heart attack patients receive an angioplasty, versus 11% of Canadians
More than 13% of Americans had bypass surgery, compared with 4% in Canada.

Cancer - Mortality/Incidence Ratio (lower is better)

Males C US
Intestinal.............................0.4401..............0.3808
Stomach..............................0.6435..............0.5700
Lung....................................0.8843..............0.8283
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.....0.4497..............0.4189
All cancers...........................0.4722..............0.4321

Females
Intestinal.............................0.4052..............0.3643
Stomach..............................0.7292..............0.6122
Lung...................................0.7884..............0.7403
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma....0.4044..............0.3734
All cancers..........................0.4276..............0.3977

Cost

15.3% of U.S. annual GDP. In Canada, only 10% of GDP
Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.
Canada, $917/yr spent by individuals or private insurance companies for health care compared to $3,372/yr in the U.S.

Summary

While Canada's "cost" might be lower than the US, quality and access (in terms of wait) is clearly on the side of the U.S. So what does that say? Just like most things, you get what you pay for. If you're happy to give up the health insurance that you and your family have for something like Canada's, then call your legislator and support National Healthcare. It'll be one huge step backwards in quality of care. People from other countries come to the US when quality of treatment really counts, not the other way around. As for me, I want the best healthcare I can get for my family. No thanks Mr. President. You can keep your bureaucratic healthcare out of my life.

Gays and the military

Okay, I've written on this topic before. I've actually been published in the Navy Times on the topic in the past, but with the new administration, I think it's timely to bring it up again. The fate of "Don't ask, don't tell" will likely be reviewed in the very near future.

First, do not take this analysis as "gay bashing." I have nothing against gays and quite frankly, have some very good friends who are gay. Their lifestyle in no way impacts mine. Why? Because they don't live with me.

This topic is approached strictly from a logistical perspective. There really is no way else to approach it lest we get bogged down in emotions and start yelling at one another. Though my analysis (yes ANALYSIS, which means based on data), will be Navy focused, many of the same principles apply across the services. I will also approach this mainly from the male perspective as the associated female (hetero and homo) side can be deduced.

Berthing

Men and women are berthed (sleeping arrangements) separately for a variety of reasons to include social mores. Other reasons include the rights of women to NOT be subjected to unwanted sexual pressure either real or perceived. Where would the military berth gays? In two man rooms, or submarine 9-man bunk rooms, do you sleep gay men with straight men? Do you subjugate the rights of the straight men to those of the gay men? Why would straight men not be given the same rights as women in the same situation faced with being berthed with the opposite sex or those who desire you sexually?

True, gay men are not the "opposite sex" genetically, but in terms of sexual preference they are. If their natural tendency is to desire men, then berthing them with straight sailors is IDENTICAL to berthing men and women together. Until the services are willing to do that, they are not ready to integrate gays into the military. Logically you should be able to berth gay men with straight women (as they naturally do not desire one another) and gay women with straight men correct? I'd like to see that one proposed to females in the services. I haven't even touched on the topic of transgendered and cross-dressers!

The other alternative is berthing areas based on sexual preference. Gay men, straight men, gay women, and straight women. Four different berthing areas. Sound stupid? Sure, but it's the only alternative as long as society (and the military) says men and women can't share the same sleeping quarters. That would be a logistical nightmare, cost prohibitive, and not workable from a ship design perspective in any reasonable form.

Bathroom Facilities

Similar to the berthing issue, bathroom facilities are largely shared areas in the Navy. Usually onboard ship, but can be found in places like large training centers. The same theory applies here. If women will not be forced to endure men sharing the same bathroom facilities AT THE SAME TIME, then you cannot force straight men to endure gay men utilizing the same facilities as well. Sorry folks, this is not "homophobia." It's applying the same exact logic to "sexes" that desire one another sexually." The term "homophobia" is used quite conveniently to digress the conversation from the logical to the emotional.

Legal Issues

Sexual harassment prevention, awareness and remediation is ingrained in every sailor from day one of entry. Sexual harassment training right now is based on men and women and their interactions. How do we now deal with gays? Berthing same sex sailors together will be opening up the services to many more cases of sexual harassment. There is no difference in sexual harassment from the same gender than the opposite gender.

Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)

The close quarters military members are often forced to endure does invade personal space and is intimate in nature. The intimacy is generally not an issue when that intimacy is shared by not only same sex individuals but those who share a sexual desire for the "gender" not present. That is no longer the case if the intent is to berth gay sailors with straight sailors. The legal minefield that will ensue will be unlike any seen in recent years.

Notice at no time in this discussion did I base it on the ability to do the job. Why? Because obviously, gays can do the job since they've been in the services and ARE in the services. But military service isn't a right. Your RIGHTS are delineated in the amendments to the Constitution (1-27). The public often confuses rights with privileges. It's a privilege to serve and entry requirements are based on what is in the best interest of the ENTIRE service, not just one subset of it. That best interest determination includes everything; cost, services, morale, capabilities etc. Just because the public thinks it's a good idea doesn't make it so.

Don't ask, don't tell works BECAUSE that line of sexual desirability is not crossed in intimate situations such as sleeping or berthing arrangements and shared bathroom accommodations. Things only become an issue if you know about them. And yes, knowing about them does change the environment.

Fair is fair. Not many guys I know that would mind sharing the same quarters as women. Nor would I think gay men would mind sharing the same quarters as straight men. Bring it on. Force women to accept men in their sleeping quarters. When you've done that, come back here and I promise you, my position will change and I will become the biggest advocate for gays in the military. I doubt you'd get a resounding acceptance from women on their RIGHT to separate sleeping arrangements being abridged. So therefore, both sexes should be afforded the same right to appropriate berthing.

Where the real blame lies for the current economic failure

I just watched a great investigative piece on the subprime mortgage crisis on Dateline last night. Thinking more about this, I decided to look a little deeper into the origins of our current economic crises.

A key bill involved in this mess is the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) originally passed in 1977 and tweaked many times depending on which way the political wind was blowing. It was originally intended to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods, essentially through lending of funds. CRA was amended many times to strengthen it which in essence put pressure on lenders to make risky loans to high risk recipients. This "strengthening" by lawmakers was the primary driver to the subprime mortgage crisis. The lending institutions were doing exactly what they were being forced to do. You get what you measure. If you incentivize companies to provide mortgages to low-income families, that's what you're going to get.

Also important is the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the important things the Act did was to separate banks into types of business, Commercial, Insurance and Investments. One of the major reasons this Act was introduced was "to minimize/prevent conflicts of interest in granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act." Pretty important don't you think?

In 1999 (Clinton administration) the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act" was passed repealing the Glass-Steagall Act removing the limitation on banks operating multiple businesses in the areas of commercial banking, insurance and investments. Prelude to a fall and rushed amid midnight dealings. Clinton promised to sign the bill stating "When this potentially historic agreement is finalized, it will strengthen the economy and help consumers, communities and businesses across America." To date, Clinton does not regret signing the bill. Absolutely amazing.

Now some might point out the bill was passed by a republican majority, BUT not only did an overwhelming democratic majority support it, it was signed by Clinton! If he didn't like the bill or thought it a bad bill, it was his job to veto it. As long as we're blaming presidents, Clinton is at the top of the list for setting this into motion.

John Dingell, the ranking minority member of the House Commerce Committee at the time stated "There's been a great rush to create financial institutions that are at the same time too big to fail, too big to bother, and too big to care." Folks, this economic disaster was predicted at the time this bill was signed into law!

Opponents to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act cited the following reasons:

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments.

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

Reasons which to date, have demonstrated to be not only very sound, but unfortunately, very real risks as each have come to pass. Our very lawmakers are the ones responsible for the current economic catastrophe. Republicans for crafting the repeal and Democrats (including Clinton) for either going along with it or signing it into law. democrats had many opportunities to right this and crying now by pointing fingers at Republicans for submitting the bill is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Real life imitates politics...

Over the past few weeks my wife had been in a baking frenzy. Good for me, bad for my waistline. So the general rule is, we have a little and take the rest somewhere else which usually means I take it to work. Can still be thought of as bad for me ;).

I had been bringing in cakes and cookies, setting them out in a public area for the office and letting everyone know it was there, enjoy. The items were a hit (my wife is a phenomenal baker) and I passed along many kudos.

This morning I didn't bring in anything and so far, have had four people make comments such as 'What? No goodies today?' accompanied by the obligatory sad face. The person who shares my office noticed this and commented that this looked very much like a microcosm example of the macrocosm bailout/handout societal phenomenon.

He's 100% right. You can be sure by giving away freebies, there will always be those who come back for more. It started with a paltry [sarcasm added] $700 Billion and now totals an actual outlay of $2.56 Trillion in "freebies" to businesses. Reuters has estimated the potential total cost to taxpayers upwards of a minimum of $4.6 Trillion.

Unfortunately it isn't over. Already financial institutions and auto manufacturers who've received handouts are preparing to come back to the trough of government charity backed by us, the people who have no say. This administration has trod far into unknown territory and is writing the play book after the plays are completed. No oversight, no accountability and a lot of finger pointing when they're surprised at the outcome.

Sad. Truly sad.

Obama's open letter to Santa

Dear Americans Santa,

I have been a very conniving calculating good boy the past week month year. I have listened to myself my constituents my teleprompter my mommy and done my due diligence chores when asked. I helped Tony Rezko Bill Ayers Rev. Jeremiah Wright Rod Blogojevich those who helped me others when I could. I have not lied outright lied by omission distorted the facts. I have no recollection of any falsehoods.

Please do not leave me coal. I DO NOT like coal. If you think I deserve coal, please leave me carbon credits. I know Eid Al-Fitr Eid Al-Adha Christmas is still far away, but this is my Christmas list. I would like:

1. Totalitarian rule Bipartisanship.
2. Redistribution of wealth A system that rewards those who work hard Bailouts A stronger economy.
3. Prohibition on all guns minor “adjustments” to the Second Amendment Appropriate hunting guidelines.
4. More money taxes expanded government social programs earmarks change.
5. More emphasis on money to enemies of our allies capitulations to terrorist countries and human rights violators nice talks with bad people peace.
6. A stronger defense public schedule of withdrawal from Iraq with a copy to Al Qaeda for planning purposes system that leverages Veteran’s health benefits to pay for my programs long term solution to peace in the Middle East.
7. Political appointees who I might have left out Czars that duplicate current positions anyone who has paid their taxes anyone who will stay on the job with me Knowledgeable people who can do great things.
8. FDR’s notes A plan, any plan Change will do.
9. Fully government run and government subsidized health care Health care paid for by those who contribute most to society A healthy America.

I’m sure you’re busy and would appreciate your attention to this at your earliest opportunity. Please be aware, your charity has not gone unnoticed. Just be sure to line that out on this year’s 1040A. Pay special attention to the section for commuting miles as this is a new addition this year. I know things are tight and unfortunately, you’ll no longer be able to deduct the interest on your home at the North Pole.

Merry Christmas,

Barack

Explaining Party Politics via Allegory

I love these allegorical explanations of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Funny, I just don't see them written from the Demorat's point of view. Today's illustration:

The Republican Fisherman

A woman in a hot air balloon realizes she is lost. She lowers her altitude
and spots a man fishing from a boat below. She shouts to him, 'Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am.'

The man consults his portable GPS and replies, 'You're in a hot air
balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.0 9 minutes west longitude.'

She rolls her eyes and says, 'You must be a Republican!'

'I am,' replies the man. 'How did you know?'

Well,' answers the balloonist, 'everything you tell me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you're not much help to me.'

The man smiles and responds, 'You must be a Democrat.'

'I am,' replies the balloonist. 'How did you know?'

Well,' says the man, 'You don't know where you are or where you're going.You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault.