this is it

and i'm not talking about the movie about michael jackson. no, i'm talking about the apparent utter incompetence and disconnect of the california government with the california people. in the midst of massive state worker furloughs, millions of dollars slashed from even vital services in the budget, elements of the legislature are trying to block an 18% cut to their salary set to take effect next month. this is beyond comprehension, and only goes to prove once again the saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." considering that many in sacramento have or have had a successful professional career or are married to someone of that caliber, not quite sure what the crying is about. no one seemed to bat an eye when balancing the budget required making virtually every service bleed red ink and furloughs were instated on the state employees, cutting their pay by 10%. that is a very real amount of money being lost from the california, especially since some of the services that received cuts are money makers for the state (e.g. dmv, csu, etc...). my advice to the legislator who had the audacity to even bring up the issue of legality would be to shut up and start shopping at wal-mart, especially since part of the way the legislature "balanced" the budget this year was by cutting money from programs that they had to have known they were not legally able to touch. but anyway, make sure you guys read the article and then contact your legislator to make sure they know how you feel. www.ca.gov will help you get in touch with them.

random thought

so, was sitting here thinking about giving blood (since i did today...you should too if you can) and came upon a roadblock. and it goes something like this: if you were dying (as in within hours) and needed a blood transfusion to live and only matching blood available in time was from someone with hiv, would you take it?

healthcare. again.

so a lot of people seem to be under the impression that if there is a government option for healthcare in the reform, that it would push private insurers out of business with competition. but i find that claim quite dubious, almost actually a downright lie. history has taught us that generally speaking, private business is usually much more efficient than government ever is. so then, need i even ask? oh fine, i will. if a government option pushes private insurance companies out of business, then were they really operating efficiently to begin with? my prediction is that a government option would do two things:
- first of all, it would result in lower premiums as well as more efficient service on the part of private insurance firms so as not to lose customers to the government.
- second, it would always run over it's budget. that's just what tends to happen at the government level.
with that in mind, bring the government healthcare. we'll find out who is there for their members and who is there for wall street.

and side note to congress: trim the bill down a bit. it should be quite simple, really, and definitely needn't be a 1000+ page behemoth. and none of those last-minute trickeries where you have five minutes to read it before the vote either.

tax sugars

hmm, sounds a bit weird to say that. but sugars really need to be taxed, maybe even on par with tobacco. the american heart association just issued guidelines on how much sugar one should consume every day which are much lower than many people (myself included) usually consume. but it would be nice if congress were to act proactively instead of reacting to what has happened for once. in this case, the what has happened is the expanding american waistline. however, since it is still expanding, congress acting now would slow that expansion. the current debate in congress over healthcare actually is much more intricately linked with this idea than might initially appear. as the waistline expands, health problems increase accordingly as well which equal more expense. currently, there is much concern over the plan costing maybe $1 trillion over ten years. which really isn't bad. however, if more attention is brought to the effects of sugar, people's future medical costs could be lowered as they avoid sugar-related medical expenses. sounds weird to be saying that, but any good medical professional will tell you that they definitely exist. beyond that, tax revenues could also be used to fund any healthcare proposals. also, funding in this manner will more evenly spread the cost of reform instead of only taxing the top earners in the country.
anyway, just a couple of my thoughts on this matter. comments are welcome, questions are as well.