where are AMERICAN ideas?

yet another entry on the topic of healthcare in this country. i watched the healthcare summit that was conducted between the dems/president and the repubs about two weeks ago. we heard a lot of talk that day and the days after about all the "ideas" in the legislation: obama's, democratic, republican. but i've yet to hear one word about any AMERICAN ideas in the legislation. yes, the republicans showed up with the ever-present line that "the american people want us to scrap this bill and start over," but that wasn't an idea. and quite frankly, starting over doesn't seem very likely to produce real results in this decade if it is what's done.

also, rep. alexander recommended we do it in small steps because "the federal government just doesn't do big well." that may be true, but if we do it in small steps and still end up with the same end result, we only succeeded in spreading out a process that could've been done at once. beyond that, healthcare reform is kind of like a three-legged stool in that it needs to be done at once to stand or else it'll fall over.

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.

what's going on today?

hmm, so what is there to blog about today. i think i already exhausted my thoughts for the week on the healthcare debate, as well as clash for cunkers. and nothing notable happening in aerospace industry either. boeing still isn't quite sure how long the 787 will take, and they plan to test the orion crew module in abort tests starting early next year. but none of that is really surprising i suppose. and the state budget has even managed to avoid front page and especially my wallet (and thus my extreme interest, ire, and disgust) for a few days.
oh. i remembered what i can talk about. remember a couple weeks ago, gates got arrested "because he's black?" then he and crowley went to have beers with obama (and biden) to "discuss race relations in america." but then within the last two weeks here in california, we had a large race riot in one of the state prisons. dorms are now uninhabitable, in once case completely burned. yet why is no one suggesting that we invite some of the prisoners directly involved to go to washington and talk it out over some beers too? while some might argue that this riot was between two minority groups (blacks and hispanics), there's no denying that it was still an issue of racial tension here in america and one that is certain to rise with the gradual "browning" of america that is expected to happen over the next several decades. so what better way to highlight and bring positive discussion on the issue than to bring real average citizens into the discussion? (i'd hardly say crowley and gates are very representative since a similar episode is undoubtedly played out weekly with other minorities but none are world-renowned harvard professors.) this incident is being highlighted as a further failure of the california prison system, but i think it's far more representative of both the imbalance of incarcerations and definitely an indicator of the racial barometer in the country. if anyone is really serious about discussing race relations in a meaningful way, they would seize the nice opportunity afforded by this riot to start a real discussion. sure, Ph.Ds can sit around all day at posh conferences and talk about it until their faces are blue, but i can assure you that many are not directly related with it like the common man is.

"death panels"

so lately, the so-called "death panels" have been all the rage in the news and apparently in town hall meetings. but why? first of all, it was definitively debunked by all major news organizations. but let's assume they were going to operate these "death panels." armed with the knowledge that up to one third of the lifetime healthcare costs for a person are in the last three months, there needs to be something that should be done. that's an extremely disproportionate amount, especially when this person dying is the national average age (or greater) of mid-70s. they've already lived for at least 1464 months, but the next three are going to cost 100x more each and end result is still death. so apparently we need to figure out several things:

• how to spread the cost of the final 3 months out over greater amount of time, possibly by spreading that care over more time
• how to make the care given in the final 3 months more effective so that those final 3 actually aren't final 3
  
• how to learn to accept our own death
• how to let go of loved ones who are dying

we clearly want to lower the cost in the final three months. along with that, we want to make the treatments more effective. but what isn't being talked about much is much more personal. of course, losing a loved one is never easy, especially if that loved one is oneself. however, we need to come to a concensus on something. for one, people are scared to die. look back over pretty much all civilizations, and no one was really fond of death. most cultures have always included with death an option of further life, either by way of an afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc., just as long as one is never truly gone. we as people don't know what awaits, so no one wants to go. connected with that, of course, is the fear of losing a loved one. we as a people should learn to better accept that those we know and love will more than likely die (if we don't first). now of course, we all want to believe that no one can put a price on someone's life. but at the same time, let's sit back and think before we rush out and spend a small fortune on the procedure that only has 20% chance of success and additionally will only be negligibly helpful in extending life.
on top of that, let's consider the wishes of the one who is actually dying. i know if my parents were dying, i wouldn't be rushing to pull the plug. but i also know that they would not want heroics pulled to save them, especially if they had something such as dementia or alzheimer's and were barely cognicant of their surroundings. also, at that point, why are the kids even interested in prolonging life? now i know not everyone dies a painful death not knowing who is visiting them. but even if they aren't, many who are dying come to accept it long before others do. so if they are dying that painful death of cancer with a healthy dose of alzheimer's, let them die. why keep them in their misery and also continue to torture yourself since they have no clue who you are when you show up?
anyway, just a patchwork of my thoughts. leave me comments as always, tell me what you thinks.