Happy Hump Day!!

May you all have a massive hump this day!

Meet The Fancy Man

Ladies and germs, meet Guido Westerwelle, a German Free Democrat who will become the vice-chancellor and won the Free Democrats' first major office in over 11 years. It should be noted that he supports the war in Afghanistan, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. Oh. And he's gay. Openly gay. Flamboyantly gay. And nobody in Germany really cares, because it's the politics that make the politician and the values that make the man...not who he sleeps with. Why can't America, the supposed leader of the free world, think like that?

Monday Morning Haiku

Worked on Saturday.

Boss asked if I had a good

weekend. He's an ass.

Bride Wars

Random Thought: If gays can't get married, then brides should stop having their bridal showers at gay clubs. Reveling in pre-marital bliss in front of the "have not's" is a little....rude, don't ya think?

God Rewarded David With Hot Women

But apparently, God does not reward women with hot men. After all, that would be recognizing women's sexuality (which is unclean) and we can't have that.

This quote is from Jason Mattera, head of the (cult) group Young America Foundation, at the Values Voters Summit:

"If conservatives (David) smite liberals (Goliath), they will be rewarded with the hot conservative women, just like King Saul promised his daughter to the warrior who slew the evil giant. “You know his daughter must have been beautiful because there’s no guy whose gonna die for an ugly girl,” Mattera chortled. “Our women are hot. We have Michelle Malkin. Who does the left have, Rachel Maddow? Sorry, I prefer that my women not look like dudes.”

And apparently, according to Mattera, David took "pride in his Christian beliefs.” Never mind that David lived a few thousand years before Christ. After all, history, like science, is a thing of the Devil. The speakers at the Values Voters Summit said that separation of church and state was a creation of Hitler, not the Founding Fathers, that gay rights activists have complete disregard for black women, unlike, say, the Young American Foundation, (who, in all their deliberating on human rights, never mentioned poverty, homelessness, or racism), and that abortions should be performed in the public square.

The prize speaker was one Lila Rose, who wore a "voluptuous red dress with a neck to thigh zipper in the back, and playfully tossed her long dark hair as she spoke." I'll bet you money she's slept around, but it's okay: she's on a mission from God and if you sleep with a woman who's on a mission from God, it doesn't count as sinful sex, but as holy sex.

Or some shit.

Seriously. This article scared the crap out of me. If these people gain any more of a foothold in this country, I may have to move, before they gather me and others like me into a boarded up boxcar and take me to the oven. You know...like Hitler.

Monday Morning Haiku

I sit in traffic
Coffee stain on my silk tie
Life has no meaning.

Vote No for No. 1 AGAIN

So the vote for gay marriage is close in Maine. Never mind that the state already decided issue, we have to allow the opportunity for religious people to spread lies and fear that the evil gays are gonna eat your babies and rape you in the ass, and have gay marriage revoked. This is further proof that 1) religion needs to stay the hell in the church (pun intended), and 2) people ARE NOT RATIONAL.

In Honor Of Hump Day

For those unaware, Seattle hosts an amateur porn movie contest every year. The deadline for submissions is coming up fast, so if you want to enter, visit their website for submission guidelines.

My favorite part of the guidelines are the extra credit (for you over achievers):

"A jury of local sex experts, sex-positive film critics, and sex-obsessed porn fans select HUMP! entries for inclusion in the festival. We look for hotness and humor-films don't have to be slick, just hot and/or funny-and entries that are made especially for HUMP! are likelier to make the cut. To prove that you made your film just for HUMP!, include one or more of these props and/or locations in your HUMP! submission:

PROPS

• a pink slip (layoff or undergarment)
• motorcycle boots
• Mormon undergarments
• e-stim unit
• Aplets & Cotlets


LOCATIONS

• the SLUT
• the P-I globe
• the Statue of Liberty at Alki Beach
• the giant mitt outside Safeco Field

Extra-extra credit for any film that uses all of the above. No one is obligated to include this silly crap in a new film."

Really? You like XYZ Guys?

The one thing I’ve noticed when discussing sexual attraction with others is that people view sex as either/or decisions. The obvious example is the attitude that you’re either gay or you’re straight. (Very few will acknowledge bisexuals or asexuals.)

Another example, in regards to race, was an incident that happened to me a year ago. (To understand the context, I am white.) I was at a gay bar and I saw this really cute, slightly dorky black guy with the wire rim glasses and a really great smile. Unfortunately, he was with somebody (ain’t that always the way?). I made a comment about how cute I thought he was to a friend of mine and his response was, “You like black boys? I didn’t think you liked black boys?” Then he spent the entire evening trying to scan out other African-American men for me.

The thing is, I wasn’t attracted to his race. The features about him that drew my attention were that great smile and that slightly dorky, nerdy vibe that others who dig dorky, nerdy guys know exactly what I’m talking about. He could’ve been Asian, Hispanic, Spanish, Middle Eastern, or White, and if he had those same features, I would’ve crushed on him.

But my friend now thinks I only want to date black guys. See? So many people in our culture (I refer to American culture) think that all sexual attraction is an either or proposition, especially in terms of race. And if you are attracted to someone outside of your own race, it’s almost seen as a fetish, as if it was something “special” or “unique.”

So the flip-side of “I don’t date XYZ” is “I ONLY date XYZ.” Either statement is limiting and is probably based on preconceived notions of race XYZ.

Kanye West Doesn't Care About White People!!! ;-)

Are you sad? Are you depressed? Do you feel the need to charge the stage every time a white person wins a frivolous award? Then you suffer from Kanye-ism. Symptoms include: delusions of grandeur, talent, and relevance, self-aggrandizement, and penis envy. Kanye-sim: proof that fame and money can't change ordinary trailer trash.

Monday Morning Haiku

I throw my alarm

clock across the room. My room

mate is unconscious.

Where's the alternative solution?

As if we didn't hear/read enough about it already...another post on healthcare! This is a web response I wrote to Joe Henke's blog on The Next Right, who gave a short post providing some alternative solutions to the current healthcare bill. I actually think the proposed two solutions were pretty good, though no one in Congress on either side of the aisle would vote for them. And being a right site, there were the usual Obamacare comments, which are getting tiresome, so I addressed them too. I'm sure my post will be blasted as I am a facist, socialist, commie who hates America (rolls eyes here).

Anyway, here's the post:

To the original author of this post, I agree. I think there needs to be a safety net for catastrophic healthcare. A degenerative disease like MS or cancer can deplete the savings of even some of the wealthiest citizens in the U.S. I do agree with Kordo though in that if a proposal like that were made, there would be a concession towards the poor of the country. I'm not sure if you could get around that nor am I sure that you would want to. If nothing else, it would perpetuate the stereotype that Republicans only care about the rich and don't give a damn about the poor.

Personally, I don't think the government is out of line when they require citizens to have health insurance. Most states require every driver to have auto insurance. I live in Tennessee, which is a no-fault state. You are required by law to have auto insurance if you drive a vehicle. The main goal being that insurance costs can stay down if mostly everyone is insured.

Having worked in healthcare billing, the 2 biggest costs to hospitals were 1) the uninsured, and 2) the patients who decided to file a frivolous lawsuit, either with the hospital itself or with a third party. In fact, I'd venture to say (he says facetiously) that if we got rid of the damn lawyers and uninsured, our healthcare system would be okay. (kidding....sort of...)

As far as having a free market...healthcare is not a free market, has never been a free market, and never will be a free market. All insurance prices are state mandated. All insurance companies make "contractual agreements" (i.e. bribes) to hospital systems to funnel their insureds to those specific doctors, hospitals, and labs (i.e. "in network"). If it were a true free market, don't you think that prices of medical services would be posted? (You just try to ask a doctor how much a lab test will cost, how much an MRI will cost). Where's the price competition? I haven't seen advertisements for hospitals that have more affordable emergency room services than the other guy, have you?

So for those bemoaning the loss of a free market system, you should've been crying over it in the late 60's, early 70's, because that's when the insurance companies took over our healthcare system, and they've been running ever since. So now the only choice that patients get to make is what insurance company they can have, and believe me, as a now full time student trying to get single payer private health insurance, ($3500 of my puny income has to be dedicated to my premiums and my deductible before my insurance ever kicks in), that's not much of a choice.

The only people who are benefiting from the current healthcare system are insurance companies. The hospitals aren't. The insurance companies are denying claims at a more frequent rate. They have a department of their company solely devoted to denying claims, which then makes it the patient's responsibility. Anytime we had to send a bill to the patient, it was considered a lost cause. Patients don't/can't pay the bill. So the hospitals write off bigger and bigger losses every year. And the patients declare bankruptcy, default on the medical debt, and drop/get dropped from their insurance carrier. Which then makes everyone else's rates increase and coverage decrease. This system doesn't work, plain and simple.

So while I don't agree with most aspects of Obama's healthcare plan (it still doesn't explain to me how it's going to pay for itself), at least it's a start. And I haven't heard a better alternative from the Right. The only things I've heard from the Right (as well as everyone else) is that Obama is Hitler incarnate, that we are now Russia, and the world is going to end.

So to all those on the Right, get your act together and come up with a counter proposal, like this author has, and add amendments to the current bill. But if you can't find any sympathy from the White House or from the voters, it's probably because you've been acting like jackasses for the past year. Oh....and get off Bill Clinton. You're just as bad as the liberals still trashing George W. Bush. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were both lousy presidents and are no longer in power (thank god). Get over it. Move forward, please.

Signed,

The 25 year old who is paying for your Medicare and Social Security, and who will be paying your debt for the rest of his life.

Conservatives and the Environment

I'm surprised that true conservatives are not supporters of environmental issues. Yes, I know, no conservative wants to be associated with "go hug a tree" Al Gore. But in terms of economics, it is a vital issue. One of the basics of economic theory is that all natural resources are scarce. So wouldn't it be prudent of the conservative to use these scarce resources in the most effective manner possible? Wouldn't the conservative fight for the most efficient allocation of these resources? And yet we're thoughtlessly poisoning the air and water, ruining the land, and making far more garbage than we are useful products. To allow this to go on is simply not conservative.

Something else about natural resources: not only are they scarce, but once they're gone, they're gone. Man cannot cleanse the sky, man cannot recreate water, man cannot produce crude oil. To ignore the implications that we could have a fresh water shortage in the next 20-30 years is not only irresponsible, it's financially stupid. If industries are reliant on natural resources and they run out, the industry dies. Lost jobs, lost income, lost revenue, lost taxes. And yeah, I get it, you want to sell SUV's and people want to buy SUV's, and nobody wants the government to tell them what to do. But from the government's stand point, do you think that people are really going to stand for the rationing of fresh water? Rationing of electricity?

Want to talk industry? Fine, let's talk industry. Fishing is a multi-billion dollar industry. Yet we are constantly overfishing the oceans. For crying out loud, Florida had a scandal because they were passing off other types of fish as grouper because there simply wasn't enough to go around. The U.S. government combined the farmed salmon with wild salmon in an effort to get salmon off the endangered species list so that overfishing could continue.

These actions are done in the same of industry. But tell me this: what happens when we overfish to the point that there simply isn't enough sea life to sustain the demands of sea food?i.e. what if we run out? Then what? A multi-billion dollar industry disappears, including tourism for beach resorts. Restaurants across the world close, and a whole shit-ton of people are out of work all because we couldn't figure out a way to allocate our resources in the best way possible.

I am generally against government meddling in the ways of business. However, the government does have a stake in its own available resources and it is in that country's best interest to allocate and conserve them. That is what a true conservative's position should be. We should tax the shit out of the scarcest of resources (oil being one), which would give the market financial incentive to find other alternatives and resources.

Alas, the conservatives of this country have sold their souls to short-term thinking corporate interests and religious crazies, causing us to waste the natural resources we have at a rate that soon, we will be without them. Do you like having electricity? If the oil runs out, you have none. Do you like having fish for dinner? If the oceans are polluted to the point of danger, you have none. Do you like breathing? If the air is polluted past a certain point...well, you simply can't hold your breath long enough for the planet to fix it.

Morning Haiku

Tuesday after 3 day weekend haiku:

I cling to my cup

of Joe. I look at my bed

Who is that person?

Be Responsible, Get Tested!

An Old Econ Essay

This was an essay I wrote for my Macro-Economics class regarding healthcare. This essay cites a lot of Adam Smith, whom my teacher loved and with whom I disagree. But I thought it makes for some interesting reading. (I got an A on the paper so my logic is pretty solid.) Contrary to popular opinion, my paper does not advocate government run healthcare, but rather, government action through taxation that would allow businesses to offer healthcare benefits and to provide incentive for individuals to obtain and/or keep their health insurance benefits. Enjoy!

When Adam Smith describes the Invisible Hand as “the mysterious power, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many,” it seems that healthcare is the exception to the rule. There is a general consensus that the United States healthcare system is inefficient, inflated, poorly managed, besieged by unnecessary litigation (i.e. malpractice lawsuits), and insurance fraud on both sides of the operating table. Everyone, from the insurance carrier to the hospital, the employer and the employee, are working for their own gain in regards to healthcare, and all of them are losing. Having worked in medical billing, I can attest to health insurance companies conveniently “misplacing” claims until the timely filing deadline passes, and then denying the claim due to missed timely filing. I can also testify to the practices of lawyers, who use the insurance payments to maximize their own fees instead of paying off their client’s medical expenses. “Out of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges the spontaneous order of the market,” and yet, we see no clear coordination in U.S. healthcare. We see the exact opposite.

Healthcare is literally bankrupting the American citizen. According to a Harvard study, out-of-pocket expenses for those who filed for bankruptcy either partially or solely because of medical debt averaged to $12,000. That same study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings in the United States were partly due to medical debt. 68 percent of those filers had health insurance coverage[i]. On the surface, it doesn’t make sense considering that insurance is supposed to shield the consumer from the majority of costs they could otherwise not afford. But from 1996 to 2003, out-of-pocket expenses rose from 37.3 percent to 43.1 percent[ii], and it shows no signs of leveling off or decreasing.

As a consequence, many people have decided that the cost of health insurance coverage is too high and choose to go without it. Their opportunity cost is emergency and preventative healthcare. This opportunity loss is doing more harm than good. Economists found that the increase in medical expenses correlates with the decrease in health insurance coverage[iii]. So while many people believe they are saving money by foregoing health insurance, they are actually contributing to the overall rising cost and, inevitably, to their own future medical debt. When health insurance companies lose paying customers, they have to decrease overall health coverage for their insured and simultaneously raise their rates to cover the loss. This leads to more lost customers, (which includes employers who offer healthcare coverage to their employees), who either cannot afford the rate increase or received medical care that is no longer covered or only partially covered. It’s a continuing cycle of lessening coverage and increasing premiums.

The effect on the economy is staggering. 25 percent of housing problems, including foreclosures, are caused by medical debt[iv]. Items normally considered to be inelastic are becoming more elastic. An Iowa survey saw that 44 percent cut back on their food purchases and heating expenses in response to medical charges[v]. It is now estimated that the retiring elderly will need at least $250,000 in savings just for basic medical care[vi]. Some experts even stated that the original number should be closer to $300,000. If dire medical attention is needed, those figures will obviously be inadequate. By the year 2017, the United States expects to spend $4.3 trillion on medical expenses. Healthcare spending would make up 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).[vii]

Reform is needed. The debate is centered on who will accept the majority of the responsibility for healthcare coverage: individuals, employers, or government? Typically, the healthcare burden was on businesses to provide coverage for their employees. According to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent.” It is apparent that businesses can no longer afford to offer comprehensive coverage to the American worker. It is also apparent that the American worker cannot afford comprehensive coverage on his/her own.

Which leaves the United States government.

“…society through government first establishes a system of justice, to protect the poor and the rich”[viii] Adam Smith argues that the role of government is the preserver and protector of its citizens. Right now, many American citizens are facing a lifetime of debt due to medical charges. This is money that cannot be invested or spent in the U.S. economy. Our government obviously has an interest in maintaining our economy, and it would be to their advantage to alleviate this toxic situation. As Smith says in his own Wealth of Nations: “We appeal not to their humanity but to their self-interest, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.”[ix]

The government can use a Tax Change to increase the Short Run Aggregate Supply of Health Insurance by increasing disposable household income and higher post-tax profits for businesses who offer health insurance coverage to their employees. These combined should create a higher level of Aggregate Demand for health insurance coverage. The government must remain careful not to reduce the overall tax burden, as this would create an excess of demand, leading to inflation. This would be counter-productive.

But if the government can shift public perception regarding health insurance coverage, making “uninsured” the opportunity cost by simply increasing the short run supply of health coverage, then health insurance companies would be able to keep the needed number of customers to obtain the needed capital to cover their insured. Overall rates would decrease and coverage would increase, thereby reversing the current opposite trend. This would free up money otherwise tied up by medical debt, influencing savings, investments, and growth in the Long Run.

Adam Smith believed in placing morality in the marketplace. When business or government ignores morality, they could face a repercussion. All American citizens should have the ability to obtain and maintain some sort of healthcare coverage that will not devastate them financially. It is part of the government’s promise to keep them safe and secure. Right now, too many people are choosing medical insurance as an opportunity loss, which compounds the healthcare crisis. Government action can reverse this trend, giving an economic incentive to change the opportunity cost. Not only is it the correct economic decision, it’s also the just and moral one. As Adam Smith says, “What can be added to the happiness of the man who is in health, who is out of debt, and has a clear conscience?”[x]

---

[i] Himmelstein, D, E. Warren, D. Thorne, and S. Woolhandler, “Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy,” Health Affairs Web Exclusive W5-63, February, 2005.

[ii] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Out-of-Pocket Expenditures on Health Care and Insurance Premiums Among the Non-elderly Population, 2003, March 2006.

[iii] The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation,. The Uninsured: A Primer, Key Facts About Americans Without Health Insurance. 2004. 10 November 2004 http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7451.cfm

[iv] The Access Project. Home Sick: How Medical Debt Undermines Housing Security. Boston, MA, November 2005.

[v] Selzer and Company Inc. Department of Public Health 2005 Survey of Iowa Consumers, September 2005.

[vi] Fidelity Investments, Press Release, March 06, 2006.

[vii] Keehan, S. “Health Spending Projections Through 2017”, Health Affairs Web Exclusive W146: 21 February 2008.

[viii] Wright, Jonathan B., Saving Adam Smith, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, November 2001.

[ix] Jenkins, Arthur Hugh, Adam Smith Today: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, New York, 1948.

[x] Smith, Adam, Theory of Moral Sentiments

Happy Friday, everyone!

My old middle school friend makes an "Office" homage. Here is his newest episode and one of his funniest. A little laugh to start off your long weekend: