A week ago we got to feeling very guilty about our lack of food storage. For those of you who are not Mormon, a three month food storage is a basic instruction given by the church which haunts the many of us who dont quite follow like we should. We finally decided to do something about it. The photo above is a little odd because its actually 3 shots I merged together to give you the feeling of our laundry room that is now our very crowded food storage room. On the top right I put in a new shelf above the doorway which holds a dozen boxes of cereal. I added shelving to the broom closet (the right side) and bought some can rotation systems that will help us eat the oldest stuff first. We also added the shelves on the left which sit above the not-so-visible laundry machines. The cabinets at the top are stuffed with fancy dishes and other odds, but they may have to be sacrificed (or at least moved elsewhere) to make space for more food. We just need to keep buying a few more items and then we'll feel like we're finally following the too-long ignored direction.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Food Storage
A week ago we got to feeling very guilty about our lack of food storage. For those of you who are not Mormon, a three month food storage is a basic instruction given by the church which haunts the many of us who dont quite follow like we should. We finally decided to do something about it. The photo above is a little odd because its actually 3 shots I merged together to give you the feeling of our laundry room that is now our very crowded food storage room. On the top right I put in a new shelf above the doorway which holds a dozen boxes of cereal. I added shelving to the broom closet (the right side) and bought some can rotation systems that will help us eat the oldest stuff first. We also added the shelves on the left which sit above the not-so-visible laundry machines. The cabinets at the top are stuffed with fancy dishes and other odds, but they may have to be sacrificed (or at least moved elsewhere) to make space for more food. We just need to keep buying a few more items and then we'll feel like we're finally following the too-long ignored direction.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Cost of Health Care
Yesterday my dad said that Obama's health care plan would cost over a trillion dollars a year (and would bankrupt America). So, I did some investigating. The short of it is that Obama's health care will cost less than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here are the details (and I did this quickly so please tell me if you see a mistake):
Multiple sources say that Obama says it will cost about $60 billion/year.
A CATO institute (a conservative think tank stuffed full of republicans who hate Obama) article said:
Obama's plan is predicated on a philosophy that "If the highest spending areas could be sanded down to the lowest spending areas, about 30% in "waste," or $700 billion each year, would be saved. More than enough to pay for ObamaCare." However, the author seemed skeptical.
So, for those watching Fox news let me break the news to you--Obama care will not cost over a trillion dollars a year. Not even the conservative pro-republican think tanks are estimating it to cost that much. The real cost is somewhere between $60 - $110 billion/year.
Part of the confusion, I should add, is that Obama-haters do two things to misrepresent the facts: (1) they throw in the pre-existing costs of medicare and medicare that cost over $500 billion to inflate the cost of Obama's plan, or (2) they toss out a 9-10 year figure in a conversation about the annual (1-year) budget. In reality, Obama is cutting those costs and then adding on some new things for a total increase of $60-$110 billion.
So what do all these numbers mean? To give you some perspective on all this, the US spends over $600 billion/year on the military. The next biggest spender after the US is China at $65 billion/year. We spend ten times as much as the next biggest spender (and more than the rest of the world combined)--that is crazy! The 2008 fiscal budget (it was all I could find in my quick review) shows that Iraq ($149.2 billion/year) and Afganistan ($32.8 billion/year) cost a total of $180 billion/year.
So, Obama's health plan (costing between $60-$110 billion/year) will cost 1/6 what the total military expenses cost and about half what the war in Iraq and Afghanistan costs.
Now, I'm not saying we need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan--maybe we do, maybe we dont. What I'm saying is, Obama's proposed health care plan costs less than the current wars so IF we have to make cuts (and I think we do--we spend way too much money) we need to look at the whole picture and consider which is more important--a $60-$110 billion/year health program or a $180 billion/year war in the Middle East. I think they are both very important, but if I had to chose I'd choose health care for Americans over bullets for foreigners. Ultimately, I think we probably need to do something extreme to cut medicare/medicaid, military spending, and social security in order to balance the budget. What angers me is that democrats blindingly say "you must cut the military budget" and republicans say "you must cut health care and social security." Hello? Isn't it obvious we need to cut it all?
So, if we need to cut the budget, is this the time to spend $60-$110/billion on a new health care program? Well, I'd say yes (go ahead, call me a hypocrite), only because we really need this health plan and I hope (maybe ignorantly) that if we do it we will be forced to make cuts elsewhere to compensate--if not now then soon. Health care is long overdue, and I dont want to lose this short window of support (Clinton's efforts to do this failed).
Regardless, as we continue spending we're likely to see a conservative backlash with a Republican Congress (and maybe even a president) who begin to cut things for us (thank goodness!). I'd be happy about that, as long as we get the health care program in there first. They will be able to trim it later, along with everything else, but the essential program will survive and 50 million Americans need doctors a heck of a lot more than foreign wars.
Multiple sources say that Obama says it will cost about $60 billion/year.
A CATO institute (a conservative think tank stuffed full of republicans who hate Obama) article said:
- "neutral sources" say the cost will be $110 billion/year
- also cited a Health Systems Innovations estimate of $600 billion
- Lewin Group estimated the cost at $571 billion over 9 years [so $63 billion/year]. They also said the total cost of all health care would jump to $1.17 trillion over 9 years [so $130 billion/year].
- HSI estimates the Obama plan would cost $452 billion per year. The Heritage Foundation says they have a higher estimate because they are assuming mandatory coverage of children
- TPC projects the Obama plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years [so $160 billion/year]. However, Heritage Foundation says the TPC model did not account for any of the savings measures in the plan. (For a review of the savings built into the plan, see the Wall Street Journal article comments below)
Obama's plan is predicated on a philosophy that "If the highest spending areas could be sanded down to the lowest spending areas, about 30% in "waste," or $700 billion each year, would be saved. More than enough to pay for ObamaCare." However, the author seemed skeptical.
So, for those watching Fox news let me break the news to you--Obama care will not cost over a trillion dollars a year. Not even the conservative pro-republican think tanks are estimating it to cost that much. The real cost is somewhere between $60 - $110 billion/year.
Part of the confusion, I should add, is that Obama-haters do two things to misrepresent the facts: (1) they throw in the pre-existing costs of medicare and medicare that cost over $500 billion to inflate the cost of Obama's plan, or (2) they toss out a 9-10 year figure in a conversation about the annual (1-year) budget. In reality, Obama is cutting those costs and then adding on some new things for a total increase of $60-$110 billion.
So what do all these numbers mean? To give you some perspective on all this, the US spends over $600 billion/year on the military. The next biggest spender after the US is China at $65 billion/year. We spend ten times as much as the next biggest spender (and more than the rest of the world combined)--that is crazy! The 2008 fiscal budget (it was all I could find in my quick review) shows that Iraq ($149.2 billion/year) and Afganistan ($32.8 billion/year) cost a total of $180 billion/year.
So, Obama's health plan (costing between $60-$110 billion/year) will cost 1/6 what the total military expenses cost and about half what the war in Iraq and Afghanistan costs.
Now, I'm not saying we need to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan--maybe we do, maybe we dont. What I'm saying is, Obama's proposed health care plan costs less than the current wars so IF we have to make cuts (and I think we do--we spend way too much money) we need to look at the whole picture and consider which is more important--a $60-$110 billion/year health program or a $180 billion/year war in the Middle East. I think they are both very important, but if I had to chose I'd choose health care for Americans over bullets for foreigners. Ultimately, I think we probably need to do something extreme to cut medicare/medicaid, military spending, and social security in order to balance the budget. What angers me is that democrats blindingly say "you must cut the military budget" and republicans say "you must cut health care and social security." Hello? Isn't it obvious we need to cut it all?
So, if we need to cut the budget, is this the time to spend $60-$110/billion on a new health care program? Well, I'd say yes (go ahead, call me a hypocrite), only because we really need this health plan and I hope (maybe ignorantly) that if we do it we will be forced to make cuts elsewhere to compensate--if not now then soon. Health care is long overdue, and I dont want to lose this short window of support (Clinton's efforts to do this failed).
Regardless, as we continue spending we're likely to see a conservative backlash with a Republican Congress (and maybe even a president) who begin to cut things for us (thank goodness!). I'd be happy about that, as long as we get the health care program in there first. They will be able to trim it later, along with everything else, but the essential program will survive and 50 million Americans need doctors a heck of a lot more than foreign wars.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
White Teeth
So, I hate my teeth. They once were white, but over time got a little more yellow, and then more yellow. I blame my junior high and high school diet of cookies for lunch and ding dongs for dinner. Over the years I've tried many different whitening products--mouthwash, toothpaste, strips, paint-on-whiteners, etc. Last week I tried something new that was awesome, and it was SUPER cheap. I recommend it to everyone.
(Note: these are not my teeth--I wish they were)The catch:
When you go to their web page and sign up for the free sample they will (without asking you) sign you up for the monthly service that is way expensive. So, just take the free sample and after a couple days go back to the web page and cancel the service for which they've signed you up. Their web page is below. A word of warning--I hate thier web page. It is very easy to navigate, but designed so that you cannot get out of it (if you try your back button it will not work; if you type another address it hangs; I dont know how they do it but it is obnoxious).
http://www.dentawhiteteeth.com
So, give it a try and see if your teeth get whiter as well (this is not a paid advertisement; I get nothing from you signing up).
Health Care
It looks like the tide is turning against Obama and his health care plan. Could it be that the bill is too ambitions at 1200 pages. Does something that long invite criticism? Well I certainly do not know all the details about his health care plan, but I do have some thoughts, generally.
--48 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a nation this wealthy that just seems wrong. We'll pay for every child to have access to a teacher but not a doctor?
--1 in 25 dollars spent on health services goes to prevention. Why? There are a couple reason. One is that it is simply more expensive to offer chemo therapy than to run a biopsy on a questionable colored mole. Another is that people without insurance have no choice but to wait until it is an emergency before they an get any help. It is more cost effective to prevent illness, but that is not how our current system works. So if you are poor (and like 1/6 of Americans cannot afford insurance) and have a dark mole that is changing colors, it may be cancerous but you can't have it looked until its too late and you need chemotherapy. Clearly our system is in need of reform.
--Currently doctors get paid for conducting tests and providing services--not getting results. The same criticism republicans have for public education (teachers get paid regardless of how good or bad they are) is equally fitting for the health care industry. A good friend of mine had to have a hearth-catheter (they stick a mini-camera up an artery and into your heart to take measurements). The hospital billed her for two within two days because the doctor forgot to get a couple measurements and had to do it again. Shouldn't the second one come out of his salary? Then, of course, insurance companies can make even more money by denying claims for people who get too expensive (and I've also seen this first hand so I know it happens). Keep in mind the health care system was built by health care companies, and like any business thier goal was and is to make money. Providing a service to make money is not bad, but we need to always remember that they only provide as much service as we demand, and if we don't threaten regulation (or use it) they'll never self-regulate--that would just be bad business.
--Those "socialist" nations in Europe and to our north have great service. All this bad-talking social health care is a smoke screen--ask anybody who has ever lived there and they'll tell you they get service equal to a typical insured American. It takes a couple months to get into a specialist, just like it does here in the states (and if you have an emergency they get you in faster, just like here in the states). And in Canada, at least, if you need some incredibly unusual treatment or specialist that they cannot provide in the window of need, they'll pay for you to go to the States (where the massive population can support a greater number of specialists offering that treatment). People foolishly think Canadians come to the states to access our "better" health care system; the fact is that they prefer their health care and the only ones who come down are either (1) wealthy people trying to skip ahead of some organ transplant waiting list (should your cash allow you to skip ahead of somebody else?), or (2) people who need a service that Canada cannot offer in time because they lack the population to support the unusual treatment. They do not come to the states because our system is better; quite the opposite, they come because (1) our system is screwed up and we privileged the wealthy at the expense of the poor (no amount of $$$ should allow somebody to skip ahead of other human beings waiting for a transplant) and (2) because we have a larger population to support more diverse treatments.
So I don't know all about the Obama health care plan, but I do know that our system needs dramatic reform. When you toss in the fact that premiums are constantly doubling and American families will soon be unable to afford any coverage it becomes clear that we need a public option. In capitalism there are always winners and loosers; haves and have-nots. When it comes to health care, we should all have some, regardless of our income level. Instead, we see the progressive restriction of who can afford insurance that will just continue to grow the ranks of have-nots. That is unacceptable.
Oh, and one more thing about "a public option." I'm sick of republicans (like my dad) insisting that "the government will take over the industry, subsidize itself, and run out all of the competition." When has the government ever done that? It is a scare tactic. The government never has been in the business of taking over an industry and chasing out all of the private enterprise. Look at the postal system--we have lots of options (US postal, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL)--and it could be the same in health care. We do need a public option to (1) provide for those who cannot afford the ever-rising premiums, and (2) to keep the current health care providers honest. My own best solution would be for each state to have its own public option, and be permitted to use the facilities of neighboring states to compete across state lines with those neighbors (to ensure that the various state-run public options have competition as well)--competition keeps everybody honest--the government and private enterprise.
--48 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a nation this wealthy that just seems wrong. We'll pay for every child to have access to a teacher but not a doctor?
--1 in 25 dollars spent on health services goes to prevention. Why? There are a couple reason. One is that it is simply more expensive to offer chemo therapy than to run a biopsy on a questionable colored mole. Another is that people without insurance have no choice but to wait until it is an emergency before they an get any help. It is more cost effective to prevent illness, but that is not how our current system works. So if you are poor (and like 1/6 of Americans cannot afford insurance) and have a dark mole that is changing colors, it may be cancerous but you can't have it looked until its too late and you need chemotherapy. Clearly our system is in need of reform.
--Currently doctors get paid for conducting tests and providing services--not getting results. The same criticism republicans have for public education (teachers get paid regardless of how good or bad they are) is equally fitting for the health care industry. A good friend of mine had to have a hearth-catheter (they stick a mini-camera up an artery and into your heart to take measurements). The hospital billed her for two within two days because the doctor forgot to get a couple measurements and had to do it again. Shouldn't the second one come out of his salary? Then, of course, insurance companies can make even more money by denying claims for people who get too expensive (and I've also seen this first hand so I know it happens). Keep in mind the health care system was built by health care companies, and like any business thier goal was and is to make money. Providing a service to make money is not bad, but we need to always remember that they only provide as much service as we demand, and if we don't threaten regulation (or use it) they'll never self-regulate--that would just be bad business.
--Those "socialist" nations in Europe and to our north have great service. All this bad-talking social health care is a smoke screen--ask anybody who has ever lived there and they'll tell you they get service equal to a typical insured American. It takes a couple months to get into a specialist, just like it does here in the states (and if you have an emergency they get you in faster, just like here in the states). And in Canada, at least, if you need some incredibly unusual treatment or specialist that they cannot provide in the window of need, they'll pay for you to go to the States (where the massive population can support a greater number of specialists offering that treatment). People foolishly think Canadians come to the states to access our "better" health care system; the fact is that they prefer their health care and the only ones who come down are either (1) wealthy people trying to skip ahead of some organ transplant waiting list (should your cash allow you to skip ahead of somebody else?), or (2) people who need a service that Canada cannot offer in time because they lack the population to support the unusual treatment. They do not come to the states because our system is better; quite the opposite, they come because (1) our system is screwed up and we privileged the wealthy at the expense of the poor (no amount of $$$ should allow somebody to skip ahead of other human beings waiting for a transplant) and (2) because we have a larger population to support more diverse treatments.
So I don't know all about the Obama health care plan, but I do know that our system needs dramatic reform. When you toss in the fact that premiums are constantly doubling and American families will soon be unable to afford any coverage it becomes clear that we need a public option. In capitalism there are always winners and loosers; haves and have-nots. When it comes to health care, we should all have some, regardless of our income level. Instead, we see the progressive restriction of who can afford insurance that will just continue to grow the ranks of have-nots. That is unacceptable.
Oh, and one more thing about "a public option." I'm sick of republicans (like my dad) insisting that "the government will take over the industry, subsidize itself, and run out all of the competition." When has the government ever done that? It is a scare tactic. The government never has been in the business of taking over an industry and chasing out all of the private enterprise. Look at the postal system--we have lots of options (US postal, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL)--and it could be the same in health care. We do need a public option to (1) provide for those who cannot afford the ever-rising premiums, and (2) to keep the current health care providers honest. My own best solution would be for each state to have its own public option, and be permitted to use the facilities of neighboring states to compete across state lines with those neighbors (to ensure that the various state-run public options have competition as well)--competition keeps everybody honest--the government and private enterprise.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Busy Busy Busy
Yes, the rumors are true. Normally I would not preempt the stake presidency on announcing a calling, but since Bishop Mortensen already leaked it and tons of people already know, we may as well confirm that Jen is, indeed, the seminary teacher for Tempe High School next year. Classes will meet from 7am-8am. It will make the year a bit more busy, but we think it is doable. Jen will also be directing Arizona Deseret Choir (the old Arizona Mormon Choir) and is gathering her supporters to infuse the choir with some new voices. She will also be teaching ASU's Women's Chorus. In her free time she is writing her final document and if all goes well she'll graduate in May 2010. I (Matt) will be teaching US West history at ASU--one traditional class and one online--and writing my dissertation. The dissertation is moving along well, but I'll need to really rush to also graduate in May 2010. Abby is, as usual, being cute. It is a full time job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)