Author: Tony

Too conditioned to question the system?

Kevin, MD links to a story from England. The headline to the story states “I was too shy to talk to my doctor – and it nearly killed me”. That’s an interesting way of characterizing the facts. While the man, Andrew Wilson, did delay seeking treatment for six months, in part out of embarrassment, he also said he was too busy. If it said his delay almost killed him, it’d be much closer to the truth.

Unfortunately, the headline ignored what was clearly a much larger factor. Consider:

‘But as I doubled over in agony, I thought: ‘I wonder if…’ His GP gave him a prescription to treat an upset stomach. ‘Having suffered bowel problems for six months, I mentioned bowel cancer, but he said there was nothing to worry about and told me to come back if the pain persisted.
…

‘I rang my GP but he told me not to worry – “It’s probably piles,” he said.
…

‘My GP had said to me before I left for the States: “Don’t go on the internet and look up your symptoms or you will give yourself a fright.” But I was already frightened.’

The easier of at least two conclusions is medical incompetence for ignoring the symptoms because Mr. Wilson didn’t fit the typical bowel cancer case. But is it possible that in addition to, or in place of, incompetence, socialized medicine is to blame? The people are paying and the people don’t want to waste money on low probabilities, even though low probabilities mean that someone will actually have cancer. That’s sane?

The “right” to health care doesn’t include the right to live in spite of the well-considered economic rationing decisions of the majority? No. The article makes a cursory nod to its own title when it includes “many people are too embarrassed to report symptoms until they become debilitating.” That does not justify the title.

Before we rush into socialized medicine, we should understand the warning signs cancerous economics. Or are we too embarrassed to consider that economic populism is wrong?

It’s not my drug war, but thanks for offering.

This essay by Roger Noriega demonstrates the irrational outcome of pursuing policies and placing blames based on subjective moral valuations absent any cause and effect analysis.

U.S. and Mexican authorities are nearing agreement on an aid package to support Mexico’s courageous new offensive against the deadly drug syndicates that threaten both our nations. The stakes are high for the United States: We depend on Mexico as a cooperative neighbor and trade partner, and most of the marijuana and as much as 90 percent of the cocaine consumed in this country pours over our southern border. If Mexico cannot make significant headway against the bloodthirsty cartels, our security and our people will suffer the consequences.

The drug syndicates wouldn’t be deadly if drugs weren’t illegal. Instead, this is a consequence directly attributable to the moral crusade against drugs that readily ignores any notion of liberty. If people were free to make choices that some disapprove of, there would be no need to insert violence into the process of commerce. The persistent demand for drugs will not disappear. It is not the problem. Our relentless at-all-cost war is.

Other elements will prove to be more challenging to legislate or to implement. Congress and the Bush team will have to set aside feelings of distrust and polarization if they are to forge a deal that can win ample funding and long-term, bipartisan backing. U.S. lawmakers need to be brought into the negotiating process so that they can have confidence in the plan and will not seek to micromanage the fight against drugs in a way that will demoralize our Mexican friends. We must strike a balance between congressional meddling and the oversight necessary to sustain funding and political support. Moreover, waiting for the regular appropriations cycle means an eight-month delay. President Bush should move quickly to request urgent supplemental funds, and Congress should do its duty by acting with the urgency this task demands. Our government must reassure its Mexican counterparts that meaningful help is on the way.

Congress must fund the war and let the Bush administration handle the details. It’s their duty to know as much as it takes to continue funding the initiative, but not enough to question whether or not it makes sense. That’s a recipe for success. Aside from the quite unsuccessful war on drugs, I think we have another example in the news that shows how well such Congressional adherence to “duty” works. What sane person could argue that this is good?

If you can vote, you’re blameless to a politician.

From George Will in today’s Washington Post:

Moral hazard exists when a policy produces incentives for perverse behavior. One such existing policy is farm price supports that reduce the cost to farmers of overproduction, and even encourage it. Another is the policy of removing tens of millions of voters from the income tax rolls, thereby making government largess a free good for them.

If there’s one thing government is good at, it’s repeatedly amplifying moral hazards into a populist zeal for worsening the problem. Will’s column deals with the sub-prime mortgage meltdown and how Democrats are inevitably going to exploit it to push stupider economic policies to “protect” the little guy. Will points out that the primary problem with this is that the little guy who gets protection is the same little guy who willingly entered into the deal that is now causing him problems.

Granted, Democrats would seek to take from him if he’d won, exactly as they want to take from the big guys who won. So we should just ignore that some little guys won, too, and some big guys lost. That’s capitalism. Democrats don’t like capitalism.

Take me out to the… church?

September 11, 2001 brought a new “tradition” in Major League Baseball. During the 7th inning stretch, someone sings “God Bless America”. I don’t have any particular issue with the song or teams including it in the festivities. It’s a private event and I know it’s included going in, so even though it’s patriotism that’s more than a bit forced, whatever. There’s no mandate to sing.

Tonight, however, I got peeved. I went to RFK Stadium to watch the Phillies play lose to the Nationals. In the middle of the 7th, I remembered what was coming. Fine, it’s the Nationals, so I’m not interested in “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” anyway. But I’m on the 3rd base side close to the Nationals dugout. This is what I see:

Nats_GBA.jpg

The man singing “God Bless America” is a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force. I know because I could read it on the Jumbotron. Also, he is wearing a United States Air Force uniform. And singing “God Bless America”.

I don’t think I’m being too picky when I cite the Establishment Clause and how inappropriate this is. Only Justice Scalia could find this anything but an unequivocal co-mingling of the United States government and a specific religion. No, the government isn’t making any law, but the uniform implies an endorsement. That is unacceptable. I was not happy and I intend to contact the Nationals to let them know.

My question for you: am I overreacting?

I remember why I don’t drink or do drugs.

I have a few items to write about, but I just had some vegan jello. It’s good, except it has beet powder in it.

Beets + Tony = BADBADBAD

I’m very manic right now and probably going to pop. I feel like there are 10,000 pinballs on the inside edge of my skin trying to break free from their bonds. My head wants to be twice its normal size. And Danielle says my face is red. I can imagine.

Blogging will resume when I come down from this high, probably tomorrow. It’s a small wonder I was able to spell everything correctly, though you have no idea how many times I’ve used the backspace key in writing this short entry.

Are you allergic to or do you respond to anything this way?

“Each and every one of us” – prove it.

Originally via Liberty Papers, I share Kip’s dismay about the libertarian credentials of this Ron Paul speech from the weekend waste of time in Iowa:

In case you don’t want to watch, here’s a transcript:

…Our campaign is all about freedom, prosperity, and PEACE!

But the one thing we have to remember is that you cannot have freedom without life. We must preserve all life if we expect to protect the individual liberty of each and every one of us. And that means the unborn as well.

Let me assure you, as an OB doctor and one that has studied history and economic policy in politics for a long time, I can assure you that life begins at conception. Life begins at conception and as an OB doctor, I had the legal responsibility of taking care of that life. If I did anything wrong, I could be sued. If anybody’s in an accident, and a fetus is killed, they can be sued. If in a violent act, a fetus is killed, you can be charged with murder. There is no reason in the world that this government can’t protect life, rather than the destruction of life, like they do when they finance abortion. That has to stop. And the most important way that can be stopped is the reversal and elimination of that horrible ruling, Roe v. Wade. It must be reversed.

All of this “Go Freedom!” talk is fascinating. I’m politically inclined to agree with the surface rhetoric coming from the Paul campaign because the talking points can be dressed up as libertarian. It’s just when the details come out that I’m 180 degrees away from where I’m assumed to be because of Rep. Paul’s brand of “libertarianism”.

But since Congressman Paul brought up a useful point on freedom, I’d like to get his opinion, as an OB, on another topic of rights involving children. From conception to birth, every child presumably has the same rights in Dr. Paul’s worldview. Once born, does every child have the right to be free from medically unnecessary circumcision, or does that right belong only to females? If the latter, do boys lose that right at birth, or do girls gain that right? Why? And is he angered by the federal government’s current, unequal stance on genital integrity?

Never trust a politician with your wallet.

I understand the appeal of a Pigou tax to counter the negative effects of gasoline use/carbon output. Theoretically, it’s perfect because it puts the burden on the user creating the problem, which is where it should be. In practice, I see no reason to trust politicians to stay within the bounds of the plan and not dip a finger or shovel into the funds. For example:

President Bush spoke out Thursday against increasing the gasoline tax, an idea being discussed as a potential part of a new Congressional plan to shore up the nation’s bridges after the deadly collapse in Minneapolis.

I get the idea that those who use the road would be paying for the road. That’s fine, except why should bridges be federal expenditures? So why should a national gas tax, collected and managed by the Congress, be used in this capacity? And isn’t a gas tax supposed to offset the negative environmental outcomes of burning gasoline?

Representative James L. Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, suggested this week that a tax increase might be needed to finance a proposed trust fund to repair bridges in the Federal Highway System, [sic] A large percentage of the bridges have been identified as having structural problems.

The key here is that, under current Congressional “leadership”, a large percentage of bridges managed by the federal government have uncorrected structural problems. The same legislative body that allowed this situation to develop without adequate (though, not necessarily appropriate) funding is somehow competent to manage a new influx of cash. Gotcha. I certainly trust the Congress to spend increased gas taxes where they’re needed. It’ll be just like shoring up Social Security with the trust fund receipts.

**********

On an amusing side note, President Bush is certainly bold:

Asked about the gasoline proposal, which could amount to an increase of 5 cents a gallon under schemes floating around Congress, Mr. Bush said, “Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

More than six years in and he’s finally suggesting that Congress examine how it sets priorities. It’s not like he could’ve vetoed any excessive spending and request that it be redirected to infrastructure. (Again, I’m only conceding that the federal government is involved in infrastructure, not that it should be involved.) No, he’s solely the tool of Congress to approve what they approve.

Or he could examine how he sets priorities. If I recall correctly, and I do, several years ago President Bush was busy demanding that the Congress pass a bigoted constitutional amendment. Apparently hating gays is a higher priority than preventing bridges from falling down.

The Schizophrenia of Economic Populism

In his lede to set up a different topic, George Will utilizes this story about Sen. Barack Obama, from the campaign trail:

Sen. Barack Obama recently told some Iowa farmers that prices of their crops are not high enough, considering what grocers are charging for other stuff: “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”

Want to bet that Sen. Obama’s plan to get the prices of crops higher will involve some form of government subversion of economics? Want to also bet that he’ll campaign against the Whole Foods merger because it leads to higher prices? How about the possibility (probability?) that he’ll promise to help working families who have trouble paying their weekly grocery bills?

No one cares to rise above.

I certainly share Andrew Sullivan’s “good riddance” sentiment regarding the imminent departure of Karl Rove from the White House. Seriously, good riddance. While I think Mr. Sullivan correctly summarizes the blown opportunity that Republicans allowed Rove to deliver, he incorrectly hypothesizes the damage Rove caused:

Rove is one of the worst political strategists in recent times. He took a chance to realign the country and to unite it in a war – and threw it away in a binge of hate-filled niche campaigning, polarization and short-term expediency. His divisive politics and elevation of corrupt mediocrities to every branch of government has turned an entire generation off the conservative label. And rightly so. It will take another generation to recover from the toxins he has injected, with the president’s eager approval, into the political culture and into the conservative soul.

The first two sentences are the perfect short epitaph for Rove’s tenure. But I’m not convinced that he’s turned an entire generation off the conservative label. It wasn’t too long ago that Republicans were crowing about the permanent Republican majority. Rational people could understand this for the ridiculous hyperbole it was, precisely because politics gets in the way of principles. Politicians can’t set their egos aside long enough to do what’s right. History shows almost nothing but that.

The problematic missing part is who will occupy the new political vacuum created by Rove’s mess? And that’s where the Democrats step in to demonstrate that neither side is particularly adept at statesmanship. It’s all politics, all the time. We’re not eight months into Democratic control of Congress and the surrendering to political cowardice is already rampant. Nothing will change in the likelihood that a Democrat wins the White House in 2008. The Democrats don’t have the same issues, but they are carrying their own full set of luggage. “Permanent” majority, anyone?

In the end, Rove achieved little more than the further coarsening of American political discourse. Surely he’s not the only person we can blame for this. And far too many partisans on both sides of the aisle have been perfectly complicit. The partisans will be alright, as this is all they’ve wanted anyway. It’s the newly indifferent idealist who must recover.

Tom Glavine wins #300.

I was at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium on August 22, 1987, when Tom Glavine notched his first Major League win, a 10-3 victory over the visiting Pittsburgh Pirates. Last night, Glavine won game #300, a 6-3 victory in Chicago against the Cubs. He’s only the 23rd pitcher in Major League history to achieve 300 win milestone. (He’s the 5th left-hander.) I’m not a fan of arbitrary numbers as a sign of greatness, but 300 wins is as close as possible. Cooperstown awaits.

In honor of his achievement, here’s the boxscore from his first win. (Originially printed in the August 23, 1987 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.) Note the “one flaw” noted in Glavine’s performance in that game. That “flaw” would become a defining quality.