Bill Maher on NFL Socialism vs. MLB Capitalism

A week ago on Real Time, Bill Maher had an interesting take on the Super Bowl in his segment, "New Rules."  It's only about 5 minutes long, so rather than paraphrase it, I'll just have you watch the video:





Bill Maher is an interesting person -- he usually supports what "the scientists" say, but at other times he just goes his own way regardless of what the scientific evidence says, as he does with vaccines.  Nevertheless, he still has some interesting moments on his show when he's not being too much of an ass.  He is a comedian though, and thus when he says things, you need to consider the legitimacy of those claims.


In this case, I decided to look at the list of winners for both the Super Bowl and the World Series.  I then calculated the percent of the total number of championship games that each team had appeared in and/or won (as a percent of the total, not of their appearances).  This information is summarized in the tables below, after the break.

Do Americans spend their money more wisely than the government?

I was watching this Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher, and one of the Republican guests said something along the line of I believe Americans know how to spend their money more wisely than their government does.  This is something you hear a lot from Republicans.  In general, I agree to the degree that I'd rather spend the majority of my money myself rather than give it to the government to spend on whatever.  However, that doesn't mean that Americans necessarily spend their money more wisely.  For one, some things the government spends money on would be impractical and economically unsound for a person to do on an individual basis (e.g. roads and national defense).

Still, considering all the talk about the national debt, I wondered how much debt the average American household was in compared to the government when you compensated for the difference in wages.  In other word's, what's the average American household's debt as a percentage of its income compared to the US government's debt as a percentage of government spending?

Richard Tillman on Real Time with Bill Maher

Bill Maher interviewed Richard Tillman (brother of Pat Tillman - the NFL player who left to join the Army) on last week's Real Time.  Richard discusses The Tillman Story, a new documentary about his brother and the circumstances surrounding his death.

Now, I believe that a lot of skeptics agree that Bill Maher is... let's call it inconsistent... when it comes to his rational beliefs about science and the like.  He's an atheist, and in Religulous he repeatedly brings up some of the problems and fallacies of religion.  He takes the reasonable position of saying that you CAN'T know about the existence of god -- and most atheists acknowledge this position as well.  I don't believe in god, but I also know that I can't prove or disprove his existence; I just see little reason to hold the belief the such a being exists.

Contrast Bill's reasonable stance on the existence of god with his beliefs regarding germ theory and vaccination, and you'll understand why I have mixed feelings about the guy.  He tends to jump to conspiracy theories all to readily, but nevertheless I appreciate the fact that he shines a light on other aspects of our society that I also find troubling.

Rally to Restore Sanity

I reserved my hotel rooms for the Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive in Washington, D.C. on October 30th.  I've never been to D.C., so I'm hoping I get a chance to look around the day before the rallies.  I hope to see you there!

Note:  I'm in the middle of an exam block right now, so probably no updates until next week.

Fox News flat-out lying about new nuclear weapons treaty with Russia

I know Fox News has a certain conservative, "progressives/liberals are the anti-christ" narrative that they're trying to push.  And most of the time, they seem to be content to mostly just distort or dismiss the facts that don't suit their ideology.  It's a pretty obvious bias, but now it appears that they've moved on to just flat-out lying about what President Obama is doing while simultaneously propagating some false, god-like fantasy existence of Ronald Reagan.  Seriously, how do they get away with this shit?  If, as a doctor, I were to lie about the effectiveness, side effects, or risks of a particular treatment, I would be sued in no time.  So how is it that Fox News continues to do crap like this without any consequences?

I try not to go too heavy on posting stuff from The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.  They're not news organizations, and I acknowledge that they shouldn't be used as a source of actual news.  However, I don't see many other people out there calling out Fox News on their complete and utter bullshit.  The clip below is from Thursday, April 8.  Enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

A little too far

So I found myself on MSN today (weird, I know), and I saw this story on the front page.  A urologist, Dr. Jack Cassell, in Mount Dora, FL, put up a sign outside his office saying:

If you voted for Obama... seek urologic care elsewhere.  Changes to your healthcare begin right now.  Not in four years.

Granted, he is in a heavily Republican area and he says he will not refuse treatment to anyone who walks in the door.  "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

But still, are you kidding me?  Having political opinions and all is fine, but putting that sign outside a building that is supposed to provide healthcare to people who need it is just going too far.  Mount Dora has a population of ~10,000, and considering he's a specialist, chances are that there aren't many, if any, other urologists in that town.  So if you are an Obama supporter, and your primary care physician referred you there, you have to be asking yourself: do I really want this guy to treat me for my prostate cancer?

Changes to Student Loans

Something that went relatively unnoticed (untiland whatnot recently) amidst all the healthcare news lately are the changes made to student loans.  It's absolutely ridiculous how some people are so up in arms about this, screaming about another "government takeover" that's killing freedom and whatnot.  Oddly enough, this one actually is a government takeover, but one that I think most people should be happy about!

Basically, until this new law the government was lending money to private lenders so they could lend money to students, while the government (AKA: taxpayers) assumed all of the risk.  This meant that private lenders were able to make profits off of the interest they charged on student loans without having to worry about whether or not the student would actually pay the full amount back.  If the student failed to do so, no problem, the government would pay the private lender instead!  Talk about a government handout!

An Alternative Point of View

A friend pointed me to this blog post by Keith Hennessey, former Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Policy (under President Bush).  I certainly don't agree with everything he says, but he carries a much more reasonable tone and point of view than I'm used to hearing.  Granted, you could probably make the argument that he wants the healthcare bill to fail simply because it would just make President Obama and democrats look bad too.  I have difficulty believing that if Congress were to strike down this bill, that it would have absolutely anything to do with changing fiscal responsibility in Washington like Hennessey talks about.  I mean, just try to keep a straight face while you imagine Congress not doing anything else until they fund old policies and significantly reduce the deficit.  And I have to wonder where this talk of fiscal responsibility was 9 years ago.  Note that I'm not saying these things directly in opposition towards Hennessey in particular.  He makes an interesting argument, even if I think it needs to be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

Still, with the complicated nature of healthcare, medicine, disease, and the economy, it's not unreasonable to question whether or not the full $1.3 trillion deficit reduction will actually be observed over the next 20 years.  I think it will definitely save us money in the long run, but whether or not we get that full reduction in 20 years is harder to say.  The more important news, however, is that in 20 years, I should be finished paying off all of my medical school loans!  I think it's important that I keep my priorities straight here, right?

But I digress.  Whether purposely or not, Hennessey also neglects some of the other benefits of the bill, such as the fact that it will expand coverage to 32 million people!  It's not the perfect, absolute best way to expand coverage, and I don't think anyone is trying to say that it is.  But if you're telling me that we can cover 32 million people and save hundreds of thousands of lives, while at worst staying budget neutral, I'm all for it!

A Reality of Medicare

In one of my classes, the professor told us that one of the big reasons Medicare is so expensive is because it's set up to cover the sickest population. Think about it, Medicare covers people 65+, the disabled, and it even pays for some odd healthcare-related costs like residency training programs (thank you for that, by the way). Therefore, it makes a lot of sense that Medicare wouldn't be a beacon of cheap healthcare. And yet I always hear people saying that Medicare is ridiculously expensive, wasteful, and prone to abuse that can waste millions or billions or zillions of dollars! I'm hoping that over the next few days, I can address some of these concerns.

According to a 2009 report by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare covered 45.2 million people in 2008: 37.8 million 65+ and 7.4 million disabled. This cost $468 million. Yes, Medicare costs a lot, but it's also covering a higher risk population that deals with a higher incidence of high cost conditions like diabetes, hypertension, cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, etc.

I'm curious as to how Medicare's efficiency in covering a higher risk population compares to other countries with national healthcare coverage similar to that of Medicare.  Do European countries cover a similarly high-risk population at a comparable cost, or do they spend much more or much less in doing so? Initial searches brought up precisely bupkis on the matter, but I'm hoping I can find some more information about this in the near future.

Politicians love to point out how much Medicare costs and how costs are so out of control, but considering Medicare covers a population that's at greater risk for higher cost conditions, does Medicare really cost much more than it should be expected to?  I don't know, but if I find any information that sheds light on this subject, I'll be sure to let you know.  In the meantime, if you hear a politician or someone in the media bitching about how much Medicare costs, keep in mind that its high cost is largely due to the population it was set up to cover!

Canadians taxed 40% with health insurance? Not quite

I was watching Real Time with Bill Maher this weekend and heard something that bothered me.  Specifically, Amy Holmes said something to the effect of Canadians paying a 40% income tax because of their national healthcare program.  To me, this didn't seem quite as outrageous as she meant it to be (considering the cost of healthcare paid out of pocket in the US), but I also wondered about the factuality of such a statement.

Before I get into the numbers, let me start by saying I'm no financial or healthcare expert.  I'm posting this mostly because I'm hoping someone who is more of an expert on the subject could comment on the situation.  I'm not looking to absolutely debunk her statement, but really just to introduce the idea that comparing the tax rate in Canada to that in the US as she did is neither an accurate nor a logical comparison.

A Senator making sense? That's weird.

I came across this and was very surprised to hear it coming out of a Senator's mouth.  I didn't know we had people in D.C. who referred to actual facts instead of just talking points when discussing policy.  Granted Senator Durbin did use a particularly emotional reference to some woman's medical malpractice case to support his point, on the whole I think he was honest and direct.  I enjoyed his reference to Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande, which I just finished reading and plan to post a review soon.  Medical malpractice reform is by no means a bad idea, but it's not some cure-all for health care costs.  And people whose lives are forever changed by gross medical negligence (i.e. not something that can be easily remedied by another operation paid for by the erring party) do deserve fair compensation for the impact the error has had on their lives.  I'd be interested to see how many lawsuits are of the unwarranted "get rich if they let me" kind or just someone trying to get their medical and legal fees paid for because a medical error was made that lead to those costs.

Anywho, here's the video:

"Sarah Palin ahead of where Obama was 30 months before his nomination." Umm, what?

I came across something interesting terrifying horribly misleading today. A blogger from the LA Times reported that Sarah Palin is apparently ahead of where Barack Obama was 30 months before his nomination as the Democratic candidate for president. Let's take a closer look:

A recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll found that 30 months out from the 2012 party presidential nominations, only 71% of Americans believe that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president.

This compares with someone named Barack Obama. At the same point in his then unannounced campaign, 0% thought he was qualified for the Oval Office. That's because he wasn't even on the polling lists' radar then.

"Only 71%" believe that Palin is NOT QUALIFIED to be president? How is that better than not being in the poll? Note that saying 71% believing she's not qualified does NOT mean than the other 29% believe she IS qualified, considering polls like that tend to give the option of "don't know" or some such. The post didn't link the poll results directly, so I'm not sure what the choices were. Some very quick Googling didn't reveal the exact poll parameters or results, but if anyone finds them, please let me know!

(More after the jump)

Republicans respond to Obama's invitation to healthcare summit

I know this is almost 1 week old, but I'm trying to post more often so I figured covering something late is better than not at all. House Republicans responded on Monday to President Obama's invitation to a televised healthcare summit. I'll let you do most of the reading, but it seems like this sentiment is one I hear a lot from Republican congressmen, as well as from conservative citizens, bloggers, etc. The main complaint is that Obama hasn't taken enough input from Republicans. Now, I would argue that when Democrats argued against many of Bush's policies, they were dismissed as being unamerican or giving into what the terrorists wanted, but let's not focus on the past. In all honesty, the idea of the majority party legislating without input from the minority is bothersome indeed. The Republicans seem to be much better at doing so (I mean that as a compliment; Democrats suck at getting enough congressmen to agree on anything in order to get stuff done even with the majority). Nevertheless, I disagree on the legitimacy of the Republicans' complaints here.

(More after the jump)