Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Undercover Boss
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Curling
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
EZCracker
Friday, February 12, 2010
Office at school
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Livescribe Pulse Smartpen
Monday, February 01, 2010
Free Time
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Oath
STATE OF KANSAS EMPLOYEE’S OATH
K.S.A. 75-4308 et seq requires that the following oath from K.S.A. 54-106, be signed by new employees before entering the duties of employment and before funds for services may be disbursed:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of Kansas, and faithfully discharge the duties of my office or employment. So help me God.
___________________________________ Employee’s Signature
Not making this up at all. Coming across this stopped me in a bemused pause. I guess I was effectively going to be a state employee so I guess that means I have to take an oath of office. Sadly, I don't have a working knowledge of either the US Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Kansas and I hope that whatever knowledge I do have combined with my ability to "discharge the duties of my office or employment" will be good enough.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Hollywood and the Feel-Good Story
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Academic Christmas
Monday, December 07, 2009
Two Wheels Through Winter
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Electric Cars
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Admitted
Friday, October 23, 2009
New bathroom floor
Thursday, October 08, 2009
New Backsplash
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Bye-Bye Bicycle
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Phone Number Mix-Up
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Obama's Healthcare Speech
Using lists as a crutch, here are my thoughts:
- Federal Cost Controls I think that our national deficit is a very significant problem that seems to be commonly overlooked when it comes to legislation. I'm a member of the generation that, unless something is done, will literally be paying the consequences of our governments overspending and want something done to address the deficit sooner rather than later. I am glad that the President wants to include provisions in the bill to require the program not add to our federal deficit and if the savings the bill is intended to produce don't arrive, then it would require cuts in the budget to keep the plan budget-neutral. Not knowing any details, I'm skeptical of the level of efficiencies to be gained through the other aspects of his proposal but I am quite glad to hear that there are concrete and realistic measures being taken to keep this program from growing out of control.
- Patient Cost Controls I was most surprised to hear the President propose a requirement for annual out-of-pocket maximums and removal of lifetime maximums from insurance policies. As a patient this is good news but it is not clear to me what the long-term consequences of this will be. Insurance companies have used things like a lifetime maximum to prevent a few patients from costing the company an extra-ordinary amount of money due to having to cover expensive treatments. This is another piece of the puzzle that prevents insurance companies from only insuring the healthy (see below) and because of that, I'm generally in favor of it. There's no such thing as a free lunch, though, and I wonder how this will play out over time.
- Required Coverage I like both sides of this coin, both requiring nearly everybody to buy health insurance and requiring insurance companies to ignore "pre-existing conditions" when writing policies. These two items go together, hand-and-glove. As the President said, many insurance companies have (logically) sought to reduce their liability by trying to only insure the healthiest individuals. By removing the ability to deny coverage to anybody based on pre-existing conditions (that is, things the insurance companies know will cost them money) this bill would force the insurance industry to treat all of us like potential customers. By requiring everybody to have insurance, we make nearly our entire country the customer-base for these companies which should be something they like. They just can't pick and choose anymore and have to treat us all the same. This is a big first step in divorcing health insurance from our employers which should give us, the workers, more security by making it easier to switch employers.
- Market Forces and Public Option The key to making me happy with a public option is that it is expected to operate more like a non-profit rather than a corporation subsidized by tax-payer dollars. This seems like a great idea to me; fighting the profit-driven insurance companies with a non-profit, patient-oriented entity. If a for-profit company can offer policies that are competitive with the public non-profit policies, then they deserve the money they earn. If they value they add is not enough to justify the price of their policies or if they become solely profit-oriented at the cost of making policy-holders satisfied, then they'll lose business. More generally, I see no problem in having for-profit businesses compete with non-profits even if in this case the non-profit is a government entity. The playing field is level as long as this government non-profit must be self-sufficient. I'm not totally clear on this but Obama said in his speech "Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it...." If my employer offers health insurance but I find that the public option is better for me, can I choose it? I think I need to be able to do that for there to be a true marketplace where choices force competition. In short, it seems like the public option might be a good way of introducing more market forces.
- Waste and Increased Efficiencies The $900 billion price tag (over ten years) for this reform is intended to be paid for by reducing waste and inefficiencies in the current system. Specifically, this alleged waste resides in the way Medicare/Medicaid is handled by the insurance companies in their attempt to increase profits. I'm skeptical of the amount of waste alleged in the President's speech but I'm not in a good position to know one way or the other. I hope the President has good data in this regard because the ability for this reform to work well for all relies on these savings. As the President said, if these savings don't materialize, expenses have to get slashed and the reform gets gutted.
- Subsidies From what I've read, if don't get insurance through your workplace and the open-market (with both the traditional for-profit insurance companies and the public non-profit company) can't offer an affordable policy, then a tax credit will be given to you which I assume is intended to make the policies affordable for low income earners. There is also a "hardship waiver" for individuals. I'm confused by this. Does this mean that as we move down the income scale the tax credit increases but insurance is still required until a given (very low) income level where the requirement to carry insurance is removed? If this is the case, I hope that the tax credits stop at that level as well.
- Uninsured There will still be uninsured living in the US. The President made a point of saying that the insurance reform will not help illegal immigrants and he also said that there will be a "hardship waiver" for those who just can't afford health insurance. There is nothing in the speech about hospitals being allowed to turn away uninsured so I'm assuming that those that are insured will be indirectly subsidizing those that aren't insured when they go to the hospital. (Hospitals make up the money they lose on non-paying patients by raising the prices over-all for paying patients. Its the same way stores make up money lost to theft; they raise the prices on the paying customers to cover the loss). The percentage of uninsured needs to be very low for this to work.
- Health Insurance Complexity As you've heard me rant about before, right now our health insurance system is quite complex. There is very little transparency in pricing, it is hard to shop around, billing overhead is significant for most providers, and the whole in-network/out-of-network stuff can drive you crazy. I heard nothing in the President's proposal to make any of this simpler. Whether you have a private or public insurance plan it sounds like you'll still be jumping through the same hoops. Providers will still have a mountain of paperwork to deal with, patients will still have to try to wade through bureaucracies to figure out how much a given procedure will end up cost them. I haven't had any personal experience with Medicare/Medicaid so I don't know if having the government as the insurer makes the process easier but I doubt it.
- Healthy Living There didn't seem to be any effort to include in the bill some kind of provision to encourage us as citizens to live healthier lifestyles. Legislation like this is not easy to write but I can't recall anything the President said that would encourage people to make better lifestyle choices. There was some talk about encouraging marketplace competition so maybe insurers will come up with a way to encourage us to reduce their costs by going through some kind of wellness program. Stealing from Michael Pollan, I would love to see our government overhaul the Farm Bill in such a way that it was not so cattle/grain/pig-centric. Are their good reasons for not subsidizing fruits and vegetables instead of corn which often gets made into either cattle-feed or corn syrup?
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The Great Car Exchange
One of the great things about the drive was getting to see a bunch of wind farms near the interstate. I'll put a few pictures up here but there are more on my Flickr stream. (I must admit, though, that once you've seen one wind turbine you've kind of seen them all. At least when you're driving by at 75 mph. Up close its a different story.)
Passing through Concordia, KS we saw this carved mural on the side of the tourist information/museum. I don't know how it was done or have ever seen anything like it.

Last but not least, in honor of a dear little girl I know who loves a DVD titled "I Dig Dirt", we saw one of the machines featured in said DVD. The photo is not near as impressive as seeing it action, even if just while driving by.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Return Paranoia
The clerk started on the return first and instead of just scanning the item and asking if I wanted it back on my credit card she asked for my name, phone number and address. I told here I didn't want to provide that information and she said for returns it was required. Not believing this, I clarified that even with a receipt and even having just purchased the item five minutes ago (literally, I live no more than five blocks from the store) they needed all this information. She said yes, the computer would not allow a return without this information. After thinking this over a few seconds I decided that it wasn't worth getting my name in their database for who knows what reason and told her I'd keep the wrong lamps and go buy the correct lamps at another store. Fortunately for me, one of their competitors is five or six blocks the other direction from where I live.
I'm not normally a big privacy advocate but am tired of getting junk mail and phone calls from corporations (despite being on the "Do Not Call" list) and usually decline to provide this information to businesses. Until now, none of them have refused to do business with me because I won't give them a name, phone number, or address. This was a first and its a bit scam-y that you probably don't know they'll want this information until they have your money and you'd like to make a return. All the more reason to make sure you buy the right item the first time.
Which, by the way, it turns out I did. I was looking in the wrong spot for the burnt-out turn signal and once I figured this out, realized I had purchased the correct part. In this one special case, I was able to stand on principle AND not be inconvenienced. I still don't plan on shopping at AutoZone any more, though.









