The Yanks are on a tear lately! It's about time. Their magic number for winning the wild card is 7 and it's 14 for winning the division. The Red Sox are still in first place (only by 2.5 games) but have a magic number of 9. All this means is that each time your team wins, or the other team in question loses, your magic number decreases. When the number reaches 0, you've won the division or the wild card or whatever you're talking about. Since there are only 11 games left, this means the yanks have a very good shot at winning the wild care, and though it's certainly possible they could win the division, it's not mathematically likely. I love the last two weeks of the baseball season!
On a different note, I have some huge news to announce, but since I don't have the picture on my computer yet, I'll wait. Sorry.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sept 10, 1932
2 initial thoughts: 1) I can't believe this is the third 9/11 I'm writing about on my blog; time flies. 2) I really don't have it in me to say anything about Sept 11,2001 today, so I'm going to commemorate a different anniversay about city I grew up in and love. ou can read my 2006 and 2005 9/11 posts by clicking on each year. Sept 10, 1932 was the first time the A train made the trip from one end of Manhattan all the way down to the other end. Growing up in Washington Heights, the A train was my lifeline and connection to the rest of the city and I'm sure that on average I probably took the A train about 2 times every day of my childhood. Going to Jr. High, I rode it to 168th where I transferred to the downtown 1 to Harlem. During High School I also transferred at 168th, but rode it uptown to the Bronx. Going to work during my summer jobs I rode it either to 42nd and then went crosstown if I was working on the east side, or rode it all the way to the Chambers St. if I was working on Wall St. Of course it got me halfway to Yankee Stadium, I'd transfer at 145th for the uptown D. Anyway, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of that first ride from the top to the bottom of Manhattan, the MTA ran a few old trains dating back to before WWII. Of course I live in North Carolina and didn't get to ride one, but here's the link to the article in today's NY Times.Saturday, September 01, 2007
Health Care Reform
In one of my classes we were asked to write a hypothetical proposal for health care reform as if we were an adviser to one of the Presidential candidates. Here's my response:
Great question. I've done a bit of research on the current proposals for my work, so you'll probably get a longer answer than you wanted.
My answer depends on who the candidate is and at what stage of the game we're at. You need to be general enough to not tie yourself down in the Nov election and once elected, but specific enough to get yourself to that point. First of all, recent polls show that people on both sides of the spectrum see health care as one of the top issues of the campaign (one poll this week had health care tied with Iraq among democract voters), so both sides should definitely talk about it. That being said, I think that during the primaries Republicans need to be careful not to support anything too closely resembling "socialized medicine" or requiring a lot of gov't regulation, or even the most well-meaning candidate won't have a realistic shot of making it past Iowa (or whatever state ends up being first). With Rudy leading all the polls, conservatives are showing they're willing to have someone who has been pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, as long as they stick to the free market system and don't let gov't get too big. I would give a Democrat similar advise, suggesting they learn lessons from 93-94, and not get themselves too locked into one firm inflexible set of ideas now, since it would cost them later, either in the general election or during congressional battles. I find it interesting that this is exactly what Hillary has been doing. Other candidates aren't as well known and would probably need to be more specific and focused in their platform to give themselves a fighting chance. If I were advising one of them, I would suggest they focus on answering the following questions:
1) Will the plan be universal? Yes.
2) How? With "shared responsibility" by employers, employees, and everyone else. I am intrigued by Edwards' proposal of creating regional health markets (essentially the Clinton plan of the 90s though I would do everything possible to de-emphasize the similarities) and think that might be the way to go. There would need to be some minimum standards set up, but it shouldn't be too overly regulatory (or it would never get passed). This way, individual states would have freedom to pursue the path that best suits their needs. Perhaps include an individual mandate, as the Mass. plan does, so you can cut down on emergency room spending, but not require anyone to change plans if they don't want to. I would also sign an SCHIP bill like the Senate and House just passed and get rid of the ridiculous new HHS regulations on how SCHIP expansion would have to be applied. There's enough support on both sides of the aisle that I think this could get done. As all the Dems are saying, I'd get rid of restrictions based on pre-existing conditions.
3) How will it be paid for? As all the Dems are saying, the main way would be through letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 (Obama's people estimate that would bring in $65 billion). Also, think of the available money once we're out of Iraq. I think we spend something like $8 billion per month in Iraq! The democrats could become the party of small gov't by putting some of that money (which never seemed to be availble for anything in the past) towards universal coverage. Also, the idea would be that with regional health markets, and not screening out pre-existing conditions, operating costs to insurance companies would be dramatically lower and due to local competition, they'd have incentive to pass the savings on to the consumers.
4) Why would this system be better? Like Rena, I would increase the focus on prevention and would try to eliminate a lot of the wasteful spending that goes to bureaucracy by improving health information technology. Improved use of technology would also increase access to health care for those living in rural areas. As I heard Rudy say this week (advocating a different plan), the average person our age will change jobs repeadetly during the first 20 years of our careers. By making our insurance status independent of our job status, we'll see increased stability and savings, as well as fewer people uninsured because they're in transition.
The tag line would be that the plan is universal, affordable because it's not overly regulatory, and better because it provides choices and saves the average family $x amount per year.
Great question. I've done a bit of research on the current proposals for my work, so you'll probably get a longer answer than you wanted.
My answer depends on who the candidate is and at what stage of the game we're at. You need to be general enough to not tie yourself down in the Nov election and once elected, but specific enough to get yourself to that point. First of all, recent polls show that people on both sides of the spectrum see health care as one of the top issues of the campaign (one poll this week had health care tied with Iraq among democract voters), so both sides should definitely talk about it. That being said, I think that during the primaries Republicans need to be careful not to support anything too closely resembling "socialized medicine" or requiring a lot of gov't regulation, or even the most well-meaning candidate won't have a realistic shot of making it past Iowa (or whatever state ends up being first). With Rudy leading all the polls, conservatives are showing they're willing to have someone who has been pro-choice and in favor of gay rights, as long as they stick to the free market system and don't let gov't get too big. I would give a Democrat similar advise, suggesting they learn lessons from 93-94, and not get themselves too locked into one firm inflexible set of ideas now, since it would cost them later, either in the general election or during congressional battles. I find it interesting that this is exactly what Hillary has been doing. Other candidates aren't as well known and would probably need to be more specific and focused in their platform to give themselves a fighting chance. If I were advising one of them, I would suggest they focus on answering the following questions:
1) Will the plan be universal? Yes.
2) How? With "shared responsibility" by employers, employees, and everyone else. I am intrigued by Edwards' proposal of creating regional health markets (essentially the Clinton plan of the 90s though I would do everything possible to de-emphasize the similarities) and think that might be the way to go. There would need to be some minimum standards set up, but it shouldn't be too overly regulatory (or it would never get passed). This way, individual states would have freedom to pursue the path that best suits their needs. Perhaps include an individual mandate, as the Mass. plan does, so you can cut down on emergency room spending, but not require anyone to change plans if they don't want to. I would also sign an SCHIP bill like the Senate and House just passed and get rid of the ridiculous new HHS regulations on how SCHIP expansion would have to be applied. There's enough support on both sides of the aisle that I think this could get done. As all the Dems are saying, I'd get rid of restrictions based on pre-existing conditions.
3) How will it be paid for? As all the Dems are saying, the main way would be through letting the Bush tax cuts expire in 2011 (Obama's people estimate that would bring in $65 billion). Also, think of the available money once we're out of Iraq. I think we spend something like $8 billion per month in Iraq! The democrats could become the party of small gov't by putting some of that money (which never seemed to be availble for anything in the past) towards universal coverage. Also, the idea would be that with regional health markets, and not screening out pre-existing conditions, operating costs to insurance companies would be dramatically lower and due to local competition, they'd have incentive to pass the savings on to the consumers.
4) Why would this system be better? Like Rena, I would increase the focus on prevention and would try to eliminate a lot of the wasteful spending that goes to bureaucracy by improving health information technology. Improved use of technology would also increase access to health care for those living in rural areas. As I heard Rudy say this week (advocating a different plan), the average person our age will change jobs repeadetly during the first 20 years of our careers. By making our insurance status independent of our job status, we'll see increased stability and savings, as well as fewer people uninsured because they're in transition.
The tag line would be that the plan is universal, affordable because it's not overly regulatory, and better because it provides choices and saves the average family $x amount per year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)