US Energy Policy - Archaic, Just Like Our Infrastructure

President Obama has made his US Energy Policy pretty clear; American Independence is the prevailing theme. The WhiteHouse.gov website states they are "using modeling and simulation for advanced nuclear reactor operations". While this doesn't say they are not actively pursuing new technologies, they make an ambiguous and empty statement about nuclear energy inclusion for future plans. My problem is that our government should do one of two things: 

1. the government should walk the talk and foster an economy of research and development of nuclear energies or 
2. get out of the way and allow private corporations to pursue said economy.

I feel that, however it happens, our country needs to consider our long term prospects for our civilization. The global population is 7.3 billion people, estimated to reach 10 billion by 2025. With an expanding population comes an exponential increase in demand for resources. The US Department of Energy released a report (http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html) estimating oil production peaking in 2037 and ending permanently in 2125. So, 110 years from now, the world's fossil fuels will be extinct. (Get it?) The current administration has funded $36 billion to a nuclear plant in Burke, Georgia slated to open in 2016. That is the first reactor in 30 years.

Our current administration is making a dog & pony show of touting solar and wind technology, which is great. Germany currently employs more people in the solar photovoltaic industry than the automotive and engineering sectors combined. The United Arab Emirates are spending billions of dollars per year on wind energy infrastructure with a realization on long-term economic and financial power.

I understand why the nuclear market is not front page. The easy answer is no one wants another Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island. Another huge black eye is the inefficiency of our current nuclear design. Current nuclear facilities boast an efficiency rate between 1 to 15%. Solar is not much more efficient, boasting an industry-best 18% for some PV panel arrays. Solar, nuclear, and wind all have exorbitant expenses for start-up. Lastly, nuclear energy creates a deplorable amount of waste that carries a half-life of multiple millenia.

Consider this: I just attended a tour of the University of Texas Power Plant. The gas/steam plant produces energy and heat, was worth an estimated $1 billion dollars, burned $19 million/year in natural gas, and boasted a very impressive 85% efficiency rate. The plants production capability runs between 45-65MW/hr depending on time of year.  Austin Energy created the largest solar photovoltaic field in the United States to date. The Webberville project is on 100 acres with 127,000 solar panels. The site creates roughly 30MW/hr and cost $250 million dollars to build.

Enter IFR - integral fast reactors. IFRs have been in development for the better part of 20 years - please remember that research and development are expanding at a much faster rate than that of 50 years ago. The development of IFR reactors have yielded staggering results. Products like the GE PRISM reactor boast a 85-95% efficiency. Based on a different method of cooling uranium, the half-life of the waste is 1/10th of heavy-water reactors. These reactors have a pick-up truck and cost roughly $100 million dollars, creating 65MW/hr. Lastly, IFRs can also be fueled by the old plutonium/uranium waste, hence eliminating the old problem of 3,000 year radioactive decay storage and containment. Think about that one for a minute...

So, low cost, small size, greater efficiency... It kinda sounds too good to be true, right? As I said earlier, I am not a nuclear physicist. Let us evaluate all the information available to us:

• Hyperion has 133 orders from several different countries from around the world (p11).
• Dr. Loewen is a physicist, albeit in the employ of a company attempting to garner governmental support for their product; but if one watches the entire feature, Loewen makes no blatant sales pitch but rather states his findings and objective facts in a manner to allow watchers to make their own opinion
• IFR R&D have garnered support from Bill Gates and Richard Branson, 2 individuals who have credibility as philanthropists rather than shrewd businessmen; men of that caliber don't stick their names or necks out for "flash in the pan" ideas. 
• 3 U of Texas physicists were just given a patent for conceptual hybrid nuclear fission waste burning reactor thingy - article here (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/09/12/nuclear-waste-burning-technology-change-face-of-nuclear-energy/)

Here is the reason for my whole argument: a report by Dan Rather from Dan Rather Reports episode 608 (Power Play) with Dr. Eric Loewen (Univ of Wisconsin 1999) documented Dr. Loewen saying Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy) and the US don't have any plans to seriously consider alternative (and safer) nuclear programs until the year 2040, with an estimated market availability in year 2050 (p7)

Really, 2040? I wonder what delaying research 28 years might be... (is that the expected date of deficit payoff?).

I would hope you have formed an open mind to the possibility that there is a more efficient, safer, and affordable alternative than the status quo. My original argument is the government needs to foster the facilitation of this or allow it to grow. I would hope that both the government and businesses would work together as there is some potential for a catastrophic health consequence. I also would hope that the US Department of Energy and Secretary Chu can make this happen a little bit sooner than 2040. If the government were to begin/allow R&D in the next few years, more transparent information would be available. Legislators, economists, and scientists could either foster in a whole new era of energy or could make an informed decision that the consequences are not worth the risk and return to the drawing board.

One final point to make: consider the cultivation of a new industry such as this for the sheer economic impact regarding job creation and tax base revenue. Imagine the impact this would have towards pulling our country out of the current depression, and finally consider the morale Americans would possess with the pride of building a new super-efficient, technologically-forward future.

Thanks for reading. 

Blog 6 - Response to Against the Odds: Oral Contraception

Blog Stage 6 Assignment

Commentary & Response to “Politics: Not Worth My Vote – Against the Odds: Oral Contraceptives”

For our stage 6 blog, I have chosen to critique this article written by my peer. My background includes an Associate’s Degree in Emergency Medical Services Technology and 13 years of practicing prehospital emergency medicine. My interpretation of the article is the author’s opinion is the basic premise that President Obama and his staff are wasting resources and focus on the wrong problems. The author makes a few anecdotal and hollow comments about how there are greater problems with far larger social mores than contraception and pregnancy.

Unfortunately, I must begin this critique with some more elementary problems rather than the content. There are some marked, basic grammatical errors throughout the document. It starts with the very first word of the very first line. While I can look beyond the grammar and look more for the meaning, these issues do make the document tough to read and take credibility from the argument.

“Examine what the world coming to when our president and government is mandating oral contraceptives to be part of the preventative medicine in health care plans.”

As I said, the first word of the first sentence should be “Imagine”, not examine. But, let us imagine what the world must be coming to when our government has to mandate oral contraceptives in health care plans and family planning. There must be some inherent failure of a capitalist economy. I have written about this before. See my blog entry here. Moreover, much of this governmental intervention stemmed from pressure from a very large, very wealthy, and very influential lobbyist – the Catholic church. President Obama’s mandate stated that insurance companies must pay for preventative services, not the Church itself. This makes one wonder what dog the Church even has in the fight, other than fundamental beliefs.

Consider this: Obama received 79% of the Latino Catholic vote and 44% of the Caucasian Catholic vote. So, if the majority of the majority of the Catholic Church voted for someone who was trying to institute mandates contradictory to the Church’s tenets, what does THAT say about what the world is coming to… Moving along…

“There are better means of making other drugs or treatment free of charge than preventing future pregnancies.”

This sentence doesn’t really make much sense to begin with either. To be more specific, the above sentence doesn’t make sense - at all. I tried, really hard, to see the forest from the trees but I just could not understand what the author was trying to say.

“Pregnancy is not an ill ridden disease”

I agree fundamentally that pregnancy is not a disease but it is a significant medical condition that requires the care and oversight of a specialized physician. It also comes with complications that include a 25% spontaneous miscarriage rate for pregnancies under 12 weeks, hemorrhage, and eclampsia, all of which are a threat to the mother’s life.

“and sex is not a deadly medical emergency”

HIV and hepatitis are sexually contracted diseases that up to the last 10 years, were fatal. So actually, they are a deadly medical condition. Emergency, no. But, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dialysis, and thyroid conditions are not truly emergent in and of themselves.

“Our minds wonder why the president and the government express concern over the importance to support free birth control pills to insulin or medical equipment.”

No, my mind doesn’t wonder anything like the author stated. The government is not “expressing concern” of the importance of birth control pills over insulin and medical equipment. These are, in the most simple of terms, two separate arguments. The author may have made a more valid point by saying “the government is placing an excessive amount of concern regarding contraception; however, I feel there are far greater issues that deserve attention, such as insulin and necessary medical equipment”. Addressing the topic of insulin, medical devices, and other necessary drugs or interventions: Medicare and Medicaid both have extensive budgetary inclusions for thousands of medical conditions and medications. I have yet to meet any indigent patients who cannot receive their medications, except in the rare occasions where patients stated they could not meet their $5 deductible. Case in point: I had an 84 year old gentleman on medicare whose lymphoma chemo drug, Gleevic, cost $400/pill. That is $300,000/year. The man had to pay a $10/month copay. I have met thousands of patients over the years who are on Medicare and Medicaid and receive benefits for their conditions. His story is not unique. I can convey another person’s story whose dialysis and medications cost $610/day. He had to pay nothing because he was on Medicare. Before an attack is made on the cost of his treatment, remember this was a disabled, and i mean truly disabled man in his 30’s who could not work. The point is that most of the other interventions the author speaks of are inarguable far more expensive than oral contraceptives. My experience is that there is an exceedingly slim number of people who cannot receive what they need. Maybe they do not participate in the newest and greatest clinical chemo trials, but Medicare does not pay for clinical trials. It does pay for FDA-approved regimens.

Back to the topic regarding governmental involvement, let us remember the spirit behind the presidential mandate: the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy is using contraception, ergo greatly reducing the chances of the mother having to even make the decision of having an abortion, which is a whole other topic.

Consider the usual women who consider having abortions. It is usually young women or women who were not planning on having children. It is logical that anyone actually planning on having children would not entertain the idea of aborting a fetus. Going back to the usual candidates, these women are unprepared to have children. Giving them an option to avoid making the decision of abortion just makes good sense, regardless of your personal beliefs. That is the entire flaw in the Catholic Church’s argument.

The reality is that people are going to do what they want. Women are going to have unprotected sex. There is also an exceedingly high correlation of pregnant women and lower socioeconomic class. We should not set them up for failure, and a really difficult decision, by not providing contraception. To remove contraception as an option, regardless of how it is paid for, is socially irresponsible.

Regarding who pays for the contraception, I will state this: if we assume tax dollars will pay for contraception, I am all for it. Why? Because the upfront cost of paying for contraception will greatly offset the long-term cost of raising a whole human on welfare. Granted, this assumes that once on welfare, always on welfare. However, that assumption is more of a generally accepted norm than a theory. Consider the long term cost to the tax payers of paying for 1, 2, 5, or even 8 kids per mother. If you think this doesn’t happen, you are exceedingly naive. I had a patient 2 days ago who was 39 years old, single mother, with 8 children. The entire family was on Medicaid, Food Stamps, and living in government housing.

You and I pay for that. Do you still think handing out birth control like candy, even at the tax payer’s expense is a bad idea? Nevermind the cost, consider the future of those children. Do you think those children have a stable, structured environment that is loving and nurturing? I am hard pressed to give you evidentiary proof, but I can tell you that I also called CPS (Child Protective Services) because of the squalid living conditions.

The last point I will make is this: consider if the woman is impoverished and a welfare recipient. How good of a chance do they have of improving their life through employment, education, public service, community service, or volunteerism if they are hindered by having unnecessary or unwanted children?

“They are just giving the green light to have tons of sex and no baby.”

This statement is rather silly but actually does make a point. The government is not sending any message saying “have all the sex you want”. But, if it were to, having contraception available to people would be a far smarter tactic than not, again regarding unwanted pregnancies.

“The citizens of the United States should not have to fund their promiscuous lives.”

I agree with the statement, but we already fund lots of promiscuity. I cite crooked politicians who abuse tax dollars, corporate tax loopholes and the outsourcing of jobs, and wildly out-of-control defense spending with zero oversight or accountability. That is far more pornographic than people having a good ol’ roll in the hay.

“What needs to happen with our health care is helping those who need high blood pressure medication, insulin for their diabetics’ needs or chemotherapy for cancer patients.”

I already addressed this issue earlier. This actually happens. A lot.

“These are the things that count because people can actually die without those types of medications and are costly.  A cancer patient will be more grateful for a free chemotherapy session to kill the cancer cells that consume their body”

Women can also die from lack of preventative medical care as I already addressed. The comment about cancer patients is speculative at best, but a logical and agreeable sentiment.

“I seriously doubt some young adult will die because she did not have sex or did not receive her dose of birth control pills.”

Again, people are going to have sex regardless.

“President Obama and the government seem concern that Horny Helen does not run out of birth control pills before she hits a fraternity house for a night of boozing and sex.  If that is their main concern, then the ill citizens of our county are in deep water.”

This final passage is hollow and speculative. If in fact we have to concern ourselves with Horny Helen’s romp at the frat house, pills and booze just increase the risk of accidental pregnancy, and ironically, the fun factor. However, if she is having unprotected sex, we also need to consider the real possibility of STDs. 1 in 4 college students have Herpes Simplex 2. If Horny Helen contracts that, she then needs to worry about receiving medication to suppress the viral contagion and sexual prophylactics to prevent spreading the disease. Lastly, we then have to worry about her contracting the HSV2 to her unborn child if delivered vaginally. Then we have a whole new set of problems.

Regarding the last sentence, our country is already in trouble. Oral contraceptives are a grain of sand on the shores of our country’s problems. We have far greater concerns. Perhaps if we educated our children on sexual awareness, health (both physical and sexual), and prevention (again, for both types of health) we can help direct their futures for a brighter, long-term future for our whole country. We need to reform our campaign finance laws. We need to decrease our national debt. We need to do a lot of things. What we don’t need to do is continue to facilitate babies having babies, the poor having more and more children, and we don’t need to arbitrarily involve ourselves in corporate decisions. However, this decision comes with a heavy price that affects a large demographic - women having sex.

I feel that Obama’s mandate was good and necessary. Thank you for reading.

Dear author - I hope you didn’t take this personally. I was awful rough on your piece but my assignment was to critique a peer’s work.   

The Problem with Capitalism

I love this country. Before you fly off the handle and label me a commie or a socialist, hear me out. Then, you can make an informed opinion about me. However, if you call me unAmerican, I might drag you out into the back alley and teach you a lesson in manners. Hell, you might even teach me a lesson; that USED to be the great thing about being a man - take an ass-whipping, learn from it, move along. Tragically, that same action will result in a felony assault charge and hence a nasty downward spiral into "the system". Here me out.

The "system" we know is a multi-headed beast akin to Ladon - atrociously complex and inefficient. My personal values include a desire for bureaucratic reduction through increased efficiency. We have fostered a system that takes YEARS for patent approval hindering small businesses and entrepreneurs. We have an immigration system that is staggeringly complex. Dare I say that we need more regulation of our markets for we already have a huge government. The actual solution is we need a far more efficient government in all levels.

Take the individual case of my friend Jane. Jane came from the United Kingdom. Jane is a college-educated, exceptionally smart woman whom English is her first language. She married an American. Her citizenship took over 2 years and was incredibly difficult and frustrating. Can you imagine, if it was that hard for an English-speaking, college educated person, how difficult the path for citizenship must be for a poor, non-English speaking, often illiterate person must be? Last I checked, we used to say "bring us your poor, your huddled masses", right?

Next, take the examples of smaller economies like construction. States' rights usually manage regulation of construction. Some require licensing, some require insurance, and some require nothing. This leaves the burden of regulation upon the individual to know what the state requires and that the consumer should look for. This is a problem when older people (such as the elderly) need to contract work. Several people come bid the job and capitalist theory states the lowest bid should get the job. But remember, you usually get what you pay for! Never mind dime-store advice, time and time again we hear about unscrupulous contractors taking the money and never finishing the job. This is becoming an epidemic across America. Consider the Northeast and the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Who is going to protect those who are already vulnerable and desperate? The government is already badly taxed from the hurricane as millions are without power and have lost their homes. If there were a federal mandate of contractors being licensed, insured, bonded, and registered with a national database, consumers could educate themselves on contractor documentation and have a consumer-rights liaison.

Democracy and capitalism have become the cornerstone of our society and I get a chuckle when I meet people that would fight to the death to defend it's perfection. Please understand this point very clearly - I would stand by their side and fight to the death to defend the fundamental reasons for having them; but they are not without their flaws. Capitalism, free trade, and supply/demand side economics have made our country into a global superpower. Our American spirit has influenced so many things. Our society has been infected and influenced by so many things uniquely American, from the Space Race (NASA), the Internet (Dell, Apple, Stanford U & the Internet, Facebook), fashion/retail (Levi's), engineering (highway infrastructure, roads, bridges) and our military (weapons design, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing). The USA has evolved into a multi-trillion dollar economy. The problem is that when dealing with numbers that big, the things that fall through the cracks are usually pretty big.

We can debate economics and point fingers all damn day long about why we are in a economic depression until the cows come home. While there is value in knowing history so one does not repeat it, the problem is that we need to control the hemorrhage now. We can deal with the why later. Currently we have to mitigate the threats that will kill our society and when we are spilling our economic life blood onto the floor, we need a surgeon. We cannot leave our economic exsanguination to being left alone like a capitalist model dictates - we need experienced intervention to manage the shock and impeding death.

Consider this: theory states that a non-regulated economy will create competition, therefore lowering prices to benefit the consumer. What has happened is that companies have been able to undercut most "mom n pop" providers and obtained market majority. From market majority has come market domination and establishment, or dare I say monopoly (even though monopolies were make illegal in the Gramm-Leach Bill 1999). This market dominance has thwarted any smaller competition as they simply cannot compete. Remember that these major players also possess large legal teams. Even if small companies wanted to compete, they know they are up against a legal and financial giant. Once market dominance is firmly rooted, the problems of capitalism take shape: downsizing, layoffs, unemployment and pension eradication. Remember, I allude to major market players, therefore layoffs affect thousands.

Take the example of Enron. 20,000 people lost their livelihood, homes, and futures on account of book-cooking. The accounting fraud on this energy company resulted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The deceptive practices of a large company caused thousands in layoffs, hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs, and legislation to make sure it never happens again. If this were an isolated event, it would not be such an issue. However, recent history is littered with other examples such as Solyndra.

Both of the above cases are examples of accounting fraud which overinflated stock values. Keep in mind there is legislation and governmental regulatory agencies which are supposed to keep this sort of thing from happening. The Securities Exchange Commission is in charge of watching over the stock markets but the problem with the numbers game is it is a numbers game. There is one government agency to oversee tens of thousands of small, medium, and large public companies. That is a losing battle. 

The United States banking economy is an easy scapegoat to blame for the current state of our economy. Let's examine why a more efficient government regulation would be helpful. Historically our banks have been in the business of finance. Banks were originally barred from being affiliated with securities companies. In 1999, the Gramm-Leach Act removed the laws preventing banks from being merged with securities companies. This also allows banks to expand their holdings from an 11:1 ratio to a 33:1 ratio. When the real estate market began overvaluing commodities, banks holdings increased both from the overvaluation and the increased holding ratio allowance. When the global financial crisis hit, the banks had more holdings than they could cover financially. The expanded holdings ratio was unable to be covered by federally-backed securities due to two wars and other impeding domestic financial economies teetering on implosion.

My point is this: capitalism works in theory. Capitalism's architecture requires that business and industry moguls operate with integrity and ethics. The problem is that money and power breed greed. Economic tycoons have bastardized "the system" by lobbying, legislation, and sometimes lying in the name of profit and are calling it capitalism. If only a few were affected it would be an anomaly and we could move on. But, Tom Brokaw began a weekly segment called "The Fleecing of America" as the problem was becoming so rampant. One could make anecdotal statements about the current state of our economy as being the government's fault, Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Wall Street's fault or the bank's fault. It is actually kind of everybody's fault.

The solution is this: not an increase in blanket regulation. We have a large enough government. What we need is a more effective governmental regulation. We also need the leaders of economies to be less greedy, less deceptive, more honest, and more stand-up. Cooperation is what is needed to save not just our economy, but our society. We need a government to protect not only the corporation but to protect the individual from the corporation. We can even deduce that sometimes the government out to protect the corporation from itself.

The Traffic Goes on Forever, and the Construction Never Ends

Bill Hammond wrote this article October 18th in the statesman.com about the awful traffic situation here in Austin. Mr. Hammond makes the very agreeable point that Austin traffic essentially sucks. Anybody who lives in Austin can easily identify with this reality. Mr. Hammond's audience appears to be that of car-owning Austinites who might disagree with toll roads. Being that our infrastructure is primarily centered around automobiles, Mr. Hammond sets us up by metaphorically backing us into a tight spot. Mr. Hammond accurately uses the obvious examples of growth, aging roads, and a "if you think it is bad now, just wait" tactic of emotional agreement to make his stand.

Mr. Hammond happens to be the president and CEO of TAB, the Texas Association of Business (www.txbiz.org). While first glance might make one realize he is a supporter of small business, further examination shows good reason to believe that Mr. Hammond is simply a lobbyist for private transportation-management companies. This is evidenced by a quick Google search revealing that Mr. Hammond is a current registered lobbyist (go figure) for said industry. Mr. Hammond's other resume highlights include a former 8 year stint in the Texas House of Representatives. So, we have an individual with an intimate understanding of the legislative system who is now a lobbyist. Hmm....

So the question begs, what is the aim of this piece? Quite simply, it is to rally support for toll roads. It starts with:

A. We have a big problem that is only going to get worse.
B. It got this way because the current status quo has failed and lastly,
C. We have a magic bullet!

The magic bullet is Mr. Hammond's proposition to support those who have the solution to the status quo failure - no doubt Mr. Hammond's employer. The solution is a lovely, eloquent, win-for-all approach - a "public-private" partnership! Mr. Hammond's solution of a public-private partnership boasts jobs, economic growth, and getting us back on the road to being back on the road! Sounds awesome! Sign me up!

Oh wait, the last time we had a public-private partnership for transportation was the contract with the state of Texas with Central Texas Mobility Regional Authority. CTRMA is a private company but it sounds pretty official. It does say "authority" in it after all. Here is the problem I see: The basic theory in toll roads is the tolls end after the road has paid for itself. So far, not a single toll has been lifted in central Texas. Moreover, how many private property owners had to sell their land for fear of eminent domain?

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I would challenge you to prove me wrong. I will save you the time - don't. It is much harder to disprove a negative; what I am saying is just like my argument, Mr. Hammond's argument for toll roads is suspect. At least I can admit my shortcomings.

Why do I say Mr. Hammond's argument is suspect? Let me present certain quantifiable information to enter for consideration. Here is a link to the txbiz.org website. On the bottom of the page it says all the things I feel are the dark underside of Mr. Hammond's plan: initial funding by the tax payer to pay for the road, then management and ultimately, ownership and profiteering by private companies. All the dough with no upfront ownership costs... I mean, there are upfront costs by the ones who use the roads, i.e. the same ones that paid for the road.

Further reading shows TAB's stance on transportation includes local input for "pass-thru financing" and "help fund local needs"; nevermind that, how about the motor fuel tax provision, stipulating future taxes may only be spent on road projects only. This seems like an earmark to guarantee to certainty of funding private corporations on public dollars to me. Lastly, Mr. Hammond expresses increasing vehicle registration by $50 per vehicle. That will be approximately a 40% increase on an already ridiculous tariff. I didn't sell my vehicle to anybody else therefore the registration did not change but I still have to pay it.

While I feel that Mr. Hammond is absolutely on point with the opinion that Austin traffic is atrocious, we should be careful about bedding with the first good-looking, slick-talking thing that comes along. We might just get ourselves into a situation that we have to live with for the rest of our lives - privately-managed road monopolies. I call them road herpes.

Say "Maybe" To Med School

Don Zimmerman and Roger Falk wrote an editorial commentary called "Say 'no' to a medical school" on the proposed medical school Central Health is pursuing. The article is from September 24, 2012 in the Austin American Statesman. I chose to critique this article as health care is both my career and I am a tax payer in Travis County. Considering the credibility of the authors Zimmerman and Falk leaves something to be desired - credibility. Per the Statesman, Mr. Falk is a retired business owner and musician. Not knowing anything else about Mr. Falk such as education or other life experience, Mr. Falk is certainly entitled to an opinion but caution should be exercised if one would regard him as an expert. Moreover, Mr. Falk's opinion from "Tea Party Solution" (4th entry from top) from Statesman, August 16.2011, shows he is a clear-cut Tea Party advocate and we all know the basic tenet of tea-partyism includes an absolute embargo against increasing taxes. This predisposed latitude of absolute intolerance and disregard for considering all the information and variables makes it difficult to have an open mind as to WHY we might need a medical school. Mr. Zimmerman is shown to have some civic involvement as a treasurer to Travis County's Taxpayer Union Political Action Committee. However, I wonder how often they meet. Mr. Zimmerman is also a software engineer by day. A supposed once-a-month meeting in civics group doesn't carry that much weight but it is better than nothing, especially when we consider how little most people are involved.

The authors state that medical schools historically have been birthed by private charitible donations and have rarely been backed by tax dollars. They state there is already a substantial and quality medical infrastructure, including 30 hospitals, 21 clinics, 6 cancer centers and hundreds of doctors. They cite 8 teaching schools in Texas and A&M has 12 affiliates. Their consolidated first argument is there is an already existing, well-established educational system for doctoral residents in the area. The second argument is two fold: 1. This will increase taxes for the middle class and 2. there are already several goverment subsidized programs citing ACC's health care professional training program and UT's Nursing programs who already run a wellness program. The authors also state the existence of Austin Clinical Education Center and North Central Community Center.

The assumptions made by Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. Folk are that, in my opinion, they think that all these facilities do the same thing. Being that they are not involved in the medical field, I would not expect them to understand the vast, complex, and dynamic galaxy that is modern medicine. From research of hundreds of different diseases (vascular, infectious, toxicology, autoimmune, musculoskeletal, cardiac, and neurological to name a few, all of which have hundreds of their own subcategories), to education, treatment and case management, there are so many aspects to health care.

The authors state 30 different hospitals locally. One must realize that "hospitals" are a loose term. For example, facilities like Summit Hospital and Cornerstone are primarily post-operative rehabilitation facilities for patients, i.e. low acuity and not a whole lot of learning to be done. In Austin, we have 14 hospitals with emergency departments, 2 of which opened in the last 2 years (Westlake and Lakeway Memorial). Of these, 8 are Cardiac Centers of Excellence (places that can actually manage myocardial infarctions with cath labs), 3 are Stroke Centers (Brack, Seton 38th/Lamar, and St. Davids 32nd/IH35). Brackenridge and Round Rock are the only 2 trauma centers, and Round Rock did not receive their level 2 trauma rating until 2010. The point being is there are 2 facilities locally that can handle heart attacks, strokes, and multi-system trauma (which is great for ER residents). The only local teaching facility is UMC Brackenridge through Southwestern University.  There may be a lot of "hospitals", but the "teaching hospital" infrastructure is woefully short on a  local level.

The author cited there are 8 Liaison Committee on Medical Education accredited medical schools. The fine print that is missing is "in the state". Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, and even lil' ol Galveston, Lubbock, and Denton have LCME schools. There are none in Austin. This again proves my point in the above paragraph - only one teaching hospital locally, and it is not a LCME school.

My argument to the second point is while taxes may increase, they are significantly less than what they could be. A hike from 7.9 to 12.4c/$100 value is a 63% increase, it is not a 63% broad-based tax increase. This means that only one category of a property owner's taxes will increase - the health district tax. City, county, ACC and AISD taxes do not increase. The supporting keepaustinhealthy.org website adverstises a ~$9/month increase for the average taxpayer. Yes, I did the math. It is a correct figure. Second, there is a significant up front investment from Seton Healthcare and a substantial long-term contribution from UT. Taxpayers are not being asked to pony up for the whole enchilada, rather 10%. All dollars raised will be matched by the federal government. Mr. Falk's significant right disposition is reared again with his statement of "Central Health's promises of increased federal spending are also irresponsible, considering the credit downgrade of the federal government and more than $16 trillion of debt.". While fiduiary fiscal responsibility needs to be considered, one must realize that the return on investment, especially for 9 clams a month is a substantial ROI. Economic stimulus, jobs, and education is one hell of a ROI, especially in this economic downturn.

Argument 2, subsection 2 of several goverment subsidized programs taxpayers cover is partially correct. The problem is the facilities the author mentioned are in a different environment that what Prop 1 is hoping to facilitate. Austin Clinical Education Center is a prevention-based program. ACC and UT Nursing do not educate doctors. Sure, they train paramedics and nurses, but paramedics and nurses are in fact, not doctors.

The authors made several significantly opinionated statements, including "outrageous tax increases" and "death by a thousand cuts". While dramatic, these opinions detract from another reality-"excellent indigent health care". This is not entirely accurate. The health care available to the indigent is okay at best. Patients in the current system have to wait weeks for appointments for urgent, but not life threatening conditions. They do not have coverage for urgent care clinics such as ProMed or TxMedClinic, nor can they afford the bill. Said clinics are far cheaper than an ER, but still bills are several hundred dollars. The homeless have Caritas, Salvation Army Wellness, and the ARCH health and dental programs but these programs are short on funding and staff. It goes without saying that a homeless person with mental, physical, and/or substance problems isn't going to remember an appointment in 4 days at 230pm. Lastly, there is an abysmal resource for mental health problems, and it has been that way for decades. Relief is coming though - an 85 bed facility that will cater to both adults and some pediatrics is coming to South Austin. Currently, psychiatric patients can go to Psychiatric Emergency Services (56 East Ave, Austin, TX) IF they are sober. Otherwise, they go to an already overburdened emergency room.

Emergency rooms bring me to a point I will make very short. For many, many, many reasons, emergency rooms are NOT the place people should go for non-emergent health care. Both President Bush Jr and Mitt Romney are clearly detached from the 99% for thinking and saying that. The last thing a poor or struggling family needs is a $3000 medical bill because they have no other options. Also, one other HUGE perk to Central Health's facility is insuring/helping to insure hundreds of thousands of uninsured Austinites. How is bankruptcy from a catastrophic medical condition even allowed to happen in today's society?

My resume is this: I have worked on an ambulance for 13 years. Between patient care, observing and being involved in the politics of a municipality in a liberal town, and having a wife who lived the worst case scenarios relevant to this topic, I should know much better than the authors I am contesting. If you want to see for yourself, please come ride out with me. See how your tax dollars are being spent. You just might find out that your tax dollars are being wasted in far more obscene ways and an investment in a teaching hospital might be a much better choice.

My personal opinion is this: I am a patriarch of a single-income, middle-class family barely getting by. I am not in favor of increasing taxes. This last year, my insurance premiums went up, my property taxes went up, my electric bill went up, and gas is $4/gallon. I really can't afford any more increases. However, $9/month to subsidize a medical school that will contribute to bringing much needed doctors to a community lacking doctors is something I can get behind. If the research performed here brings a cure or at least a better management approach to cancer, I would gladly pay $18/month or more. People's lives are worth far more. I'm going to vote yes for Prop 1.  The whole point of this was to present you with a different opinion and ask you to consider saying "maybe" to prop 1. I hope I have presented you with enough perspective to make an informed decision.

The Next Great American Financial Bubble

I was sifting through the Austin-American Statesman this morning looking for an article for my 2nd blogging assignment for my government class when i discovered this article. I feel the article is an important read as it relates to both myself regarding my long-contemplated decision with finishing my 4 year degree and all of my peers in college. It discusses the University of Texas' executive staff and their pay raises. Most pay raises are between 1.6% to 13-15%, however there are some executive staff who have had pay raises in excess of 50% over the last 3 years. I understand that running a nationally ranked, prestigious university system with 14 campuses is a daunting challenge and I freely admit that I have not the first idea of the logistics involved, but I do have an idea of the size of the challenge. Managing over a dozen campuses, hundreds of buildings, sports teams, student activities, thousands of professors, and tens of thousands of students is a staggering task. 

Administrators pay is not my concern. What is my concern is this: consider that in 2003 the 78th legislature deregulated public university tuition. Since then, tuition has increased 72% (Tx Higher Education Board). The Texas State Legislature found itself $10 billion in the red; the compromise was to deregulate public university tuition in hopes of increasing the tax base. It sorta worked. Keep in mind, we already had a faltering economy. We still have a shaky economy and having a Bachelor's degree is now questionable. What is the point in racking up $60K, $80K, or even $100K in debt if you are looking at a $37K/year job, if you can even get a job? President Obama has been imploring Congress to enact legislation to restructure student loan repayment proportionate to income. At least $100K in student loans would be manageable on a $37K/year job. Romney has no plans to reform student loans. 

Lastly, we should consider one other important point. Why was the state of Texas $10 billion in the hole? Was it perhaps because of this? I appreciate what Texas lawmakers and their efforts, however I think we can safely say that most politicians are self-serving. I happen to be both a civil servant and a tax payer. I also happen to be a member of the COAERS, the employee retirement system for City Of Austin employees. The article above really upsets me. If you happen to be a tax payer, it should upset you as well. Here's why: as a City of Austin employee, I have to work 23 years to obtain a 69% pension of my last 3 years salary average monthly pay. This is funded by my own contribution of 8% plus a matching 8% by the city. Each year I work after that increases my pension by 3%, so if I work 30 years I would receive 90%. The COAERS board recently changed the retirement rules to mandatory 30 years service for a 75% pension AND recipients cannot withdraw until age 62. If an employee starts with the city at 24 and retires at 54, they still have to find a way to make their bills for the next 8 years. The theory of the pension plans' solvency is the expectation that most recipients only live for approximately 10 years and that the pool of employees contributing is constantly increasing.  Back to the main point, the article highlights that legislators would have to contribute 290 percent to cover their "earned" benefits of $125K/year. Moreover, one representative presented an option for moving future legislatures to a 401K plan. Do I need to remind everyone of how well those fared in the economic downturn? I bet that the idea stemmed from a need to create solvency. Civic leaders and city planners have been asking departments to cut their budget every year for the last 10 years. 

Side bar - Along the same lines of university execs and Texas Congressional members, I (along with my peers) was asked by our city council in 2008 to forego pay raises that year. We as an employee association did. The city manager promptly rewarded us by giving pay raises to my department's executive staff. They just called it "fair wage adjustment". I wonder if legislators ever considered cutting their pay, increasing their insurance premiums, or increasing their own contributions. I doubt it.

I know that a portion of my pension is carried by others, but certainly not to this degree. Remember what I said earlier about politicians being self-serving? I think that a more accurate statement of people who are in positions of power are self-serving, whether it be as an executive staffer of a public university, city departments, or in legislation regulating, or rather de-regulating said universities. I wonder if they realize or even care that they are continuing to expand the gap between middle and upper class America. The continual unrestricted increases of tuition and financial burdening of the elite upon the blue-collars is doing just that. 

First Day of the DNC

I will start this blog by saying my immediate opinion on blogging is that it is pointless. As i begin my blogging, few readers will cast their attention onto what i am nattering about. 7.2 billion people are on this rock and they now all have a voice. It waters things down a bit. Moreover, it does seem a touch pretentious. "Hey everybody, listen to what I have to say!". Maybe 10 years ago I felt the need to be heard and to have people give a damn about what I thought, but now, not anymore. My title includes the adjective cynic. Read on and will not understand why I am a cynic, but hopefully you will find my musings funny and insightful. All I could hope for is that you walk away with a different perspective. If you really want to know why i am a cynic, you can buy my book when it is done. It is called "Memoirs I Wish I Couldn't Remember". It is about my career is EMS, the things I have seen and done, and why I hate the world. I will say just one thing about why I am a cynic about blogs - Everyone now has a voice, however few are really experts and authorities on anything other than their own point of view; said narrow mindedness equals ignorance. That being said...

I am anxious to hear Michelle Obama's speech tonight. All of the media stooges have been saying how Ann Romney humanized her husband, and how good of a job she did. Tonight, The First Lady will probably talk about why people should continue to trust in her husband. She does. Of course she does. She has national power and status, a cushy agenda of exercise and gardening, and her biggest problems are which aide gets what chore. She has over the last 4 years publicly spoken about what a great father he is and there have been jokes about who really wears the pants in that family. Coming from the uptight world of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it is refreshing to have some humanity and 21st century family relatable content to us commoners. Also, Barack wrote often in "The Audacity of Hope" about how hard it was on his wife and how thankful he was to her during his campaign for the Illinois Senator seat. I seldom saw Dubya or Herbie Walker deferring the spotlight to their wifeys. Bill Clinton quite routinely made comments about Hilary and their marriage seemed convenient, we all know that Hilary was really running the country and we also know what really went on behind closed doors with the open legs of interns.

I watched only the last night of the RNC. I did not get to hear Ann's speech, nor did i get to hear Paul Ryan. I did however hear Jane Edmund rave about how great a man Mitt is. I personally thought Clint Eastwood was both very funny and very out of line. I never took Dirty Harry to be a shock value comedian, but at age 82, the reinvention is either genius or senility.

Marco Rubio did give a fantastic speech. He spoke passionately about his Cuban immigrant father was a bartender, standing all those years behind a bar so his son could stand behind a podium and introduce the next potential POTUS. It was a great speech. I have just heard it a few dozen times before.

Mitt Romney's speech was long. I don't know the exact length but it was around 45 minutes. To summarize, "I'm a great guy, I'm a great guy, I'm good for this country, I'm a nice guy, and I am a good guy". He first spoke about his upbringing, hard work, and character. He spoke about how his father was one of the Motor City blue collars, then ran for and won the Michigan Governorship. Later, he spoke abot how he and 7 friends started Bain Capital, and then his voyage into politics... vaguely.

So, my perception is he grew up in the auto boom, probably north of 8th and 13th mile, in upper middle class, then in upper upper class upon his dad becoming governor. Maybe he had some hard times, but it doesn't sound like he grew up with much adversity, but rather a boring straightforward middle class upbringing and he didn't see much hardship until the 70's when he was at Harvard. He certainly didn't see Vietnam.

His personalization of his speech was good, but then he started talking politics. It was really nice hearing him say that he wished Obama would have succeeded. That was really schmoopy. But then he proceeded to point out the obvious sentiment and opinion, but not state much fact or have much objective point to what he said. He spoke about how the nation is worse than it was four years ago. He spoke about the economy and unemployment. The speech began unraveling at this point because of conjecture. He spoke of the deficit being higher than GDP for the first time in history. Unfortunately, that was incorrect on the Governor's part.

Romney's most objective moment when he spoke about fixing the economy with his "5 point plan". The only problem was he failed to go into any detail about WHAT his plan involved. When it comes to a national audience who is feeding mostly off emotion, i understand you don't want to lull people with details... Lord knows how those details are such a bore! However, if he really wanted to win over the minions and even the naysayers, throw down the gauntlet right then and there. Maybe he should have spoken less about what a good ol' boy from the midwest he is and and get right to how he is going to fix our economy.

The train really came off the rails when he spoke about how he was going to handle things differently if elected. He specifically mentioned Obama's failure to curtail Iran's development of nuclear capability and carte blanche trade restrictions removals with Russia and Putin. Romney stated that he would certainly impose and enforce much tougher restrictions if President.

Didn't the cold war end 60 years ago? WTF was the point of that comment? Way to isolate Russia. I would bet a paychect advisors of every country in the world watched that speech. Not only do we not have any reason to ostracize Russia, we really don't have the money or resources to back up Romney's boneheaded mouth. I feel like we just saw an inkling on Romney's foreign policy skills. Speaking of mouth, Romney at one point made a comment about how we need more businessmen in Washington and less lawyers... Romney has a law degree from Harvard. Yeah, he's a regular old midwest American good ol' boy.

So tonight is the opening of the DNC. I don't know that i will watch much more than the last night, maybe 2. What i hope to see is less ego stroking and more objectivity, less conjecture and more fact. It shouldn't be hard.


 

Opening Day of the RNC

I find it humorous that on the first day of my first blog for government, it also happens to be the opening day of the RNC. The GOP has given us plenty to laugh at, cry over, and bite our fingernails over the last few administrations. Now, they present a candidate who is not best suited to run the country, but best suited to beat Obama. The motivation of winning is more important that doing what is best for The People. Now, don't get me wrong, Obama is no FDR, but considering what the man inherited, he has done well. Before we descend into examples and opinions, I will expand upon this at a later time.

The key topics are going to be these: $16 trillion national deficit, a faltering capitalist ecomony, national healthcare/real estate/college tuition bubbles on the edge of burst, huge multinational corporations exploiting the political system, and immigration. But the biggest question I have is this: there are several African and Eastern European/Western Asian countries that are in severe crisis and extremely volitile. Pakistan, India, and North Korea are nuclear superpowers. North Korea is a vicious communist nation, Pakistan is a fledgling and unestablished democracy, and India is facing poverty and famine of epic proportions. For the record, i hate the word "epic" as skinny-jeaned hipsters have watered it down. However, ask yourself this - is Mitt Romney really the man to manage our involvement in national affairs? At least President Obama made the attempt to properly pronounce "Pakistan", which one would infer respect for the nation. Dubya failed to even attempt to not sound like an ignorant moron when saying "Iraq", "Pakistan", or hell, even 'Merica! That is another topic. I wonder how different things would have been if John McCain would have been given the RNC's nod for candidate in 2000 instead of Bush. Could you imagine President McCain, who was a POW for 5 years, and his response to the 9/11 attacks? No questions, no discussions, simply flatten the ones responsible. And no, I'm not talking about Saddam or Usama. Remember, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Jordanian and Egyptian.

My 2 final thoughts are these: Between Obama and Romney - can we get a 3rd choice? Venezuela has 13 different parties. Maybe we should elect an economist? But then again, it's not like my vote even counts. 2 words - electoral college.