Classifier Calculator

My old link to this was broken so I had to go looking for it and thought I would share.

It’s a Classifer Calculator for USPSA stages. If you know your hit factor [(Points – Penalities)/Time] for shooting a stage then it will compute what percentage of the best shooters in the world your score represents. This percentage is used to calculate your classification. I’m considered a B-class shooter. The percentage ranges and classifications are:

Grand Master 95 to 100%
Master 85 to 94.9%
A  75 to 84.9%
B  60 to 74.9%
C  40 to 59.9%
D  2 to 40%

The USPSA will compute your percentage and post it on their website a week or two after your club sends in the results but if you want to know sooner you can use the Classifier Calculator to get the answer immediately.

Using Caleb’s recent practice result I compute his hit factor at 7.8717 which yields 72.878% in the Limited Division. If he can do this consistently on a number of different stages in competition he is an upper B-class shooter.

Correlation is not causation

Reputo demonstrates that if someone claims the firearm homicide reductions in the late 90s were influenced by the anti-gun laws passed in ’93 and ’94 then those same laws can be claimed to have reduced the homicides by sharp objects and suffocation.

Nice job!

Do it again! Do it again!

Alan Gura with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation just filed suit against Washington D.C. again:

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: Contact: Alan Gottlieb (425) 454-7012

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit on behalf of three residents of the District of Columbia and a New Hampshire resident, seeking to compel the city to issue carry permits to law-abiding citizens.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of Tom Palmer, George Lyon and Amy McVey, all District residents, and Edward Raymond, a New Hampshire resident. SAF and the individual plaintiffs are being represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case in 2008 that overturned the District’s handgun ban on the grounds that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

“Once again,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “we’re heading back to court because the anti-gun city administration refuses to abide by the law. It is beginning to appear like residents of the District are up against a rogue city government that simply does not want to ease its stranglehold on the most important civil right of all, the right of self-preservation.”

“In most major American cities,” said attorney Gura, “where the right to bear arms is respected, licensed permit holders have proven themselves safe and effective. Washington, D.C. already requires handgun registrants to complete the background checks and training classes required of carry permit holders throughout the country. It is pointless to deny these individuals the right to bear arms.”

SAF previously sued the District over its restrictive handgun registration policies, leading the city to amend those policies. This time, SAF is alleging that the District previously had a city code under which the police chief could issue licenses to carry handguns to individuals, including citizens not residing in the District, though the city did not issue such licenses as a matter of policy for several years. That authority was revoked last December by the Mayor and City Council.

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the continued ban on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens for personal protection.

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Update: More stories are coming out:

It’s good to know the money Microsoft (matching my gifts dollar for dollar) and I are donating to SAF are being put to work for a good cause–making Sad Pandas in the gun control community.

Graphic by Robb Allen.

Good thing nationwide concealed carry failed

Apparently Paul Hemke is saying the defeat of the Thune Amendment helped prevent the Pittsburg shooting from being even worse:

Two weeks ago, gun violence prevention organizations helped defeat a bill in Congress that would have allowed this killer to carry his loaded weapon almost anywhere in the country.

Sooo… this killer was prevented from carrying his loaded weapon in other states because concealed carry license aren’t universally recognized, but he wasn’t prevented from murdering and wounding the women in Pittsburg by the laws against murder and assault?

Got it. I’m so glad Helmke told us that because I would have never been able to come to that conclusion on my own.

Anyone but Dow Constantine

Washington Ceasefire is endorsing Dow Constantine for King County Executive (Seattle area). This means you should vote for anyone but Constantine.

Constantine doesn’t have Washington Ceasefire on the list of organizations endorsing him. This could be because the endorsement is new and/or he doesn’t know about the endorsement. Or it could be that he doesn’t want to advertise that fact. I can’t find any mention of firearms on his website so it could be he realizes the KC Executive doesn’t really have any authority to do anything regarding guns with the state Preemption and he will say whatever he thinks will get votes knowing he can’t really be held responsible if he doesn’t accomplish anything. Sort of like getting an endorsement from the KKK–the politician is probably happy to have the votes but doesn’t really want get caught wearing a pillow case on his head.

A win for knife rights

This is actually rather old news but I haven’t seen it mentioned on any of the blogs I frequent. KnifeRights.org reports that Customs has backed off on expanding the definition of switchblades:

In a letter to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Customs has officially backed off their proposed revocations in recognition of the Amendment that was passed by the Senate (see below), at least until the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill is acted upon in Conference Committee.

You can read the letter here, but the key paragraph reads “The amendment would effectively obviate the need for CBP’s proposed revocations and render the current issue moot. Additionally, due to the numerous comments received in response to the proposed revocation, it is unlikely that CBP will take any further action prior to passage of the Appropriations Act.

This is about as close to a victory as we can come at this time. It may not be over until the fat lady sings, and we actually get the Amendment through Conference Committee, but for all practical purposes, we shouldn’t have to worry about Customs reaching into your pockets for your pocket knives anytime soon. Do take note that Customs has included some ambiguous wording in their letter, leaving their options open, no surprise. But, make no mistake, they have gotten the message; don’t mess with our pocket knives!

Of course Liberty is always unfinished business so don’t expect this will be the end of it but it’s good enough for now.

Quote of the day–Ben Franklin

…a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles…is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.

Ben Franklin
[It seems to me that the frequency of recurrence has been more than a little bit low. Even if we went to our fundamental principles right now it would be approximately 140 pico-Hertz and I’m thinking it should be more on the order of 12 micro-Hertz.–Joe]

Quote of the day–George Bernard Shaw

Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.

George Bernard Shaw
See also here, for further background on this phrase. The original was not “The road to hell is paved…” but Hell itself that was paved.
[I’m thinking gun control, TSA, socialized medicine, “affordable housing”, “hate speech” laws, rent control, the list is, for all practical purposes endless. See also New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

I just bought Bat Out Of Hell so I could play it while posting this and doing my dry-fire practice.–Joe]

Health care thoughts from Bill Waites

Via email from Bill Waites:

I usually avoid the Health Care discussions, mostly because it takes so long to explain the answers because it takes so long to explain the causes. I realize that I don’t have the entire answer, and that some of the causes are more complex than I delineate, but I can give a good basis for the problems. This is long, so stop now if you get bored easily!

First, a little background. I began my professional life as a Special Agent for Nationwide Insurance. Most of us in the West see Nationwide advertisements and say, “who are they?” Nationwide is one of largest property casualty insurers in the world, at one point I think they were the largest fire insurance company provider in the world. When I worked for them, there were only about 12 other employees with my position, while Nationwide had 18-20,000 employees, a large percentage of them in Columbus, Ohio. We sold to a very targeted audience, farmers and very small business, where the owner and his family were the only employees. We had a joint marketing agreement with Cenex, and with most of the wheat, potato, and apple Co-Ops in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

I basically sold health insurance for them, as a company employee. When I left, I started my own agency, continuing to sell health insurance, but also selling “special risk” insurance, (an industry category for things like adult football games, sports camps, and activities like Boomershoot, that didn’t fit into the “normal” categories). I continued to sell Nationwide, but also Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, and others.

When I left the business, I went into health care, first running the insurance computer system for a small hospital, then returned to school. After graduating, I initially worked as an RN, working med-surg units, ER’s, public health clinics, and nursing homes. Finally, I returned to school once again, became a Physician Assistant, and after 12 years in a busy Internal Medicine office, I now run a small rural clinic, where I am the only provider 4 1/2 days a week. We accept all insurance plans, Medicaid, and Medicare.

The short version of the health insurance crisis starts here. The first modern plans began in the 1920’s, with Blue Cross covering hospital visits and Blue Shield covering Physician costs. Eventually, most large employers offered insurance, but Bell Telephone is often used as a prototype of how those plans developed. Their initial plan had a $200 deductible, when the average lineman made about $200/month. Over the years, that $200 deductible became locked in stone, and it really is only in the last couple years that deductibles have changed much at all. I think someone told me the current wages for an AT&T lineman are in the $4-5000/month range to start.

Anyone see any problems with that?

As the years passed, more and more people had coverage, and fewer and fewer were willing to take any responsibility for their own care, but they still used those health insurance benefits. Unfortunately, now that the costs were such a small percentage of their income, they used them more and more.

When I was growing up, I, just like all my friends, went to the doctor when something was broken, or when I needed vaccinations. I honestly don’t remember a visit because I was sick. My sister had a few visits because of fainting spells, and my brother had chronic ear infections and ended up having multiple ear surgeries, but for colds, coughs, nausea, and vomiting, my parents, and the parents of all my friends, believed in the “3 day rule”. In other words, wait 3 days, and if you aren’t getting better, then we’ll talk about going to the doctor. I never could manage to stay sick that long!

About half the patients I see now have been sick for less than 24 hours, and most of those have nothing that 3 days won’t fix.

Of the remaining 50%, most have self induced illnesses, like lung disease from smoking, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

AT LEAST 50% of all primary care doctors visits are just like my office, where education, and patient compliance, would solve most problems.

Unfortunately, there is no incentive for education, and there is no way to fund it under the current policies.

In the early 1980’s, in an effort to curb the ever increasing costs of Medicare, the Federal government created  DRG’s, (Diagnostic Related Groups). These new laws forced medical providers, (initially only hospitals were affected), to accept flat fees for services that were all part of any particular group. If you refused to do so, you couldn’t be a Medicare provider, and few, if any, hospitals could see themselves surviving without those Medicare patients. Since that time, at least 7 different DRG programs have evolved to cover all the different problems faced by anyone having to bill for medical services.

Anyone see any problems with that?

Insurance companies didn’t waste much time adopting the DRG model, and soon hospitals and doctors were faced with new contracts demanding discounts on virtually every procedure.

Doctors and hospitals soon realized that they had problems, but no way to resolve it. If you refused the discounts, they simply decertified you as a provider. Watching 50% of your patients walk away because you are not accepted as a provider by their insurance company has a sobering effect upon even the most independent of doctors.

During this entire time, though, medical technology was growing at a pace unheard of previously. As computer power became cheaper, all kinds of digital image devices became more and more common, but they were all incredibly expensive. First ultrasound, then CT, then MRI, then MRA, then PET scans became the rage. It wasn’t just patients or doctors that demanded them, it was the insurance companies, trying to avoid the expensive hospital stay. Where before a surgeon might do an exploratory surgery to take out an appendix that was acting up, now a CT showed if it was actually inflamed before surgery was considered. Where virtually any orthopedic surgeon could correctly diagnose a torn ACL, now an MRI was required before surgery to make sure that was the cause.

More and more expensive tests were available, and if they are available, why not use them? Doctors rapidly grew tired of being sued, and if one of those new tests might lower that risk, you can be sure they would order it!

So we had 3 huge contributing factors contributing to the rising cost:

1) Poor education and compliance, leading people to seek medical care when it wasn’t necessary.
2) Increasingly stringent billing requirements which required larger and larger staffs to ensure compliance.
3) Increasingly sophisticated (and expensive) testing.

Factor 1 is exacerbated by those who have no idea what health care costs actually are. As an example, along with my regular job, I occasionally work in an Urgent Care owned and operated by a community hospital.  I recently saw a carpenter injured on the job. He had a fairly complex laceration that needed to be repaired, as well as a severe contusion and muscle strain. He liked his job and his employer (a small businessman), and he initially refused to complete an accident form to be filed with Labor and Industries. When I and the nurse both tried to get him to understand that if his injury caused him to lose work time his only income would come from the L&I claim, he still refused. His injury was significant, but wouldn’t probably cause long term disability. However, he said, “I’ll just pay it myself, the basic visit is only about $30 or so, right?” Both the nurse and I burst out laughing. This was a hard working guy, who probably hasn’t seen a doctor in 20 years. He had no idea that the cost of the visit would probably be closer to $400 than $40.

Another group who has no idea about costs are those insured by the government on Medicaid. They never see a bill, so why should they? I honestly believe that most of them are good people caught in tough situations, like young married students, or single moms whose spouses have disappeared, but I recognize that some of them are permanent scammers. They are the ones with Medicaid and the Cadillac Escalade in the parking lot! 

I have deliberately left out Malpractice Insurance as a contributing factor, but it does play a part also. I have also left out the impact of an aging population, because we can’t change that, (unless we decide it is patriotic to actually encourage early end of life options, a morally repugnant idea to me!)

All of these problems were exacerbated by increasingly large groups of people receiving health care from State and Federal funded programming. Why does that make it worse? Because those agencies only pay 20-60% of the actual charges. If they didn’t cover it, who did?

Well, that happened courtesy of a little ploy called “cost shifting”.

Cost shifting occurs when one or more of your insured groups doesn’t pay the entire amount due. At that point, you raise the cost of that particular issue to everyone else paying for it. So if my appendix removal cost $1000, and my State coverage paid $200, the hospital would raise the cost of my neighbors appendectomy to $1800 to cover the difference. But since my neighbors insurance only paid $1500, (because of his insurance companies demanded discount, remember?) then that $300 was tacked onto the $1800 the next guy paid. Since he didn’t have the discounted insurance plan, his entire bill of $2100 was due. He either paid it, or hoped that his insurance company would. So that initial $1000 procedure costs someone else $2100 for the same procedure!

Now, some of you are statisticians and actuaries, and I’ll readily admit that this was a gross simplification, but it is what happened and continues to happen.

Those same 3 factors continue to cause today’s problems.

The system is undoubtedly broken, and it is broken because we don’t have the guts to fix it.

So I’ve made all these simplifications and pointed out the problems, what are the solutions?

Well, there isn’t one, but there may be several things that will help to allow necessary changes that will allow access to more people, and especially to allow critical access. The fact is that each of the problems is on its face simple, but the solutions are incredibly complex, because we as country refuse to acknowledge that there will always be some rationing of care. Too many of us seem to think that if there were enough money we could fix the problem. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough money in the world to provide the very best care to everyone in the United States. Currently the care is rationed by the simple expedient of cost. If you are wealthy enough, or if you have employer provided health insurance, you have access to the most advanced medical system in the world. (Ignore ANYONE who says otherwise. Americas system is the best, bar none. Why does anyone who examines the system think otherwise? If it wasn’t the best in the world, all those wealthy Saudis, Indonesians, Kuwaitis, etc. would be going elsewhere. They aren’t!)

At this juncture someone will point out that if we have the best care, we should have the best infant mortality rates, and we should live longer than anyone else. The problem is that ACCESS does not equal results. Americans are, by nature, individualists. We don’t always want to be told what to do. Thus, our vaccination rates aren’t as high as some Third World countries because some of us CHOOSE to not vaccinate our kids. We COULD, but we don’t! The same is true for all kinds of other issues regarding health care. We COULD improve, be we are too busy, or something else has a higher priority, or there is some other problem that we deem more important, and we don’t get the care that is available.

Now back to access for a minute. You also have access to the system if you qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. Yep, that’s right, the poorest of the poor, and virtually every child has access to the system because of Medicaid. The only children that fall through the cracks are the ones with lazy, drunk, or drug addicted parents. They fall through not because coverage isn’t available, but because the adults they should be able to depend on are irresponsible. The most vulnerable of our society, it’s children and its very old, are invariably covered by some type of plan.

Let’s look at the 3 problems and see what we CAN do for them.

1) Education is critical. However, education is not covered to any extent by any plan. Getting education for diabetes, congestive heart failure, Emphysema, or any other medical condition is almost impossible on any plan. There is a reason for that. It is impossible to actually get statistical data that verifies that it improves outcomes! The system isn’t currently designed to follow up with people who receive education and see if their outcomes are better than those of people who don’t receive the counseling and education. (Dirty secret number one: Contrary to what they say, no insurance company really cares what the outcomes are! The reason is simple. You aren’t going to statistically affect their bottom line! You are going to have your greatest expenses in the last couple years of your life, and that won’t happen on their plan. It will happen on Medicare’s dime! This is how insurance companies work, they analyze the risk, determine the actuarial costs, and then charge the premiums required to cover the costs. They are VERY good at it! They got burned in the 80’s and early 90’s because the rapid advance and cost of technology screwed the tables, but they have it figured out now.) Here is an example of how good they are: I prescribed a once daily medicine for a patient. It was less expensive than most similar medicines, and in a rare twist, it was actually cheaper than the twice daily version of the same medicine. From my view that is a win/win/win. It has been proven that patients are more compliant with once daily medicines, so I win. The patient wins because he feels better and has only one pill and the insurance company wins because it is cheaper, right? Wrong! The insurance company approved only the twice daily version. I finally got an honest answer from a pharmacist I had known for years at the company. The company had examined their refill data. On the once daily medicine, refills happened every 33 days on average. On the twice daily medicine, refills happened every 46 days. The insurance company benefitted because people forgot to take their medicine! So, any plan that actually will improve long term outcomes must provide for education AND a way to track outcomes after that education.

2) In the last 30 years the number of claims people, analysts, customer service reps, management for those people, and management for the managers at insurance companies have skyrocketed. All those people have to justify their jobs. How do they do it? Just like all good bureaucrats! They request more and more paperwork. Most offices have a 4 or 5 to 1 ratio of employees to Doctor or provider. One of those is the nurse, all the rest are paper pushers. If there are two or more providers in an office, you can bet that there will be at least one nurse whose job is making sure that all the requested tests, Xrays, referrals and other paperwork is completed so that all the insurance companies are happy. On average, every insurance company has twice the number of staff that the office has. All those people provide absolutely NOTHING to the care of the patient, but they all have to be paid! If we are to have any hope of improving the system, we have to cut out all the middlemen and women who just handle paper.

3) This one is tough! All those tests do have their place, but they must be used wisely. Unfortunately, they aren’t. They are used as “shark repellant”. Medical providers no longer order them because they will actually help us, (though sometimes they do), they are ordered because it keeps the lawyers at bay. “See, I ordered all the appropriate tests and they were all negative. I had nothing to go on that might have indicated that Mr. Smith had appendicitis.” Unfortunately, what Mr. Smith had was a gall bladder attack, and none of the tests actually showed that! Of course a good exam might have triggered that as the cause for his complaint, but since insurance companies demand tests, sometimes the exam is underappreciated. Doctors, PA’s, and NP’s, are trained to do good exams and to ask questions, but that information doesn’t always fit into what insurance companies want. Providers are paid for their judgment, why not actually listen to it? We don’t treat tests, we treat patients!! In all my time in practice, I have yet to run across an appendicitis that I didn’t diagnose BEFORE the CT was done, but we added that $1000 cost just to be sure, for the insurance company. In all my time in practice, I’ve never found an ACL tear on MRI that I wasn’t sure was an ACL tear before the MRI, but we added $1500 to the bill to prove it. IF a PA like myself can do it, it is a certainty that surgeons and orthopedics specialists will be even better!

So my solutions:

1) Make education a requirement for patients, and then pay for it. No education, no medicine, no treatment. Make patients responsible for their care.
2) Make paperwork less burdensome. The vast majority of paper pushing employees can be done away with.
3) Make all these high tech tests less important and rely on judgment more. That’s why we spent all those years in school. Those tests help a lot when we are unsure, but doing them for everyone isn’t the best way to solve the problem, trained judgment is!

The final answer is this: Patients MUST be made accountable for their own care. Financial responsibility is the first leg of that table. Quit allowing people to get care with no out of pocket cost. EVERY adult should have to pay something for every visit. Children are more vulnerable, so that rule can’t apply to them. NO adult should be insulated from the costs of healthcare. Not knowing the costs leads to abuse. People that abuse the system should be punished in some way. The biggest fraud being perpetrated is by people with government benefits who use the system inappropriately. As I stated earlier, most of them need the care. However, far too many simply abuse the access given to them by the government.

Ok, this got much longer than intended, I told you it was tough to summarize!!

It appears we are in a bad situation because we have a very strong tendency to apply small tweaks to the system rather than do a complete rewrite.

I keep thinking, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”, and we are on the fraking Freeway of the Reich to hell with the pedal to the metal, no speed limit, and the exits require you slow down to 10 MPH in order to even see them.

Firearms Freedom Act website

Your source for information on states giving “a symbolic middle finger to Washington” is the Firearms Freedom Act website.

Via David.

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

This makes sense. I mean, email is kind of like the blogosphere in much the same way that the U.S. Mail is like The American Spectator. After all, they’re both full of words printed on paper, right?

Tamara K.
August 4, 2009
Just not getting it.
[Someone should print out a copy of the Internet for this “Jim” guy and let him read the whole thing. Then maybe he would understand the difference–or at least he wouldn’t annoy anyone (see also here) for a while.–Joe]

Our future

Orwell was right:

£400 million ($668 million) will be spend on installing and monitoring CCTV cameras in the homes of private citizens. Why? To make sure the kids are doing their homework, going to bed early and eating their vegetables. The scheme has, astonishingly, already been running in 2,000 family homes.

…

It gets worse. The government is also maintaining a private army, incredibly not called “Thought Police”, which will “be sent round to carry out home checks,” according to the Sunday Express. And in a scheme which firmly cements the nation’s reputation as a “nanny state”, the kids and their families will be forced to sign “behavior contracts” which will “set out parents’ duties to ensure children behave and do their homework.”

And remember, this is the left-wing government. The Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, batting for the conservatives, thinks these plans are “too little, and too late,” implying that even more obtrusive work needs to be done. Rumors that a new detention center, named Room 101, is being constructed inside the Ministry of Love are unconfirmed.

He was off by a few years, but hey, he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949. I have trouble predicting technology or politics even five years in advance.

Update: Phil has more and this link to another article. For some reason I find it amusing and appropriate the government bureaucrat doing this is “Children’s Secretary Ed Balls”.

However, in the comments there appears to be some question about the truthfulness of the report:

IS THE DAILY EXPRESS MAKING THIS UP?

04.08.09, 4:04pm

This announcement has been reported elsewhere (eg see Daily Mail, The Times) but no-one else has mentioned anything about CCTV being involved. Especially not in people’s own homes.

For instance, check the offical government announcement here:
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8678
http://www.respect.gov.uk/members/article.aspx?id=8846

Apparently, in very extreme cases familes may be moved from estates to ‘core residential units’ for 24 hour support and supervision, but this is very different from the alarmist report of the government planning to put “20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision”

So, to cut a long story short, the Daily Express seems to have misunderstood this initiative somewhat. Which is a shame because this report has been picked up and discussed all over the internet over the last few days.

I know those guys!

Phil Pulver has been involved in a lawsuit against Battelle since 1995. Phil contacted me when I was doing battle against Battelle/PNNL and we talk on the phone every once in a while. Here are some of the more interesting points:

Via a DOE grant for $42,128 some software was developed and Pulver given exclusive rights to it. Battelle then delivered a non-working version to Pulver (Battelle disputes this point). Battelle then continued to work on it and used the software for a project for Homeland Security. They then applied for a patent on software that looks nearly identical and claim it was something completely unrelated to Pulvers.

Pulver has spent ~$300K on legal fees. The DOE pays Battelle’s legal fees but Battelle gets to call the shots in the legal case. So far Battelle has spent nearly $750K in taxpayer money.

Your government in action.

See Pulvers website for more details than you probably want to know.

The other guy? John Trumbo is the reporter at the paper who wrote the article. I had lunch with him once and he wrote an couple articles on my battle with Battelle as well. I referred Pulver to Trumbo.

Trigger the vote

Via an email from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:

For more info go to TriggerTheVote.org.

Montana only guns lawsuit

My lawyer friends tell me it’s going to be good for a laugh to see the Feds twist and turn a little bit but not much more. I hope they are wrong but I do enjoy laughing. Have your popcorn and soft drinks ready by October:

The man who helped write the bill that exempts federal regulation of Montana made firearms says that the idea is gaining support around the country.

The state legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Ac during its last session and now the Montana Shooting Sports Association plans to file a lawsuit on October 1st.

The suit will challenge the authority of Congress to regulate Montana manufactured guns, accessories and ammunition that stays in the state according to Montana Shooting Sports Association President Gary Marbut.

Last month the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sent out a letter stating that the federal law still applies in Montana.

Marbut says that ATF acknowledgment will help the Montana Shooting Sports Association gain standing in its lawsuit.

Correlation is not causation

From The Scotsman:

HAVING sex without a condom is good for your mental health, according to controversial research conducted by a leading Scottish psychologist. Professor Stuart Brody concludes that unprotected heterosexual sex can significantly boost men and women’s mental wellbeing.

Conversely, Mr Brody claims that heterosexual sex with a condom is associated with poorer mental health, problems with dealing with stress and even conditions such as depression.

…

Mr Brody said: “Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental.”

I hope he took the basic precaution of trying to compensate for things such as marital status, economic situation, education, drug (including alcohol) use, etc. If he did then his finding are very interesting. If he did not then his “study” is complete crap.

Posted in Sex

Quote of the day–Robert V. Thompson

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side–Gail Collins gets it right
[“No sense”? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can’t remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I’d love to see the research showing violence (not just “gun violence”) is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn’t mention it. I don’t think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, “In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem.”

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.–Joe]

Health care thoughts part II

Part I was here. You really should read all the comments if this topic interests you even a little bit.

I got a response back from Benjamin who gave me permission to use his name:

I think I’m picking up what you’re putting down, and it all makes sense. I do have some counter questions though.

First question.
If the cost of healthcare is too high to provide adequate healthcare to all through a government run system, is there a way to encourage healthcare to cost less?

When I got what was left of my appendix out, it cost me roughly $12,000 (This was 1999 and so I just don’t remember exactly) but included an overnight stay, and extensive surgery to get the poison out of my belly. Five years later I broke my arm and had outpatient surgery to have two screws put in my elbow so I would regain full range of movement, which I never got back. That surgery cost me $6,000, and both times the anesthesiologist cost around 60% of the total cost.

While I understand that medical costs are high because the penalty for failure is high. If I lose and arm because it gets infected, the surgeon doesn’t get all the poison out of my belly and I die, or the anesthesia isn’t administered properly I might die. But it seems like the amount that it costs to get basic or complex medical procedures done is disproportionate to their difficulty or cost in materials. My $12k and $3k bills, as well as lesser bills over the years have made me believe there is a lot of waste involved purely by the number of people I have to pay. Burning through 14 checks to pay for a single outpatient surgery is not reasonable.

Second question.
You state that immortality or close to it will be achievable soon.
First by the rich and then later by the middle class. But what mechanism (Similar to supply and demand or some-such) is in place to drive the prices down and make it achievable?

It seems to me that in the small window of time I have been an alert adult, medical costs have only seemed to go up and not down. I’ve been paying for my own medical care for 11 years. The cost of stitches, X-rays, and CT scans has gone up, and not down. While I know that the medical field stretches far beyond emergency and trauma related care, my view point is not showing a drop in cost.

Discrimination
I want to try and say that race, socioeconomic status, what gender you choose to love, how much of an asshole you are, or church you attend (or don’t), won’t have any impact on the quality or duration of healthcare you receive. But it really hurts me to say that I know that I would be full of shit and wrong with every single syllable I strung together, no matter how beautifully I managed to do so. America rocks. I fucking love this place. But americans are ignorant, self centered, asshole cowards, on the whole. Fearful of what they don’t or choose not to understand.

Benjamin

P.S. Thanks for being informed and opinionated. I really like knowing that there are people out there who have an opinion for a reason, know how to share it, and do. I spend some time nearly every day listening to the two local conservative and an one liberal AM radio talk stations. Glenn Beck, Rush Vicodin, Randi Rhodes, Lars Larson, and whoever else sort of scare me.

My response:

Barb says she will write up something for me to post on my blog soon as well. She has a lot of experience with government run health care.

First Answer:
Basically, I don’t have any knock-out good answers.

Getting the government out of the health care business will help some. The price of drugs is probably 20 to 100 X what it would be without the FDA being involved. Just like anti-gun people only citing the costs of guns in society and not mentioning the benefits the FDA costs are seldom mentioned. Not only in the incredible expense to get a new drug to market but the number of lives lost because of the delays.

Requiring hospitals to give free health care to those that can’t pay raises the prices for everyone. All the paperwork required raises the price a bunch as well. This isn’t just the governments though. Insurance fraud has contributed a great deal as well. Insurance also raises the cost not just because of the extra documentation required but because they put a lot of pressure on providers to reduce the price and providers give them discounts of something like 40% over what an individual would pay.

A looser pays court system would help but I’m not entirely comfortable with that concept either.

Another thing that makes the comparison from 10 or 20 years ago to now difficult is that the quality isn’t the same. MRI’s weren’t available. Many of the drugs available now did not exist then. Lots of people that would have died or been permanently disabled a decade or two ago now go home and have many more healthful years left.

Second answer:

There will be lots of research, engineering, and failures going into the first efforts. Think of Microsoft Office–the first copy costs many millions, the second copy costs pennies. It won’t be that dramatic but drugs really aren’t that much different. The costs are weighted very, very heavily on the front end.

I hope Barb will be able contribute more.

Quote of the day–T. Peter Pierce

It’s the county’s position that the panel did not need to reach the issue of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. It’s the county’s hope that that’s what attracted the court’s attention.

T. Peter Pierce
Of Richards, Watson & Gershon
July 30, 2009
9th Circuit Giving Gun Case Another Look
[In other words, “We hope the Second Amendment only applies to people residing in Washington D.C.” If he had said a similar sort of thing about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth or 13th Amendments he would have been, and justifiably so, told he needed to find new employement as a janitor, santitation engineer, or Chinese target stand. But he didn’t. He was talking about the Second Amendment which is somehow “different”. I wonder why…

There are people on our side of the issue that are quite anxious about what this might mean as well. David Hardy, Sebastian, and Eugene Volokh have a few words to say about it. Oral arguments will occur the week of September 21st and we might get a clue as to the outcome.–Joe]

Boomershoot 2010 supplies on order

I just ordered 1750 cardboard boxes for Boomershoot targets. Combined with what we already have that is over 2400 boxes. That includes a few extras but still… I’m planning on a LOT of targets for next year.

Including miscellaneous other supplies that one order was nearly $760. That doesn’t include the ton (literally) of chemicals, wooden stakes, and numerous other things. But do you know what?

It will be so awesome it will be worth it!