Nordyke v. King en banc went well

Reports are coming in that it went well in California this morning.

David Hardy has some news but the good stuff is here (I cherry picked the mini-posts):

Why can’t we assume without deciding that the second amendment is incorporated? What would change? Alameda still floundering.

Why isn’t this a summary judgement case? Apparently since guns aren’t posessed at a gun show for self defense then Heller doesn’t apply… Weird.

Alameda has serious foot in mouth. Just agreed that only dimwitted judges would not accept incorporation arguments.

Alameda says Heller does not guarantee guns! Judge is dragging her through the mud.

What if fairground isn’t a sensitive place? Then we would have to declare ordinance null (judge question and statement) What is sensitive about a fairgrounds? Is every government property a sensitive place? Schools and govt buildings. Invitees who don’t know eachother, thus it is a sensitive place. Gun shows cause liability problems, look at fairground shooting that caused 11 liability lawsuits.

Oh no, we had one shooting at the fairgrounds! 11 people, 4 of them children! What about shootings in office buildings? Gun show was not in place when the shooting happened. Gun shows in conjunction with other events did not cause problems. Open carry us allowed! Metal detectors to detect illegal concealed firearms. County has no problem with firearms carried for self defense. Alameda is screwed!

Alameda GETTING HAMMERED! Legislature can ban guns tomorrow based on her antiquated case law.

Update: Via Dave Hardy I find we now have audio of the proceedings.

Update2: Also via Dave Hardy we have a decision (sort of).

Nine billion rounds isn’t that much

I’m trying to do my part to stimulate the economy by upping the number of rounds I’m putting down range each month and getting new shooters to the range. I figure we just about have to do it. The ammo factories hired new people and if we don’t keep buying the ammo they will get laid off, right?

Here’s the background story:

Bullet-makers are working around the clock, seven days a week, and still can’t keep up with the nation’s demand for ammunition.

“We are working overtime and still can’t keep up with the demand,” said Al Russo, spokesman for North Carolina-based Remington Arms Company, which makes bullets for rifles, handguns and shotguns. “We’ve had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It’s a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business.”

Americans usually buy about 7 billion rounds of ammunition a year, according to the National Rifle Association. In the past year, that figure has jumped to about 9 billion rounds, said NRA spokeswoman Vickie Cieplak.

Nine billion rounds in one year with about 80 million gun owners in the U.S. works out to about only about 112 rounds per gun owner. I went through that many rounds both last night and the night before. I’ll go through probably another 200 rounds tonight and then another 150 on Sunday. What the heck is going on here? I’m figure I’m just doing my civic duty here and it turns out I’m doing the job of about 100 other people as well.

If every gun owner were going through just 100 rounds a month that would be nearly 100 billion rounds a year. That is a way to stimulate the economy and have something to show for it afterward–an armed and well practiced citizenry and respectful politicians.

The End Of An Era: Kalashnikov Maker To Seek Bankruptcy

Via email from Chet.

What? Do they only have enough money for food or something? I thought they could always find money to fund their hate of capitalism and buy more Kalashnikov rifles. But perhaps not:

Russia’s largest small arms manufacturer, the Izhevsk Mechanical Works [Izhmash], could be declared bankrupt. It became know today that a corresponding petition has been received by the arbitration court of [the Republic of] Udmurtia from the enterprise.

This largest Kalashnikov assault rifle manufacturer now stands idle. No state order means no money to pay employees, nor to repay debts to creditors.

Quote of the day–Michael Beard

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn’t anyone “gunning for the President”. The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It’s no different than if a black person had stepped into a “whites only” restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn’t have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

“Disturbing criminal histories”? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as “disturbed” as he wants to be and I don’t care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how “disturbed” he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That’s not “news”. And I have to say, it’s about fricking time.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

This must be Greg Nickels’ desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry’s post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I’m doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we’re the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I’m reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.–Joe]

More guns, less crime

Even with all the relaxed gun laws and the big gun buying spree that began in late 2008 it didn’t translate into increased crime rates. In fact it was just the opposite:

Murder and manslaughter dropped almost 4 percent last year, as reported crime overall fell around the country, according to new data released Monday by the FBI.

The 3.9 percent decline in killings reported to police was part of a nationwide drop in violent crime of 1.9 percent from 2007 to 2008. Rapes declined 1.6 percent, to the lowest national number in 20 years — about 89,000.

The statistics are based on crimes reported to police, who then forward the information to the FBI. There were 14,180 murder victims in the United States last year.

“What has been impressive has been how flat all the violent crime rates have been since 2000. To a large degree that’s still the case, but the striking change this year has been murder,” said Alfred Blumstein, a professor of criminal justice at Carnegie-Mellon University.

The figures show that crime has come way down since its peak in the early 1990’s.

This was in the presence of a huge economic downturn which usually is an indicator for increased crime rates. So either gun ownership isn’t positively correlated with crime (and in fact is negative associated with crime rates) or there is some other driving factor which observers don’t know about or want to talk about.

Another step closer

We don’t have anti-gun bigots being prosecuted for violations of 18 USC 241 and 242 but this is another step closer:

Judge Black concluded as a matter of law that the police violated Matthew St. John’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment because they seized and disarmed him even though there was not “any reason to believe that a crime was afoot.”  Judge Black’s opinion is consistent with numerous high state and federal appellate courts, e.g., the United States Supreme Court in Florida v. J.L. (2000) (detaining man on mere report that he has a gun violates the Fourth Amendment) and the Washington Appeals Court in State v. Casad (2004) (detaining man observed by police as openly carrying rifles on a public street violates the Fourth Amendment).

Mr. St. John’s attorney, Miguel Garcia, of Alamogordo, NM was pleased with the ruling and look forward to the next phase of the litigation which is a jury trial to establish the amount of damages, and possibly punitive damages.  Garcia said that 

“[i]t was great to see the Court carefully consider the issues presented by both sides and conclude that the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from detaining and searching individuals solely for exercising their rights to possess a firearm as guaranteed by our state and federal constitutions.”

Notably, Judge Black denied the police officers’ requested “qualified immunity,” a judicially created doctrine allowing government officials acting in good faith to avoid liability for violating the law where the law was not “clearly established.”

I think its actually a big step closer to where we want to be.

H/T to Ride Fast.

Quote of the day–‘Doc’ Russia

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy’s name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

‘Doc’ Russia
August 26, 2009
More gallows humor
[Via an email from Scott K.

I cannot think of a single thing to add to this.–Joe]

New Terror; Candles, OMG!

Sometimes when I read the news I think I’m back in jr. High school.  This time it feels like fourth grade elementary.  When I was in fourth grade, I observed a girl enjoying some canned cherries during lunch.  Unable, for whatever reason, to leave her in peace to enjoy her cherries, I walked close to her and said in a low voice; “You’re eating cow guts”.

Apparently this caused her to lose her appetite, and she was distressed enough to tell the teacher, who later called me on it.

Fast-forward to adulthood.  Today if you’re enjoying a hamburger, you hear from the food Nazis; “That’ll clog your arteries, contribute to deforestation in South America and pollute the atmosphere with methane (cow farts).”  You’re enjoying a smoke; “That’ll give you cancer and cause kids to have health problems, and you’re supporting Big Corporations that are trying to keep you addicted and kill you for profit.”  You’re having a soda; “All that sugar will detonate your pancreas and make you fat.”  You’re having a diet soda; “Those artificial sweeteners will give you cancer.”

“That car of yours is going to destroy the planet, you filthy planet killer you.”

“Unsafe at any speed” etc., etc., “That salad you’re eating is full of pesticides and that stuff was grown on corporate, industrial farms that have no regard for the planet…” etc., etc., etc.  It never ends, and if you’re resistant to this crap, congratulations, if you can avoid getting the “Swine Flu” which happens to be just like any normal, run-of-the-mill flu, but ZOMG we’re all gonna dieeee!

Today’s reason not to enjoy yourself is that your candlelit dinner is going to give you cancer.  So quit enjoying yourself (you selfish twit) be afraid, and call your Congressman to demand something be done about “Big Candle” before the children all die and the puppies all get cancer just so someone can enjoy a nice candlelit dinner while people in (insert country) are starving.

And you leftists think you’re all about rights and freedom and privacy and stuff.  I’m gonna tell the teacher on you.

I found a reference to this candle scare on Rush Limbaugh’s site  (and there are some great comments at the Washington Times article on the subject) while looking for the fantastic quotes he found regarding Death Panels.  More on that later.

Someone is actually spending money and time to research candle pollution.  Wow.  Like no one knew that burning things releases combustion products into the air.  I find that the phrase, “too much free time” tends to spring to mind.

Quote of the day–Sebastian

They used to say that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that conservatives thought liberals were stupid, and liberals thought conservatives were evil. Now it would seem they think conservatives are terrorists.

Sebastian
August 24, 2009
The Media’s Shallow Understanding
[I suspect it isn’t really “shallow understanding”. It’s about attempting to demonize in any way possible those who oppose their agenda. People believe what they want to believe and anything that supports their belief system will be latched onto with far less fact checking than if it contradicted their belief system. I’ve been guilty of this too. But there have also been times when I thought (borrowing a literary tool from Say Uncle), “Self, this is too good to be true. You better check this out.” And nearly every time it was too good to be true.

In the case of the present day “militia movement” I can’t help but remember in the mid-90s I knew the names of several different militias both in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country. I read about them, by name, in the paper and heard about them in the social circles I communicated with. I saw their displays at gun shows. I occasionally even talked to member of militias. This time? The only “militia movement” I have heard about all traces back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I think it’s too good to be true for the left and they latched onto it without checking into it. Someone should check it out and, if my hunch is correct, slap them down. With appropriate timing and proper location it could be a good political tool.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ambrose Bierce

In Dr. Johnson’s famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil’s Dictionary
[I was reminded of this by what our Speaker of the House recently said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints. 

–Joe]

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.

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.

Health care thoughts from Barbara

There are multiple reasons that I fear the thought of government controlled health care.

  1. Your choices will be taken away from you. The government programs does not take into consideration individual needs, they make decisions only as a general rules that apply to each person despite what is best for the specific person–except for themselves. I am sure they will always be able to get around the rules they make for other people. They are already making decisions for you, not the health care person who knows what the situation is.
  2. I have worked with nurses and doctors from Canada. Each nurse at our hospital takes care of 4-5 people at a time plus they have aides. Nurses are your first line of defense in the hospital, they are the ones that are there to make important decisions for you–call the MD, send you to the critical care unit, etc. The Canadian nurses said that they may have more than 10 patients and not enough aides. One nurse said that she is sure that people died because they didn’t have time to assess the situation for the patients in critical need. Plus the ER was flooded with patients with sore throats and ear aches so that the ER Staff didn’t have time to assess who had the critical needs. After all, health care is free so why not just go to ER and not wait until the next day?
  3. It appears to me that people who have free health care take advantage of it. The big example is welfare/Medicaid patients. They have poor health habits, little carry through on instructions. In home health we disliked getting Medicaid patients, not because they were poor, but because of their “give me attitude”. Give me the best of care because “I” am just as good as you and I want everything but I don’t want to take care of myself. These patients are often “frequent fliers” who come in to get their COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), diabetes or drug and alcohol dependencies under control. We clean them up, “save” them, send them home, and they are back in a few months. These people burn up so much money for health care but, hey, its “free” so no problem for them. In contrast, people on Medicare, they earned it by working all their lives–no it’s not a great system either but people did earn it–just want to get better and get out of the hospital or out of home health because they have a life they want to go back to. They generally follow instructions better and don’t return to the hospital over and over again. In general they are a pleasure to care for because they appreciate their health care.
  4. The government screws up so many things. They hire more and more layers of administration and they still can’t get it right. Plus there will always be people who learn how take advantage of the system so they will have to hire more and more non-medical people to police the system but they usually only hurt the people who are trying to follow the rules. You can’t imagine how much paperwork we have to fill out to see Medicare and Medicaid patients plus the charting that is required on all patients.
  5. Good MDs and health care workers are the frogs that are starting to boil. You don’t know the early and late hours these rural MDs are working or the piles of paperwork sitting on their desks. They are not making big money but they work the “big” hours. Government will not run this system efficiently. There will not be incentives for the really bright people to go into medicine–nope they are not that stupid. Seriously I think that will we will have an even greater shortage of MDs and other medical staff. But don’t worry they are accepting people–minorities–into medical programs who actually need remedial help passing tests. Now that makes me feel better about our health care.

When the government takes over we can look forward to poor health care for everyone.

Health care thoughts

I occasionally post about the adverse results of socialized medicine but probably haven’t said much about what I think about it. A friend asked the following via email:

I have been meaning to ask you for a more detailed explaination of your stance on universal government run health care as it is being proposed right now. I understand you oppose it, but as someone who is poor and hasn’t had healthcare for 11 years and has used the emergency room for most of my healthcare needs, why it is bad.

I know there is no free lunch.
I know that someone is paying for it.
I want to know why YOU are opposed to it and why.

My response (except for a few personal things that were deleted to protect privacy):

Health care… Big, big topic.

I understand the no insurance situation. [details deleted]

I have tried to express this in a “Just One Question” format but haven’t quite been able to do it. Here’s my best attempt:

If it were possible to keep someone alive and robust essentially forever (baring catastrophic injury) but it cost $1M/year per person should the “government” supply it for everyone?

Of course the answer is “we can’t afford that”.

The thing is we are rapidly approaching the point where immortality may be achievable for some people. I suspect age-wise I am just above the cutoff line where it will be technically feasible. My kids (and probably you) have a good chance at that.

All government health care plans equalize (for the most part–people in power typically are more equal than others even if the law says otherwise) the care. There simply isn’t budget for everyone to get “the best”. Care will be rationed or it will be substandard. Look into what happened in the UK. The waiting lists cause people to die. Too old, too fat, or smoke? You don’t get the knee replacement or other care because that money would be “better spent” on someone younger or healthier.

Government bureaucrats will make the rules and/or review cases deciding who gets care and who dies. It WILL be abused. It might be on racial or religious lines or it might be on the basis of who you know. Whatever the case it won’t be on the basis of what you and/or friends and family think you are worth or can afford. When someone pulls the plug on me I want it to be because I and/or my family decided it was time or couldn’t afford the cost rather than some government official that decided they didn’t like my skin color or I had been just a little too uppity with some of my blog postings.

If Bill Gates and other extremely wealthy people are allowed to pay for whatever the free market can come up with immortality will probably be achieved soon. It will be extremely expensive and only a few will be able to afford it. But the price will come down and someday it will be affordable by the middle class. If equality of care is enforced we may never have that available to us.

See also what Alan Korwin has to say about it:

http://pagenine.typepad.com/page_nine/2009/07/dangerous-health-care-insanity-spreads.html

Quote of the day–Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of selfdefense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Given the importance of this issue, the vote on Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Wayne LaPierre
Chris Cox
July 23, 2009
Letter to the Senate on the Sotomayor confirmation vote.
[It’s no different than a judge who does not agree the 13th amendment guarantees a fundamental right. It’s repugnant and a sign of a great sickness in our society that we even have to debate this.–Joe]

Good choice

Ry (and here) and Say Uncle reported on the U.S. Army ordering 38.4 million rounds of .300 Winchester magnum ammo for their newly modified M-24 sniper rifles.

I think quite highly of the .300 Win Mag as a long range precision rifle cartridge. That is what my Spud Gun is chambered in. I have been very, very pleased with the results I get with it. I also find it interesting the link Ry supplied to the development history reports the Federal Match primers are used in the new ammo–which is what I use when reloading for my Spud Gun. They are using a 220 grain Sierra Match King bullet however. They considered and rejected the 210 grain VLD bullet which is what I use for reloading. The moly coated 190 grain Sierra Match King is used in the Black Hills match ammo I sometimes buy which also works very well for me. I prefer the 210 VLD over the 190 SMK because I get a little less wind drift and I should be good for 1500 yard shots versus 1300 yards for the 190 SMK (at sea level, 59F).

I’m glad I have enough ammo to last me until (I hope) the Army contracts are fulfilled.

Pravda Criticizes U.S. Descent into Socialism

I never though I’d see the day. I recall listening to Radio Moscow, pre Gorbachev, on HF (that’s “shortwave radio” to most) as they blasted the U.S. and her evil capitalist ways. They did it in English, using an announcer who sounded like your favorite uncle from Texas. Now our own government officials sound much like Radio Moscow’s English service did in those days, but more strident.

Via the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I heard Pravda is criticizing us for our “descent” into socialism.

Things are bad when Pravda says we’ve gone too far to the left.

Pravda’s web server seems to have melted. It worked just minute ago, but when Rush mentions a web site it usually spells “meltdown”. Keep trying. You have to see it.

More Word From Israel

From our friend Howard;

Friends:

Good morning (in your time zone) from Jerusalem. The biggest ever Civil Defense preparedness drill has begun.

Please note the item below in Ha’aretz about the PA (Fatah) Hamas clash in Kalkilaya (West Bank) yesterday. Our American taxpayer dollars continue to be wasted.

The American trained and equipped PA/Fatah Security Services operation was a textbook example of how not to conduct a raid. The first three killed were Fatah officers. So much for the element of surprise and a rapid strike. The Presidential Guard (aka Force 17 from the days of Arafart) were called. These are the crème-de-la-crème of the PA Special Operations command forces. It took them over 6 six hour to end the firefight. They managed to kill two Hamas and the innocent, poor shmo landlord of the building the PA forces attacked.

These are the same kind of dedicated fighters who shed their uniforms, abandoned all the American supplied arms, munitions, communications gear, secret documents and files and fled rather than stand and fight Hamas in Gaza. Now the Obama Administration is rushing to train in Jordan and equip 3 more brigades (?) of PA police/infantry and Spec-Ops counter-terrorists.

Words elude me.

Have a good week.

Howard

HEADLINES FROM THE HEBREW PRESS

HA’ARETZ

1. SENIOR MOSSAD OFFICIAL APPOINTED MEDIATOR IN CONTACTS FOR SHALIT’S RELEASE: “IT WON’T BE HOCUS POCUS”

Hagai Hadas appointment attests that his functions will not be limited to negotiations, but also operational aspects of release. “We must be prepared for extended and exhaustive negotiations,” he commented after his appointment. (…).

2. SECRET INTELLIGENCE UNIT 8200 MAJOR COMMITED SUICIDE BY SHOOTING HIMSELF IN THE HEAD IN HIS OFFICE.

3. SIX KILLED IN CLASH BETWEEN PA POLICE AND HAMAS CELL

Following clash Hamas called on its members: Confront PA as if you’re confronting the occupation.

Words fail me too. Just thought you should know. It sounds all too much like the sort of thinking (or lack thereof) that’s going on here.