From PARVANEH VAHIDMANESH: a touching letter to Iran's establishment:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623110886766123.html
Ali Khamenei, if you pursue the path you have been following, our people's anger will take a different form. It will turn you and your family, as it did the shah's and his, into forlorn and helpless individuals with the word "exile" stamped across your foreheads.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The French and Sex
I read a while back that the French have the most sex compared to all other nationalities. (I think I saw it in Durex's annual sex survey.) Here might be why:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195624/French-women-dont-just-tolerate-husbands-affairs--expect-them.html
Seems like a realistic approach. Many marital couples stop enjoying sex frequently, and under the French system, they don't have to get divorced. They just move on and be discreet. But what about STDs?
Anyway, if you notice, in most socialist countries, women tend to be more sexually open. See Scandinavian countries, for example. If Karl Marx had gone with the sex angle, maybe we'd all be red commies today. It does seem that many people compensate for a lack of a good sex life with material possessions. Perhaps that's one reason why capitalism and Puritanism go well together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1195624/French-women-dont-just-tolerate-husbands-affairs--expect-them.html
Seems like a realistic approach. Many marital couples stop enjoying sex frequently, and under the French system, they don't have to get divorced. They just move on and be discreet. But what about STDs?
Anyway, if you notice, in most socialist countries, women tend to be more sexually open. See Scandinavian countries, for example. If Karl Marx had gone with the sex angle, maybe we'd all be red commies today. It does seem that many people compensate for a lack of a good sex life with material possessions. Perhaps that's one reason why capitalism and Puritanism go well together.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Matt Miller on Heathcare
Matt Miller on healthcare, from The Commonwealth (June 2009, p. 16):
General Motors famously spends more on health care than it does on steel. And Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee. [Nice margins on coffee, eh?] Workers are left in a situation where, because of the nature of employment and benefits being tied [together], we've got 50 million uninsured and maybe 30 million additional folks [underinsured] in tremendous anxiety. It doesn't work anymore.
According to the same speech, in 1960, healthcare cost 5% of GDP. Now it costs 20%. Did we get completely out of shape in just 49 years? If so, the short time frame indicates no permanent difference, meaning we may be able to change our habits and return to a healthier society. I suspect, however, that the real problem is the way healthcare companies, including hospitals, get paid by insurance companies.
When I was in college, I remember going into the ER for some stomach and head pain--I had slept for about 21 hours in a row and was feeling terrible and nauseous. I'd never slept that long before, and I was afraid something had happened (and no, I did not drink the night before--I have never really liked alcohol because I like sweet drinks, and I hadn't discovered Drambuie yet). An ER doctor checked me out for five minutes and saw nothing wrong. Since I was already there, I asked him to check out a small growth on my calf. The doctor looked at it for five seconds and declared there was nothing serious.
As a student, I was still covered under my dad's health insurance policy, but it refused to pay the bill--the insurance company said my nausea and weariness were not true emergencies, and therefore I should not have gone to the ER. The insurance company said I should have waited until Monday to see my regular doctor, but I didn't have a regular doctor in my college town--I was a freshman, and I rarely went to a primary care physician anyway.
I got the bill from the hospital and was able to see the full charges. In addition to the normal ER fee (which is normally quite high), the doctor had charged me around 200 dollars for the five seconds it took him to check my leg. That's right--the doctor had classified my simple question as a completely new healthcare issue. Even lawyers have to account for their time, so they can't charge outrageous amounts for five seconds of work. I don't want doctors to account for every six minutes of their time, but the current system is too easily manipulated. When I received that separate charge for around 200 dollars--a princely sum for a college student back in the mid-90's--I knew there was something morbidly wrong with the American healthcare system.
There is a happy ending, if my memory serves me correctly. My mom called my dad's insurance company day after day, and I believe it finally paid the bill. I wonder what people do if they don't have a determined person who can call and argue a bill over and over. As a full-time college student, there was no way I could have paid that bill. And what's the point of having health insurance if you can't go to the doctor when you're feeling absolutely horrible and terrified about about a brand-new, sudden problem?
In any case, if you believe healthcare companies won't be forced to change their inefficient ways under an Obama administration, you may want to consider Vanguard Health Care Fund ((VGHCX) and the Vanguard Healthcare ETF (VHT).
Disclosure: as of June 29, 2009, I have no positions in any funds mentioned above.
General Motors famously spends more on health care than it does on steel. And Starbucks spends more on health care than it does on coffee. [Nice margins on coffee, eh?] Workers are left in a situation where, because of the nature of employment and benefits being tied [together], we've got 50 million uninsured and maybe 30 million additional folks [underinsured] in tremendous anxiety. It doesn't work anymore.
According to the same speech, in 1960, healthcare cost 5% of GDP. Now it costs 20%. Did we get completely out of shape in just 49 years? If so, the short time frame indicates no permanent difference, meaning we may be able to change our habits and return to a healthier society. I suspect, however, that the real problem is the way healthcare companies, including hospitals, get paid by insurance companies.
When I was in college, I remember going into the ER for some stomach and head pain--I had slept for about 21 hours in a row and was feeling terrible and nauseous. I'd never slept that long before, and I was afraid something had happened (and no, I did not drink the night before--I have never really liked alcohol because I like sweet drinks, and I hadn't discovered Drambuie yet). An ER doctor checked me out for five minutes and saw nothing wrong. Since I was already there, I asked him to check out a small growth on my calf. The doctor looked at it for five seconds and declared there was nothing serious.
As a student, I was still covered under my dad's health insurance policy, but it refused to pay the bill--the insurance company said my nausea and weariness were not true emergencies, and therefore I should not have gone to the ER. The insurance company said I should have waited until Monday to see my regular doctor, but I didn't have a regular doctor in my college town--I was a freshman, and I rarely went to a primary care physician anyway.
I got the bill from the hospital and was able to see the full charges. In addition to the normal ER fee (which is normally quite high), the doctor had charged me around 200 dollars for the five seconds it took him to check my leg. That's right--the doctor had classified my simple question as a completely new healthcare issue. Even lawyers have to account for their time, so they can't charge outrageous amounts for five seconds of work. I don't want doctors to account for every six minutes of their time, but the current system is too easily manipulated. When I received that separate charge for around 200 dollars--a princely sum for a college student back in the mid-90's--I knew there was something morbidly wrong with the American healthcare system.
There is a happy ending, if my memory serves me correctly. My mom called my dad's insurance company day after day, and I believe it finally paid the bill. I wonder what people do if they don't have a determined person who can call and argue a bill over and over. As a full-time college student, there was no way I could have paid that bill. And what's the point of having health insurance if you can't go to the doctor when you're feeling absolutely horrible and terrified about about a brand-new, sudden problem?
In any case, if you believe healthcare companies won't be forced to change their inefficient ways under an Obama administration, you may want to consider Vanguard Health Care Fund ((VGHCX) and the Vanguard Healthcare ETF (VHT).
Disclosure: as of June 29, 2009, I have no positions in any funds mentioned above.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Persian Wedding Table
For more information, click here.
The cool frame at the bottom contains "espand," to ward off the "evil eye." The word Espand refers to a class of Zoroastrian Archangels.
Eggs and nuts (fertility symbols); rose water (purify the air); rock candy and pastries (to make the marriage rock solid and to bring sweetness); wheat (a sign of fruitfulness); Koran (God's blessing for the couple); cup of honey (to sweeten life).
Rocky Fans, Rejoice
Ever wonder what a cool USB drive looks like? Here you go:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/18/rocky-iii-usb-drives-sadly-missing-burgess-meredith-version/
Hat tip to Bill C. for the link.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/18/rocky-iii-usb-drives-sadly-missing-burgess-meredith-version/
Hat tip to Bill C. for the link.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Stuff We Can't Afford: Credit Card and Public Pension Debt
Nice graphic re: credit card debt:
http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/the-descent-into-credit-card-debt
Now I need to go figure out if any of my credit cards have an "inactivity fee."
Also, here's an excellent article (8/20/2007.) on public sector pensions and how to fix them:
http://reason.org/news/show/1006943.html
The argument of generations past, that government must offer greater benefits than the private sector to offset smaller salaries, clearly no longer applies. Today, government employees receive significantly higher benefits and salaries than their private-sector counterparts. According to a 2005 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, public-sector employees earn 40 percent higher salaries and 60 percent greater benefits than private-sector employees.
Thanks to Adam Summers for catching this issue back in 2007. Too bad almost no one listened.
http://www.mint.com/blog/finance-core/the-descent-into-credit-card-debt
Now I need to go figure out if any of my credit cards have an "inactivity fee."
Also, here's an excellent article (8/20/2007.) on public sector pensions and how to fix them:
http://reason.org/news/show/1006943.html
The argument of generations past, that government must offer greater benefits than the private sector to offset smaller salaries, clearly no longer applies. Today, government employees receive significantly higher benefits and salaries than their private-sector counterparts. According to a 2005 study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, public-sector employees earn 40 percent higher salaries and 60 percent greater benefits than private-sector employees.
Thanks to Adam Summers for catching this issue back in 2007. Too bad almost no one listened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)