Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

Much is being made in certain circles of the failure to obtain bipartisan support for a health care bill that would dramatically affect over one-sixth of the U.S. economy (17.4 percent, according to a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Report released February 4, 2010). Republicans are behaving more like Texas high school football fans than statesmen, it is being said, fanatically adhering to party-line talking points in the face of a President earnestly seeking common ground. The Republican minority in Congress is being “obstructionist,” it is said.

Well, folks, Congress is supposed to be obstructionist.

Most of the citizens of the world would agree that the U.S. Founding Fathers pretty much got it right. For more than two centuries we have been the envy of the world and preferred destination of emigrants. Many of the qualities that invite such admiration and covetousness were established in our founding documents and the institutions they created. The primary job of those institutions is to not screw up what was right to begin with.

Each branch of the federal government—Executive, Judicial, Legislative—was designed to be fairly conservative and yes, when it matters, obstructionist. Flaring tempers and public passion, from Tea Party or Me Party, are not supposed to rule the day. That’s why, when the stakes are high, fifty-one percent is not enough.

I teach American history at El Centro College in Dallas County. In one of my recent classes we were discussing the framing of the United States Constitution. I thought it would be instructive for my students to debate how much support a particular bill should have in order to become law, so I set up an example in which I asked each student to imagine that he or she was one of 100 homeowners along an unpaved street, each a member of a homeowners association with the responsibility for maintaining and improving the neighborhood.

In my scenario several homeowners had proposed that the street be paved, with expenses to be borne equally by each homeowner. My question to them was: how many of the 100 homeowners must be in favor of and vote for the project before all 100 should be obligated to pay for it?

At first, a few students believed 51% majority should prevail.

Then some pointed out that meant one person, the fifty-first, might decide that 49 would have to pay for something they neither wanted nor could afford. Others pointed out that in any event all of the owners would benefit and there were many good reasons for doing it.

Ultimately the class formed a consensus that there should be a vote of somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters in favor.
Another consensus developed that the scope and cost of the project should have a bearing on the required size of the vote in favor: the more impact or cost, the greater percentage required. Fifty-one percent could decide to trim tree branches, for example, but three-quarters would be needed to cut down the trees and haul them away.

So it is with enacting laws at the national level. The framers of the Constitution debated a number of options to prevent a tyranny of the majority, which they believed was just as bad as a tyranny of a monarchy or oligarchy. They didn’t settle on a requirement of super majority, but instead set up a system where there were a sufficient number of “veto points” that would prevent the enactment of a momentarily popular or trendy measure that would be too expensive or too disruptive. They realized that such measures required considerable reflection before implementing, and should not be done hurriedly.

The Founders created a separation of powers scheme in which a central government would have a limited role, state and local governments would be diffuse, and the legislative process itself would be cumbersome: a measure would have to pass through two legislative houses and be approved by the executive, then, possibly, tested by the judiciary.

The Senate in particular was designed to be conservative and deliberative, from the staggered six-year term of Senators to the procedural rules of debate and voting. That meant some very good reasons and reflective consideration would be necessary before enacting measures that would be as far-reaching as, say a systematic reform of a national healthcare system. The United States Senate is a hoop to jump through, a hurdle, a minefield, or whatever metaphor you wish to employ. It is supposed to be so; it was designed to be so.

There are estimates that 14% of Americans are at one time or another without medical insurance. That means that 86% have it. But lack of insurance does not mean lack of medical care, at least in the United States.

In most metropolitan areas there are public hospitals that provide care for indigent persons and those that lack the means to pay full cost. True, they often must seek that care through emergency rooms, but they nevertheless are able to obtain it. Is emergency room care in really more expensive? Maybe, maybe not. I have it on good authority that hospitals often inappropriately charge costs to emergency room accounts as a ploy to obtain funding that ordinarily would be difficult to obtain. Such adaptive accounting exaggerates the true cost of the ER.

And one can always pay cash for medical services, sometimes receiving deep discounts from physicians grateful for not having to deal with inaurance companies.

It is also true patients often spend long times waiting in public clinics that provide free or reduced-rate services. That’s part of the price of “free” medical care.

In a debate which has lasted almost a year it has become obvious that, while perhaps fifty-one percent of Congress wants the current bill, many, many Americans do not, primarily those who will pay more for it and receive less under it. The lack of a super majority in the Senate seems to be a major roadblock, and that is good.

Dear Friends and Free Market Agnostics:

Metaphorically speaking, there is no more painful stick in the eye than your opponent legitimately using your own mantra against you. Yes, we can!

Been too busy to write thoughtfully about Senator Scott Brown and what his election means, except that perhaps that Commonwealth is not the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts after all.

My Republican, conservative, libertarian, blue-dog friends (and those terms are not all mutually exclusive) — I caution all to beware of hubris. And, to use another metaphor apropos to what our current Congressional comrades and President seem to have done, don’t overplay your hand.

Scott Brown appears to be change we can believe in.

There are numerous professional pundits commenting on this today, and doubtless there will be tomorrow. I will leave further comment to them for now.

See also: http://www.theinfernalserpent.blogspot.com/

Back from the Christmas and New Year holidays. Other than Martha’s and my annual New Year ritual of watching the dawn break and sun rise over White Rock Lake and then having breakfast at John’s Café on Greenville Avenue, they were not much for me, as I had an appellate brief due on 12/31 and a jury trial beginning on 1/5 which lasted through 1/8. The jury had to answer several fact questions, which they did in a manner favorable to my client, I think. Still some close legal questions, and it could go either way. Main question was whether a series of e-mails could comply with the rule that a real estate commission contract must be in writing signed by the person to be charged. E-mail is the work of yet another infernal serpent, but I believe it does comply. In view of the jury findings, I hope the judge agrees with me.

It appears that a majority of Americans do not want the meddling Congress is on the verge of passing. I have to confess some mixed feelings about that, considering the current versions of the bill all but guarantee full employment for lawyers. “O ye lawyers who live on litigants fees, and need a great many to live at your ease. . . “ (From Lord Neaves’ poem about the Jolly Testator Who Writes his Own Will). Anyway, a tidbit from the NCPA observes a number of facts about U. S. medical care that might be driving the polls:

● U.S. is No. 1 of 191 countries for “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient” (my emphasis) on the U.N.’s World Health Organization (WHO) comparative ranking system.

● Eight of the 10 top selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies (“Big Pharma” to the pecksniffs).

● The U. S. has the shortest waiting time for non-emergency surgery in the world. Britain’s NHS has one of the longest, except, of course, for the Queen, the City Mughals, the likes of the Duke of Earl, and the Earl of Duke, and Sir Mick Jagger (hey, I don’t begrudge him; I’ve been a Stones fan from the beginning).

There’s more. See Mark B. Constantian at

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704130904574644230678102274.html

The Economist is a British periodical that has been published each week since 1843. It styles itself as a “newspaper” but its format is what most of us would call a magazine. It also claims to be politically conservative, but that term probably has a somewhat different meaning in Britain that in the United States. Despite its foreign origin, The Economist devotes a good deal of its news and commentary to the rest of the world, especially the United States. I have subscribed to it off and one for parts of the last three decades. The “off” periods occurred when, because of inattention, I failed to renew, or the total amount of reading material I had coming regularly became too much to handle. For the latter reason, it was my intention to allow the current subscription to lapse. But then came this season’s “Special Holiday Double Issue” with the cover story “Progress and its Perils” emblazoned across an illustration of naked Adam and Eve (with fig leaves, of course) enthralled by an Apple I-Pod with my friend the Infernal Serpent lurking overhead. Clever as the cover is and as interesting the featured commentary was to read, what really enthralled me was the story inside entitled “A Ponzi Scheme that Works.” This feature describes the multi-national, multi-continental origin of the American people. It presents the thesis that the greatest strength of America is that people want to live there, and presents considerable evidence that is quite true.

For those interested the story can be found at
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15108634 or in the print version at page 41.

Immigration has been at the forefront of American concern for a long time. I mean a very long time. According to archeologists and geneticists, as well those in other scientific disciplines, the first human being first emerged (you can believe that God created him/her directly, through the process of evolution, or it just happened; it matters not) in or near the Great Rift Valley in eastern Africa, and the species migrated to the rest of the globe from there. I suppose that makes all of us, including those whose biological ancestors were here pre-Columbian, African-Americans, even if in an extremely attenuated sense. Those who were native here before and during European colonization and settlement doubtless were anxious – with good reason it appears – about the arrival of the colonists, but most of the anxiety about immigration in the now United States occurred after independence from Britain.

Immigration populated the United States and the other American countries. The Western Hemisphere was sparsely populated before the arrival of Christopher Columbus and those who followed him. The microbes that the Europeans unsuspectingly brought with them wiped out most of the then indigenous population, and those remaining were subjugated (in Latin America), or disbursed and marginalized (in North America).

The main characteristics of immigrants – whether from Europe or the other eastern hemisphere continents – was, and is, their boldness, courage, and adventurousness. They were not “huddled masses” described in that obnoxious poem that some idiot believed was appropriate for the Statue of Liberty. Many have suggested that immigrants who left their homeland migrated because they were not doing well where they were. That is probably true in most cases, but the tone of that suggestion often is that they are and were what some might call “ne’er-do-wells.” That notion is misplaced. The ne’er-do-wells usually stay put and eke out enough to get by, and no more. Those who have gumption and vision, but are repressed by a hidebound society and culture, or a pathological political system, are the people who emigrate. Two such new Americans are featured by The Economist article. One is the perhaps rather well known Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who suffered persecution in her native Somalia, and later in the Netherlands where the pusillanimous Dutch failed to protect her from the barbaric Muslims they have allowed to run amok in their country. The other is the more or less (until now) obscure Joshua Lee, born in Korea, but who prefers the more relaxed social atmosphere in America and did not come here to escape violent persecution. Like these examples, most immigrants to America have done pretty well, and their descendants have done better. I here include the current Mexican and other Latin American immigrants, legal and illegal. They come here to work, not to collect welfare. And they work hard. As The Economist article points out, it is difficult for an able bodied male to do anything but barely subsist on welfare in America, as they can in Europe. To the extent that illegal immigrants are able to sponge off the taxpayers for medical care and other services, that is the fault of our government at all levels. Not being stupid, the immigrants accept the largesse offered to them.

The late Samuel Huntington, a Harvard political scientist, wrote two influential works before his death last year. The Clash of Civilizations theorized that world conflicts are the result of civilizations of disparate values coming into contact and competing to establish their hegemony and value systems. The most widely disparate are the Western and the Islamic civilizations, and that violence between the two is inevitable. Writing in 1994, he sure got that right. It is almost if he had a crystal ball. In a later work, Who Are We?, alluded to in The Economist article, Huntington questions whether the numerous Latin American immigrants will change the United States into “two peoples, two cultures, and two languages” and eschew “the Anglo-Protestant values that built the American dream.” It is probably too early to tell if Huntington’s fears have merit – similar fears were expressed about Italian, Polish, and other immigrants 100 years ago. In his Clash of Civilizations, he observed that the two aspects of culture that kept people cohesive were religion and language. I have not studied the extent to which it is happening, but have noticed that there are quite a few Protestant churches catering to Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in my city and its environs, and I hardly ever have any contact with anyone who cannot speak English. As a lawyer, I have a number of clients whose first language is Spanish. They are self-employed entrepreneurs, and their main problem, like many of their indigenous competitors, is collecting debts for goods and services provided. Like the article’s author, I am not real pessimistic about our current immigrants. What really worries me is the sixth plus generation descendants of Mayflower immigrants who are guilt ridden about their inherited means and believe that everyone’s wealth is unearned like theirs. Those are the leftists, the real racists who believe that today’s immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are incapable of fending for themselves as individuals and must be coddled by a nanny state.

I have heard some radio and television polemicists complain that during the last Presidential campaign, the present First Lady opined that America is a downright mean country. I have never heard or read a direct quote to that effect by Mrs. Obama, but if she so opined, she is correct in many respects. Americans are generous to a fault, and our government has spent much of the blood and treasure of its people trying in vain to export our Republican Democracy. Nevertheless, America does not welcome and cannot use ne’er-do-wells or huddled masses. Not to worry, because, as related earlier, most of those stay put. America needs and welcomes individuals with vision, gumption, and fortitude. The sports adage displayed in numerous locker rooms that when the going gets tough the tough get going is never truer than in this country. The United States won World War II with the help of immigrants, many of whom came, or whose ancestors came, from the enemy countries. The immigrants to this country have provided individuals like that; from John Smith to General John Shalikashvili; from Ann Hutchinson to Ayann Hirsi Ali, and countless others. There will doubtless be many more.

The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules. The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker’s pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

There is virtually no productivity associated with these increased salaries. The federal, as well as state and local, governments push paper and distribute wealth, they do not create it. Even the paper pushers are inefficient. Furthermore, it is tax revenue neutral. The federal government withholds FICA, Medicare, and income taxes from the tax dollars it pays the employees. Furthermore, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 36.8 percent of government employees belong to unions, compared with just 7.6 percent of workers in the private sector.

The government does not care about productivity; the private sector does. Besides, it is politically incorrect (not to mention politically hazardous) for government agencies to oppose unionization. Here is one of the more insidious effects of increased government employment: Most of these employees are for more expansive government, as it is in their self-interest – their rice bowl, so to speak. They will continue to be a voting bloc for more and more government, at least until, like yeast in the fermentation process, their product kills them.

For more, see: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm

The title phrase (which I admit is a bastardization of the inscription honoring Christopher Wren in London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral) occurred to me this morning as I found myself amid an estimated 20,000 men and women starting their 26.2 mile run through the city of Dallas. The annual White Rock Marathon, named after our scenic urban lake, is only one of hundreds, if not thousands, of endurance events throughout the world each year. It has acquired sufficient prestige to attract world class runners from around the globe, and is telecast live with former Olympic champions as commentators. Still, I wonder how many of the participants recall the man who started it all.

Forty years ago, almost anywhere in America, if you saw a grown man running on the street, you would think it odd. If you saw a women, your first reaction would be that she was trying desperately to escape a two or four-legged predator of some description. Around that time, then U. S. Air Force physician Kenneth Cooper was in the midst of empirical research of the effect exercise had on the condition of the human body. Prior to then, physicians knew that some exercise was good for you, but not in what amount, or what all of the benefits could be. Myths of all kind abounded. Exercising too much could “wear you out” and athletes of all stripes (except maybe golfers) were “over the hill” by age 30, were but a few. Persons with chronic cardiovascular or pulmonary conditions were advised to “take it easy” and avoid strenuous exercise. Cooper’s research, which culminated in his best-selling book Aerobics, and later a series of similar writings publishing his findings, changed that mind set, and inspired many in his and subsequent generations to take to the street on foot, on bicycles, or in the water.

In 1971, as a 25 year old out of shape, overweight smoker, recently discharged from the Army where I had a desk job for the last year of my tour, I idly picked up Aerobics one day and ended up reading it cover-to-cover. Few other books I’ve read have had such an impact on my life. Like many others, I’m sure, I took it to heart, and began running. I got into shape a lot faster than I imagined I would, and managed to keep it up pretty much ever since, nowadays mostly by bicycle rather than afoot. It took awhile to quit smoking, as it did not seem to hurt my running that much – a tribute to the resiliency of the human body I guess – but I managed to throw off that vice, too. Never have run a marathon – 15 K was the closest I managed – but that level of exercise is not necessary for good heath, as Dr. Cooper has determined. Still, I admire those who do and am out to cheer them on every December, riding my bicycle along the way.

Speaking earlier of women runners, it is becoming more difficult to tell someone’s age these days, but I noticed at least one grey-haired female who I would judge to be at least 50, and probably older, was today 48 minutes at the 6 mile mark. Given that when I was in the Army, a 10 minute one mile was a passing score (6 minute was 100%) on the Combat Physical Proficiency Test given to 18-25 year old men, that should speak volumes of what we are capable of.

I root for the runners partly because it’s unlikely they will be over-consuming our medical care resources. A huge number of those who are over-consumers today are Type II diabetics and suffer from one or more of the other maladies brought on by obesity. Except in rare cases, these are self-inflicted diseases. Regular exercise can go a long way to preventing, and if already established, curing or controlling those conditions. Ken Cooper’s research, as well as numerous other controlled studies, have proved that.

I plan to ride 65 miles on my 65th birthday next year at about a 15 mph average. That’s not exactly Tour de France class, but 40 years ago anything close to that would have been unthinkable. That change we can really believe in and is Dr. Ken Cooper’s monument. I hope more and more of us can pay it homage.

As of this writing, Dr. Cooper at age 77 is active as chairman of the Cooper Aerobics Institute here in Dallas.

NOTE: This homily (along with some previous wiritings) was posted on my blog at http://theinfernalserpent.blogspot.com/ I started it some time ago, but pretty much ignored it until one of my readers, David P., who I understand is an IT professional, suggested I aim for a wider audience. The wider audience, such as it might be, has him to blame. David, who is a relative by affinity, does not necessarily endorse my views, but hope springs eternal.

Many libertarians and our sibling conservatives often express concern that elite nags and busybodies are constantly attempting to use government power to remake the nation’s social-economic-cultural structure in their own image. The left-wingers nearly as often answer that it is only logical and reasonable to want competent, learned, and accomplished individuals to make policy and to “run” the country.
Well, yes, persons in positions of authority need to know what they are doing. We need the best men and women to implement the policies established by the democratic-republic form of legislative system that has been in place for 220 years. Public policy, in other words, must be made by consensus. This does not mean a bare 51% in all cases, but often must require a super-majority, and in some cases, where certain rights are fundamental and unalienable, even more. No segment of the populace, no matter how intelligent, learned, or prescient should be in a position to dictate how individuals should run their lives, so long as they are not infringing on others fundamental rights. I, of course, would argue that fundamental rights include only one’s life, liberty, and freedom to pursue happiness, and their corollaries.
That these self-evident traits, bestowed on human beings by nature or nature’s God are threatened in a fundamental manner has been made abundantly clear by the latest pronouncement of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in Washington. This cabal of elite policy makers has decreed that routine mammograms are not necessary for women of average cancer risk under the age of 50, and that women between the ages of 50 and 74 do not need to undergo mammograms more often than every other year. (WSJ 11/17/09, p. A1 & 4; DMN 11/17/09, both citing the Ann Intern Med, November 17, 2009 151:716-726). The Task Force guidelines are based upon a new analysis of statistical data. They were formed by weighing benefits of screening compared with the harms of false positive, such as anxiety and unnecessary additional tests and biopsies which are expensive and time consuming.
This is yet another example of liars figuring. Statistical analysis seems to be arcane that so many of us defer to the so-called experts without question. Thus most of us pedestrians tend to swallow what these studies seem to show and shrug and go on about our business. But this advice, and the concurrent opinion of the Task Force that breast self-examination is essentially worthless, does not impress the the American Cancer Society. The society’s chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, challenged the new guidelines saying that they are “essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them.” Phil Evans, a professor or radiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School here in Dallas and president the Society for Breast Imaging related that there is a “ton of scientific data in this country and others on screening that shows a significant benefit for women between 40 and 49 to be screened. Dr. Evans said he was “shocked” by the changes. “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it,” said Dr. Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. “It’s crazy – unethical, really.”
More to the point, the Task Force’s “balancing test” disclosed the elitist bias of the panel. Anxiety caused by false positive? Why is that a consideration at all? Anxiety is caused by many of life’s stresses. Anyway, shouldn’t that be for the women concerned to decide? The unnecessary additional tests are not discovered to be such until they are completed. Time consuming and expensive? Whose time? The expense is discussed below. But the bottom line is that the Task Force seems to believe the anxiety, expense, and time are worth more in women over 50 than in those between 40 and 49. The one inescapable fact is that some women – even some who are at statistical low-risk – get breast cancer in their 40s. This, of course is collectivism gone wild.
As for the expense, yes, medical care can be expensive. Mammograms are probably more expensive than they otherwise would be because they are paid for by third parties, and, anyway, like the sticker prices on new cars, it is a rare instance when the third party “insurance” carrier pays full freight. Many carriers are pleased to pay for screening because discovering a condition early reduces the expense of treating it later. I broke my arm falling off my bike a year ago and my carrier sent me a letter suggesting I get a bone density test – on them with no deductible or co-pay. Anyway, if mammograms were not covered by third-party payers, and were advertised like Lasik and breast-enlargement surgery, the price would go down, as would nearly all medical care short of catastrophic trauma or diseases, which is what medical insurance was originally for and would be now except for our crazy tax code, and the mind-boggling levels of bureaucracy necessary to administer the third-party claims resulting from doctor visits for minor aliments.
The most worrisome aspect of the new Task Force guidelines is that it is a harbinger of what we can expect from the government taking over health care delivery in this country with the outrageous bill passed just over a week ago by the House of Representatives. Most of you who have read this far are intelligent to understand that the bill was 1900+ pages for the simple reason that it took that much to include provisions to buy off the special interests with earmarks and other favors. The average person reading the bill would not be able to spot the hidden boodle because of the arcane nature. Regardless of anything else, those who are responsible for designing medical care plans and doleing out the money will be under pressure to keep costs down. Politicians always vote for something that is inherently expensive and the scream at the implementing agencies, boards, commissions, et cetera, to be frugal. The Task Force guidelines are precisely the kind of standard the bureaucrats will use to cut costs. When the left-wing dream comes true, we’ll have to accept what the various panels are willing to pay for. Welcome to rationed health care, everybody. Everybody but the elitists. Most of them will have the means, mostly inherited or otherwise unearned, to pay for whatever medical procedure they want, and the limousine to take them to their doctor.

Here is a recent article from one who is only second to P. J. O’Rourke in the ability to turn a phrase:
“In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors’ appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper’s entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd. “As the Times reported: “In some dermatologists’ offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees.” “As the kids say: Duh. “This is the problem with all third-party payor systems — which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care. “Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.”
See the rest at
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34179
You might be aware that fees for all cosmetic plastic surgery and Lasik, both of which are typically not covered by third party payers, have consistently gone down for the past 10 years! And there are many, many expensive advertisements in the newspapers (what’s left of them) and on television. Still, our government is trying to bring costs down by mandating, not merely encouraging, medical care to be paid by a third party? Those folk are in cloud-cuckoo land for sure.
You also might be aware of the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery and pharmaceuticals
as such as Botox. That would be a national disaster. Can you imagine what Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer would look like without Botox? Yikes.Here is a recent article from one who is only second to P. J. O’Rourke in the ability to turn a phrase:
“In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors’ appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper’s entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd. “As the Times reported: “In some dermatologists’ offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees.” “As the kids say: Duh. “This is the problem with all third-party payor systems — which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care. “Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.”

See the rest at
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34179

You might be aware that fees for all cosmetic plastic surgery and Lasik, both of which are typically not covered by third party payers, have consistently gone down for the past 10 years! And there are many, many expensive advertisements in the newspapers (what’s left of them) and on television. Still, our government is trying to bring costs down by mandating, not merely encouraging, medical care to be paid by a third party? Those folk are in cloud-cuckoo land for sure.

You also might be aware of the proposed tax on cosmetic surgery and pharmaceuticals
as such as Botox. That would be a national disaster. Can you imagine what Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer would look like without Botox? Yikes.

This past Friday, Charles Krauthammer wrote: “One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques. “Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.” I’ll have to keep “left-wing erogenous zone” in mind for future comments. I’ve often had the impression lefties’ brains were lower down on their anatomy. Krauthammer made a point in a past column that since the modern day feudal barons cannot burn the crops of the peasants, they will try to shut off access to energy in order to maintain their control. The full column is at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003163.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter Cheers!

The New York Times reports that this year, newspaper sales dropped sharply lower to about 10 percent in the six months ending Sept. 30, compared with the same period last year, as disclosed by figures released on Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulation.

To read the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/media/27audit.html?_r=1

The linked article referenced The Wall Street Journal as having actually increased circulation. It has my become my primary print news source, for many reasons. The Dallas Morning News circulation has plummeted, and that’s too bad, but I suppose inevitable. When he toured the U.S. in the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that, rich or poor, town or country, you could find a newspaper in virtually every American home, and he viewed that is not only good, but part of the American character to be well informed. Most of those 19th Century papers were intensely partisan, but were balanced because there was nearly at least one for every political stripe. Today, of course, we have many other sources for news and comment – even to the point of it being an embarrassment of riches. Unfortunately, radio and television reduces the information to incomplete sound bites that can easily mislead those who have not the time or inclination to fact check. The internet is somewhat better, but the short news cycle and the surfeit of information tends to force important stories into the background sooner than they should be. And there is the factual reliability. If print journalism goes the way of the horse and wagon have in our transportation system, we will be so much the poorer. At least the coming of the automobile eliminated most of the horse manure in our society; the end of print journalism seems bound to increase it.