The benighted gnomes in the archive department have died of exhaustion after only finishing the transfer of archives for the second half of June. Needless to say the Ministry is displeased with their total lack of dedication.
When we find more lackies, more archives will be posted.
on
| § 0
While I'm on a roll, commenting on everything Pythagosaurus posts (I'll get my own brain soon, I promise) I thought I'd throw in my thoughts on the whole health care thingy:
The interesting thing about the prescription drug benefit is that it was intended as leverage to get certain elements of Congress to agree to reform Medicare. There is a certain crunchy political compromise sort of goodness to that - in exchange for enacting a hideously expensive piece of crap legislation, we will excise the worst parts of a grotesquely expensive, double-plus crappy abomination of a legislation. Instead, we now have both, which is more stupendously expensive crappiness than you can shake a stick at, plus the stick.
The prescription drug benefit program's only saving grace is that it might not kill the goose that lays the wonderful, groovy new drugs. In every other way, it is an immoral, bald faced, long term mandate for thievery from the younger generations. But the drug benefits are really a side show in the larger catastrophe.
There are three elements that form the center of my perception of the problem:
Starting from the bottom, why does it cost $12,000 to get your arm repaired after your neighbor jumps up and down on it? Assuming that your mom drives you to the hospital, what kind of costs are we talking about? A few minutes for the receptionist. A half hour each for a nurse and a doctor, fifteen minutes for the radiologist and the cost of running the x-ray machine, the broken bone kit in the nifty sterile packaging, some overhead costs to keep the nice hospital open, and some powerful narcotics to dull the existential angst of realizing what a dumbass you were to let your neighbor jump on your arm.
I added that up, and came up with about $500. And that was assuming that doctors were charging $300/ hour for their time, and nurses half that. Even assuming that my perception of the costs was off by an order of magnitude, that still leaves you $7,000 short of $12,000. Where does the extra money come from?
Malpractice insurance to protect doctors from the ridiculous lawsuits we as a people are prone to. Also, extra tests as an added safeguard from lawsuits. The bloat of the insurance industries, which encourages doctors to overcharge. And the labyrinthine regulatory hairball that surrounds the entire industry.
I have no problem with doctors making money. They studied far harder and longer than I ever did, and they perform a vital service. I have no problem with drug companies making money - it costs billions to develop and especially get FDA approval for a new medication. They should be able to recoup their costs, and make a little folding money.
I do have a problem with jackholes making millions because they convinced a jury of their jackhole peers that they deserved to get $20 million in punitive damages because of something that no doctor could have prevented, or came up short on the odds. Nothing in life is certain. (Now, if the doctor was drunk, sue away....)
I do have a problem with government setting prices for the whole industry, and for all other kinds of intrusive regulation. My cousin used to work for a hospital, and the nightmare stories he told were unbelievable. The hoops that every part of the industry must jump through are staggering.
There has to be someway to straighten and simplify the whole thing. And tort reform would be a great start, eliminating one of the biggest costs for medical care for everyone.
The second point is the demographic change that will hit full force as the boomers start retiring in large numbers. This single fact dooms every old age entitlement scheme already in existence or merely in the planning stages. Entitlement means that those eligible get their money regardless of whether of any other needs the government or the rest of the country have. When the old reach a certain percentage of the population, the system will as a matter of course bankrupt itself because it will cross the threshold where the working population contributes enough in taxes to fund the outlays to the old.
Unless these programs are fixed, we are screwed. Privatization is one option. Raising the age of eligibility is another idea. Means testing is necessary. But something has to be done, or we will end up by 2050 paying all of our money right into the pockets of the old. Because it is damn certain that the boomers will be there with their hands out.
And we need to do something soon, because of point number one - seeing as the health industry is such a huge part of the economy, if it gets screwed up, the whole effect on the rest of the economy will be, I don't know, large. There are many ways that it could get screwed up: panicky regulation could either regulate it into stagnation or nationalize it. Increasing inefficiency and corruption could bankrupt key parts of it, leaving the system in ruins. Or, there could be piecemeal collapse, for example if malpractice insurance becomes to expensive, there will be no doctors - they will move to where they can practice and make a living.
The health industry must continue to make money in order for it to be the wonderfully effective thing that it is. It must continue to attract the best and brightest. What we need to fix is not the doctors and nurses, or even the drug companies. In principle, health insurance is a viable prospect. What we need to fix is the government side of the beastie, both in terms of regulation and heath related entitlement programs.
on
| § 6
Buckethead: two points I query:
1) You seem to suggest that the current administration is not especially pro-business. Am I reading too much into your comments, or are you on crack?
2) I am well aware that you are by and large a reasonable person, your views on the perfidousness of certain labor laws being a shining example. But if that is the case sir, how do you justify your enthusiasm for the film "Van Wilder"? I mean, it's pretty good, but a shrine to Ryan Reynolds? Come now...
on
| § 1
In reference to Pythagosaurus' recent post, I have this to say:
There is a list of many things that this administration (or any, for that matter) could do that would be good for business. This item strikes me as being very, very low on that list, if it's on it at all.
I work in the tech industry; and I and many people I know have been screwed by the comp time thingy. Since many techies are salaried, they are already exempt from most of the regulations regarding overtime. If you are an hourly worker, then by all means you should get overtime.
The only way that this suggestion would make sense is if the worker in question could opt between the two, and if he took the comp time, could take the time on his rather than his employer's discretion.
Contrary to received opinion, I am not some sort of conservative robot who automatically says "Labor bad! Business good!" Worker rights are important to me, if only because I'm a worker myself. While I have often complained about unions, especially the teacher's unions (sorry, Mike) it's mostly because they have made nuisances of themselves in recent times. I would certainly not begrudge the labor movement its utility and victories back more than a half century ago, but nowadays they seem to act more as purely special interest groups, lobbying for gains at the expense of the rest of society. Like the AARP.
So, I agree - this proposal is a pile of horseshit.
on
| § 0
I love it when Ross gets on a tear .
I went on a little screed a few weeks ago about this very issue of senior citizens voting themselves any benefit they wish, looting the store at the expense of future generations (e.g. yours truly). It's shameful and foolish. But there's another victim which we have not yet explored: the drug companies themselves.
I have long harbored the suspicion that health insurance is mostly a huge vicious scam, feeding alternately on doctors, patients, and medical care facilities and manufacturers. Even factoring in the hideous r&d costs that are required to come up with a new heart pump, the fact that an uninsured person can go into the hospital with a broken bone and come out with a $12,000 bill is unbelievable. The web of mutual back-scratching, rebilling, and cooperative deals is the best built house of cards ever.
But there's a weak side. The Medicare reform proposal before Congress now would allow older Americans to get their drugs from Canada, where prices are cheaper. Well, great, except that Canadian drugs are so cheap because American patients and insurance companies are footing the drug R&D bill for the entire world!
Other nations, including the EU and Canada, have enacted price controls to keep the cost of drugs lower than the cost of production. Despite this wish-based economic policy, there is no way around the high cost of creating, testing, and approving a new medication. If innovation is to continue, that money has to come from somewhere, and currently it is coming from American insurance premium payers, period. The Medicaid reform package would in effect take senior citizens out of the game, further shrinking the R&D money pool and leading to higher drug prices for the rest of us. This is especially galling because seniors typically need far more regular medical care than your average 29-year old nonsmoking yoga enthusiast.
I don't claim to cry for Pfizer and Merck. They can take care of their damn selves. But their expensive American drugs are part of the Great Wheel of Graft that keeps the American medical establishment functioning. By legislating themselves a way out of the great Ponzi scheme of drug research and insurance, senior citizens and their allies in Congress are about to kill the goose that lays the little golden pills. As with Social Security, they will be taking out of the system far, far more than they ever put in, leaving us high and dry. Wonder what will happen then?
Thanks guys. Greatest generation my shiny metal ass.
on
| § 5
Diamond John Kerry has begun stumping for an issue with actual, real value! The Boston Globe/AP is reporting that Kerry is attempting to launch a petition against the Bush Administration's changes to overtime regulations.
Whoopee. A damn petition. But it's a good cause, and one that the Democrats have utterly failed to capitalize on in their bumbling assault on Castle Dubya.
In short, the changes to overtime policy allow businesses to reclassify a large chunk of workers (how large? wisdom varies--some say a little over half a million, big labor says 8 million) as exempt from overtime pay. Basically, the new rules would give employers greater latitude in determining whether workers making between $22.1K and $65K per year are vital enough to the function of a business to be exempt from overtime pay.
Instead, employers could choose to issue comp time to workers who work over 40 hours per week.
Though the Department of Labor insists it is not fundamentally changing anything, in separate discussions spokespeople have admitted that it would make it easier for employers to deny lower-paid rank and file workers overtime.
Not such a big deal, right? Weeeeel, I dunno. The 40-hour week plus overtime was one of the great victories of the labor movement in the United States, and any attempt at revising that standard will be naturally met with skepticism. Furthermore, having worked for my share of grasping, greedy, and utterly perfidious employers, I am well aware of the many ways in which business may legally deprive you of your own time. The new rules just make it easier to do so.
The Big Comp Time Scam
Although comp time has been presented as a reasonable alternative to overtime, as it turns out, it isn't such a great deal for workers at all. Although in theory one is able to save up days worked and redeem them almost at will in lieu of spending a vacation day, there are two problems: 1) comp time disappears if an employee is laid off, meaning employers are not obliged to pay for comped hours in severance packages; and 2) comp time is taken at the will of the employer, not the employee.
An example of how this can go wrong: I know of a computer tech at a nonprofit who gives comp time instead of overtime. Currently, he has worked more than 40 hours per week every week for a year straight, and has banked more than 50 days worth of comp time accordingly. But, although he wants and desperately needs time off, his employer will not allow him to use this comp time, arguing "we need you here too badly." They also consistently deny his vacation requests. The upshot is that they employer has gotten an extra ten weeks of work out of this worker for free, and is under no real future obligation to compensate him for this time.
Subheadline #2: obligatory centrist flailing
I'm completely fine with Bush being pro-business-- business makes the world go 'round. But he needs to be verrry careful when making changes to the American work week. Not only is the 40 hour week one of the finest fruits of the labor movement, in more concrete terms a lot of people rely on overtime to survive and raise their families. Changing overtime rules is hitting these good working Americans right where it hurts. Most of the people affected aren't blue-collar workers, but the new-style lowly bluish-white collar administrators and middle managers who are the new Joe Sixpack of the American workforce.
Subheadline #3: a strong stand!
All in all, I don't like the proposed changes because I don't trust business not to exploit the regulations to the limit of the letter. Companies exist to make money, and with few exceptions, there is tension between the need to be far in the black, and the need to retain and treat well good employees. Like in most things, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
But more importantly, this is the kind of issue the Democrats could really score points on if they could stop drooling on their shirts for a while. If the damn Dems could give up on the "Bush Lied" thing-- which is as endearing now as when the Republicans tried it on Clinton-- and actually got to work on attacking Bush where he's vulnerable, this could turn into an ugly issue. Just harp on the "they're coming for your paycheck" meme a little, and Labor could swing more decisively Democratic than it has for a while.
Not that this will happen. Most of the Democrats presidential contenders are idiots, and even the ones I like (Howard Dean) are silver-spoon babies with no actual affinity for working Americans. Which is why we need Jim Traficant for president!
on
| § 0
From the "Free Traficant" site linked below, some pearls of wisdom from the mouth of The Don Of Youngstown, cast before ye swine:
"When I get out I will grab a sword like Maximus Meridius Demidius and as a Gladiator I will stab people in the crotch."
"Think about it. While 60 percent of taxpayer calls to the IRS go unanswered, the IRS agents were watching Marilyn Chambers do the Rotary International. Beam me up here. It is time to pass a flat 15 percent sales tax and abolish this gambling, porno-watching IRS completely. I yield back the internal rectal service of the United States of America. "
"The Pentagon just did not waive the Buy American Act, the Pentagon waved Old Glory the wrong way. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these Chinese berets be made into suppositories and be used on Pentagon brass. Madam Speaker, I yield back the need for Congress to hire a proctologist to train Pentagon procurement officials on the buy American laws."
"They are officially called unisex restrooms. Unbelievable. What is next? Unisex locker rooms with thong/jock support dispensers? How about Maxipad vending machines in locker rooms? Beam me up. I yield back this higher education business as yet simply getting high."
"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room!"
"I want you to disregard all the opposing counsel has said. I think they're delusionary. I think they've had something funny for lunch in their meal, I think they should be handcuffed, chained to a fence and flogged, and all of their hearsay evidence should be thrown the hell out. And if they lie again, I'm going to go over there and kick them in the crotch. Thank you very much."
on
| § 3
YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! [pumps arm exultantly like Kirk Gibson]
"WASHINGTON (AP) -- James A. Traficant, a former Ohio congressman in prison for bribery and racketeering charges, has given his approval to supporters to form a presidential exploratory committee."
"The battle to free James Traficant and to evict the Socialists and 'free traders' from the Democratic Party is now under way," campaign spokesman Marcus Belk said. "Someone buy the Washington establishment a bottle of Maalox." Belk said the group, which announced Friday that it had gotten Traficant's approval by letter, has raised $10,224 in cash pledges made on Traficant's campaign Web site. The average contribution was $71, he said.
"Traficant, a Democrat who represented northeast Ohio in the House for nine terms, was expelled from Congress in July 2002 after being convicted in a federal court of racketeering, bribery and tax evasion. He is now serving an eight-year prison sentence at the minimum-security Allenwood federal prison in White Deer, Pennsylvania. "
Never mind that in an election between a trained goat and Jim Traficant, I'd go with the goat every time, this is wonderful! Just what this country needs: a corrupt, venal slippery populist demagogue with a talent for making the insane sound reasonable as long as he keeps talking. And an Ohioan to boot!
Let's review: the current headline-making political figures in Ohio right now are Dennis "Burning River" Kucinich, Sideshow Jerry Springer, and James "Beam Me Up!" Traficant. Makes me proud. Those fat cats in Washington better circle the wagons... 2004 is the Year Of The Buckeye!
Right here and now, I am announcing my support for former Representative James A. Traficant for President of the United States in 2004. But first things first... Free Mumia!Traficant
on
| § 0
The Ministry of Minor Perfidy is moving to a better place. (And no, we're not dead.) Our crack team of commando net researchers determined that the perfidy.org domain had left the bizarre purgatory of the .org registrar's "pending delete hold" status and become available; and our lawyer minions were dispatched forthwith to secure the rights to the Ministry's proper home on the interweb.
That they were succesful certainly increased their life expectancy, but also freed the Ministry from durance vile in the decidedly low rent .biz realm. Over the next several days we will make the switch, generously providing a redirect from perfidy.org to the new digs so as to avoid confusion among the unwary. But note! You must learn to stand on your own two feet, because the redirect will not be there forever.
on
| § 2
Not only was Stalin the head of the second most murderous regime in world history, responsible for reppression, famine and countless other crimes - that son of bitch Uncle Joe tried to kill the Duke.
CBS news reported this morning on the tube that in the late forties and early fifties, Stalin ordered multiple hit attempts on John Wayne, the outspoken anti-Communist actor.
If anyone had any doubt that Communism is evil, evil, evil, right to the bone, well there's your proof. You don't try and kill the Duke. Apparently, once Kruschev came to power, he stopped the assassination attempts because he was a big fan of the Duke. Go figure.
on
| § 3
