Brought over from the old site - 11/1/06

Health Care

Meijer announced last week that they will offer several types of antibiotics free to anyone with a prescription - no strings attached. While I'm sure that the Meijer management feels that this will be economically good for the company, it is still an act worthy of praise. Others, like Wal-Mart and Giant Eagle, are offering $4 prescription-filling for many commonly prescribed drugs. While all of this is certainly helpful, it will not solve the problem of how our society pays for what seem like ever-increasing healthcare costs.

We live in a time where science and technology have made great strides. People live longer, their conditions can be treated and the quality of their lives improved. It all comes with a price tag, however. In the case of Medicare and Medicaid - you and I pay that price, along with every one else in the nation.

Many folks decried "universal healthcare" when it was discussed a decade ago. I'd suggest reviving a form of that discussion - namely tax payer funded, universal healthcare for everyone under the age of 18. Vaccinations, ear infections, broken bones, even well check-ups...everything that helps kids grow up to be healthy adults. I'd suspect that our long-term health care costs (Medicaid and Medicare) would drastically drop once this program was 10-20 years underway. Healthy kids have a tendency to be healthy adults; healthy adults cost tax payers, society and the GDP less, in the long run.

It isn't a program that you can start and stop on a whim. It is a long term commitment, but if we ever want to get a handle on the overall cost of healthcare, we have to start before people start to develop the habits and lifestyles that will ultimately lead to conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Teach them now or treat them later. Which do you think is less expensive?

Brought over from the old site - 11/3/06

Ohio Governor's Race

I heard a Ken Blackwell ad on the radio, today. It claimed that he was endorsed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.....I know The Plain Dealer.....It's probably the left-most leaning paper in Ohio...so I was a bit suspicious. It turns out that The Plain Dealer has endorsed Ted Strickland....not Blackwell. hmmm....

Hmmmm is right - if you read the fine print on the TV version of the same ad - The Plain Dealer apparently did endorse him in a race a few years ago????

I'm sorry, but that is just too much for me. I personally do not like Ted Strickland's proposed policies all that much. But, for me, Blackwell has demonstrated, via this set of ads, that he most likely lacks the maturity to lead any state, much less the one in which I live.

Brought over from the old site - 11/7/06

It's election day.....so no politics today - LOL :) Instead, I'd like to hear your take on the whole HD Radio deal....I've heard a few people say that it really is amazing, and I've heard others say it's worthless.

Knowing that you are mostly limited by the quality of your speakers, what is the real benefit? Just the added channels? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on it.

Brought over from the old site - 11/11/06

True leadership comes from example.

Do you want to make the improve the environment? Do you pick up litter when you see it?

Do you want to make an impact in reducing fossil fuel use? Do you turn off your lights when you aren't in a room? Do you turn off the TV when you are not watching?

Do you want to improve our foreign policy? Do you speak with your congressmen? Do you read about and discuss the issues?

Do you respect others' opinions enough to allow them to influence you? How do they perceive your opinions?

Brought over from the old site - 11/15/06

Foreign policy by public opinion

I'm very glad to see that power has shifted in Washington...for a variety of reasons. One thing that does worry me, though, is the current tone of conversations that I hear about our foreign policy and our motivations for that policy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - just because "the other side" did something doesn't make it inherently wrong or bad. We need to evaluate policies on their face; look at the probable outcomes of taking a certain action (and taking no action) determine a plan and go execute it. It may not be a plan that looks attractive in the short run. But that makes good foreign policy.

Foreign policy by public opinion doesn't work. It cannot - the result that you will have will be worse than what you have today.

Five minute attention spans and headline-driven news are not a good combination for pragmatic, in-depth thinking. We have to be willing to listen to others who may not think as we do, accept that we do not know or understand everything and hear others' opinions (and facts). Then we need to be willing to talk about options and outcomes. Finally we need to accept that our way is not always the best way.

Brought over from the old site - 11/28/06

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Brought over from the old site - 12/13/06

One of my friends recently gave as a reason against states being compelled to use open source software: "..it is hard and a lot of work to deal with the problems...".

Now let's forget software for a minute. What if, in 1954, the Supreme Court had ruled that "while school integration is a noble goal, the practicalities make it too difficult to actually implement."? Think about it...states had to call out the National Guard to keep the peace, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in today's $) in police overtime and the political costs were enormous.

Sometimes, the best path is the most difficult to walk.