The current supply of healthcare, consisting of elements such as doctors, hospitals, and nurses, is based on the demand created by the current number of individuals with access to health care. President Obama has stated that the legislation will cover 32 million more Americans, so that 95% of American’s are covered. By making healthcare more affordable for people who could not afford it before, the demand¹ for healthcare goes up. When demand for a good increases, all other factors constant, the price of that good will rise. However, because of the very price controls that enable more people to access the health care system, the price of healthcare cannot rise to meet the increase in demand. Unless the government has a plan to increase the number of hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc, at a pace that meets the demand caused by 32 million new patients entering the system, there will be long lines, and shortages, and in all likelihood, the government will step in and begin rationing care.

Legal mandating the price of a good or service does nothing to increase the amount of that good or service. What provisions in the plan work to increase the amount of available medical care? Where will the doctors, hospitals, nurses, and everything that supports the practice of medicine come from and who will pay for it?

1. demand in the sense of capable buyers, not people who want healthcare

“I don’t see any reason why they should be paying a special tax.” Supporters of the plan to tax the banks “are trying to punish people,” he said. “I don’t see the rationale for it.” “Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress,” said Buffett. “Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don’t think so.”¹

Buffett held a fundraiser for Obama and advised the future president on economic issues during his campaign.

In addition to levying an additional tax on certain financial institutions, President Obama intends to impart new restrictions on banks. ² These are two factors that explain in part why the “Dow Turns Negative for ’10.”

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPdhurDmpnhE&pos=1
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016983630045768.html

“We regret that the rank-and-file Elves have chosen collective bargaining, preventing Santa’s management team from working directly with it’s employees, however, we respect the Elves right to unionize and engage in concerted activity.”

It has been unclear what implications a union-Workshop could have on the popular worldwide holiday, some experts believe that Christmas in the United States could be severely impacted by the move.  One expert close to the situation, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stated that, “I think it’s clear that the productivity of Santa’s Workshop has decreased as a result of the unionization campaign. Both management and rank-and-file have been focusing on this issue for several months now, and it would be highly unlikely that it has not disrupted toy-production. We know that on several occasions, a significant number of elves have put down their tools, and walked out of the workshop, in an effort to get Santa to recognize the union.”

A rare shot of the North Pole Workshop

Niber Juckles, an elf who works on a toy-block assembly line, is pleased with the progress.  “I think it’s about time Santa started listening to his helpers, and that our hours and working conditions improve.  Last year between December 15^th and December 25^th, I put in 239 hours, with no bonus or overtime pay.  And that’s even after Santa slashed the piece-rate from two crusts of bread per thousand blocks to one crust of bread per thousand blocks.”

Other Elves are not so sure, one elf, speaking on the condition of anonymity, was concerned.  “I’ve witnessed the evolution of the Santa model over the years.  He’s really decided to move away from the production side of Christmas.  I’m seeing it more and more each year; Santa serving as a consultant to parents, or outsourcing production of high-tech electronics such as the iPod or Wii, to Apple and Nintendo.  I’d like more money too, but I think we’re going to see a significant number of jobs moving away from the North Pole if Santa is forced to pay higher wages.”

Although the union has been recognized, the first collective bargaining agreement has yet to be ratified.  Some of the issues being negotiated include working hours, workshop safety, and profit-sharing, specifically, a percentage of all Christmas Cookies left for Santa.  Sangi Bittersnack has been particularly passionate about the latter issue for years, “I know he wouldn’t be so fat if he shared some of those cookies.”  Although Santa was not available for comment, insiders claim that he is considering changing Christmas to a bi-annual holiday, and ending St. Nicholas day.  An expert close to Telthorst.net had this to say, “Clearly there are going to need to be changes for Santa’s operation to remain economically viable.  I’m not saying what is right or wrong, certainly a union contract will help the elves that do keep their job, but unions don’t make companies more efficient.”

*This is a satirical post.*

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.¹

The Obama administration has also determined that humans, along with many other animals, exhale this dangerous pollutant, CO2.  Therefore, in addition to widespread taxes on heating, air conditioning, electricity, and other comforts, there will be a cap on how much CO2 an individual will be able to exhale.  Individuals that exceed the quota will be fined.  However, not all businesses or people are upset by the new legislation.  Climate change prophet Al Gore and several of his acolytes have developed a wearable CO2 mask (pictured below) that will trap and store exhaled CO2.  Gore is hailing the legislation as “long overdue,” “what must be done,” “good for business,” and “convenient.”

The mask themselves will cost $1,000, and capsules that store the CO2 will cost $50, these capsules should last approximately 22 hours under normal operating conditions.  When asked if profiting from a global “crisis,” was unethical, and perhaps even capitalistic, the multimillionaire, Gore had this to say:

“I am very happy to be able to offer these masks at a such an affordable rate.  Much of the proceeds will go towards global climate change awareness initiatives, such as when I fly around in my private, fossil fuel burning plane and give PowerPoint presentations.”

The removable storage capsules for the masks, when full, can be returned to Gore’s temple for CO2 storage and capsule recycling.  When asked why Gore did not wear the mask, he stated that he was rich enough to purchase climate indulgences, also known as carbon credits, so that he offsets his carbon exhalation, adding that his firm also sells these indulgences, the proceeds of which also go towards raising global warming awareness initiatives.

*This is a satirical post.*

However, the quote from the Wall Street Journal is real, and Al Gore has profited a  great deal from a “climate change hysteria.”

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews#articleTabs=article

Last month, I got this e-mail from Mr. Vincent Cheng, the Chairmain of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited.  He sent me a confidential brief, which I’ve included below:

I followed up with Mr. Cheng, and apparently I just needed to help with a legal bank transfer of 30.5 million dollars and would get to keep 60% of the funds!  I told him I was extremely interested in helping, and would do whatever he wanted.  I also told him that I didn’t need 60% of 30.5 million, I only wanted $30,000, and to be considered for an entry level postion at the Hong Kong and Shangahi Banking Corporation Limited.  But for some reason after I e-mailed him with that request, he never got back to me.  I can’t figure out why, I guess because I didn’t want 60% of the money and he was insulted?  I was disappointed at first, until I got another e-mail, and this one is even better!  A copy of it can be found below:

More than $1.7 billion is a lot more than 60% of 30.5 million!  I just need to apply before the 27th of October and I’ll be set.  I’m going to take whatever they offer me this time, because I learned from last time, that people who are going to give you millions of dollars don’t want you to work for them, or have you take less than they offer, they just want you to keep the money.  I’ll let you know how it goes, and if I have time, I’ll have the butler I’m going to hire take a picture of the yacht I’m going to buy!

*This is a satirical post.*

I don’t actually think that these offers will make me rich.  I did e-mail “Mr. Cheng” to see what would happen.

“during the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”  ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize))

It is unclear what Obama did to merit the prize.  It is also interesting why he was awarded the prize, while individuals such as Mohandas Ghandi (who led the India independence movement through non-violent opposition), Pope John-Paul II (who, inter alia, was instrumental in the fall of communism in eastern Europe), Irena Sendler (who saved 2,500 Jews during World War II), and Liu Xiabo (a human rights champion in China, who is currently in prison), were not awarded the prize for their efforts.

It seems likely based on the statement issues by the Nobel Comittee², as well as the known political persuasion of the Nobel Committee, that this prize was given to ensure that Obama did not back out on his promises, and he follows through with his agenda.  Thus, instead of awarding the prize for accomplishments, it is instead used as a political tool to influence Obama’s policies.

Not everyone in Norway agrees with the controversial decision.  Siv Jensen, leader of Norway’s Progress Party, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“It is just too soon.  It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”  She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.³

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 was also quoted as stating,  ”So soon?  Too early.  He has no contribution so far,” ”He is still at an early stage.”  Bestowing this honor upon President Obama so early in his presidency is a disservice to the former Chicago Senator as well.  Awarding the prize so early, without providing the former Chicago Senator with an opportunity  to prove the impact he can make on the world, diminishes the prize to a “call to action.”  Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been controversial in the past, and the current decision affirms that the prize is not an award for accomplishment, but instead, a political tool.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html
2. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

DoubleTwist is a music library software application that was released two days ago on October 6th.  Excited by an application that might surpass iTunes, I downloaded and installed it.  It crashed the first time I tried to open it, but upon successfully launching it, I found that it is essentially a carbon copy of iTunes.  It’s intended to serve as a front end for the Amazon MP3 music store, and support “hundreds of devices.”  However, by “embracing choice,” DoubleTwist ostensibly means reverse engineering iTunes and adding support for more devices.  DoubleTwist also copied Apple’s famous 1984 Mac ad, and as “tk421” puts it:

“Seems especially silly that they present themselves as the nonconformist choice, when in fact they just duplicate it. And how about that 1984-style commercial? An ad that depicts being unique that is a remake of another ad?”

I fully support the idea that individuals should be able to transfer their music to their device of choice.  DoubleTwist claims to have support for many devices, and if it does work well with your device, fantastic.  I also think competition is very important, and would greatly enjoy seeing a new application that gives iTunes a run for its money.  However, Apple is not evil for writing software specifically for the hardware they make.  iTunes is a free download, and Apple can hardly be expected to ensure compatibility with other companies devices when Apple does not make any money on those devices.  Hardware makers should focus on creating their own quality syncing software, as opposed to expecting Apple to do it for them (such as Palm).  I support competition, but making a carbon-copy of iTunes is not going to spur innovation or catalyze the development of better software.

Recycling is a good idea, but is it the best idea? The average employee consumes 2.5 cans of soda each day at work; but while “recycling aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy used to make aluminum cans from virgin ore,”², it still takes a lot of energy to make a can. More energy would be saved if a new can wasn’t needed every time you had a soda or beer.

How much energy does it take to make a beverage can?  I contacted The Aluminum Association³and one of their sustainability experts was kind enough to get back to me.  He had this to say:

Based on the current production and recycling profile, the Primary Energy Demand (this includes all direct and indirect energy demand of the entire manufacturing process, from raw material extraction to metal/secondary metal production to can making and transportation) for 1000 cans (mixed in size but the majority are 12 oz cans) is approximately 2000 MJ [Megajoules].

Making one can requires 2 Megajoules of energy.  One Megajoule equals approximately 0.278 kilowatt hours of electricity.  To put that in perspective, using a 60 watt light bulb for one hour consumes 0.06 kilowatt hours of electricity.⁴  Which means you could have a 60 watt light on for over nine hours and use the same amount of energy as it takes to make one aluminum can.

People have to have their soda fix, so what is an alternative?

One thing that is nice about fountain drinks are that you can bring your own container (although you’re probably not supposed to). At convenience stores you generally buy a cup, larger cups costing more, and you are only supposed to fill up a cup you buy at the convenience store–because practically speaking the store sells the cup, not the soda. However, what if fountain drinks and reusable containers replaced vending machines? Instead of buying a can of soda, when you pay for a soda, the fountain machine is set to disburse x volume of drink, so when you pay, the machine is set to distribute 12 oz (355 ml) of your favorite beverage. Then, you bring your own reusable container. This way, we would not be left with billions of aluminum cans or plastic bottles that need to be recycled. These same kiosks could sell reusable, but still highly recyclable, containers, in case people don’t have one. However, these would be of high quality so that people are incentivized to reuse it and not have to pay for a new one.

One issue would be water consumption, reusable containers would need to be washed before being reused (in some instances). However, putting one extra container in the dishwasher would likely have less impact than the energy needed to recycle cans. Plus, one still needs to rinse out a can before it’s put in the recycling bin.  Furthermore, for some people, who might have 2-3 cans or bottles of cola a day, they would not need to wash their container 2-3 times a day, maybe only one, at the end of the day.  Even with recycling, 5% of the energy that went into the can is lost, and you save 100% of the energy you don’t use.  This idea is simliar to bringing a mug to a coffee shop.

What would be the return?

Of the 100 billion cans shipped in the U.S., 46.2% were not recycled, meaning the equivalent of over 24 billion killowatt hours of electricity was lost.⁵  To illustrate this point, consider that the Mohave Coal-fired Power Station, when in operation, had a maximum capacity of 1.58 million kilowatts (1,580 MW).⁶  So 15,000 similar-sized coal powered plants would need to be built in order to produce an equivalent amount of electricity to the amount of energy lost due to failure to recycle aluminum cans.

1. http://www.aluminum.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NewsStatistics/StatisticsReports/CanReclamation/UBC_Recycling_Rate_2007.pdf
2. http://www.alcoa.com/alcoa_recycling/en/fun_facts.asp
3. http://www.aluminum.org/
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
5. 100 billion x .462 (the number of cans not recycled) = 46.2 billion x 2 MG (energy required to make 1 can) = 92.4 billion MG x .95 (amount of energy saved through recycling) = 87.78 MG (energy lost due to not recycling) converted to kilowatt hours = 24.383 kWh
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohave_Power_Station

I had the privilege of going to Estes Park a few weeks past, and there I made my first legitimate foray into HDR:

There were a lot of these bluffs around, but I was enamored with this one. I took this shot outside of our cabin sometime in the afternoon.

On the other side of the valley, looking North, I took a few more shots:

On the whole I’m very pleased with these shots. I really wanted to take a picture of the historic Stanley Hotel, but it didn’t work out. Next time!

Most Americans are lukewarm at best regarding Obama’s healthcare reform, according to a recent Gallup poll: “Americans on Healthcare Reform: Top 10 Takeaways.”  Of note: 84% of adult American’s have health insurance, and most are satisfied with it; additionally, there is “No Groundswell of Support for Healthcare Reform.”  We should focus on the 16% without health insurance, and not break a system that is working for 84%.

So what are some alternatives to ensuring that all American’s have health insurance? In the Wall Street Journal, Arthur B. Laffer outlines a viable alternative to “Obamacare,” “How to Fix the Health-Care ‘Wedge’.”

Congress needs to focus on reform that promotes what Americans want most: immediate, measurable ways to make health care more accessible and affordable without jeopardizing quality, individual choice, or personalized care.

No American wants the Government to make their healthcare decisions for them, the elderly do not want to be refused expensive treatments because they are “too old,” we should reform healthcare, but Obama’s plan will leave us worse off.