Category Archives: Current Events

Health Care and the Bell Curve

In watching the political turmoil associated with health care, I’m reminded of how populations fall into bell-shaped curves. Some attribute sorted into some kind of frequency is represented as a distribution having a small population of outliers on either side of a larger population representing the mean.  There are normal distributions and distorted distributions. As you might imagine, the details and nuances require a good bit of coursework to comprehend.

So from between our bare feet on the Lazyboy recliner we can passively view on high definition television the spectacle of a kind of replay of The Empire Strikes Back. We can watch as a small cadre of elite influence workers (lobbyists) practice the art of propaganda upon a group of lazy thinkers. Dick Armey is still with us, but now he is stirring up the muck behind the curtains.

Some have cynically observed that what we are witnessing is one group of dumbshits rattling another group of dumbshits. A more polite description might be that it is a matter of the sly and conniving having their way with the analytically challenged. 

People who are vehemently against big government somehow find it acceptable to be shills for big business in this battle.  All in the name of marketplace economics. But the fact is that the medical industry “marketplace” is deeply distorted and is itself far from being a system that can respond to consumer demand. The supply and demand balance is not sensitive to the needs of the patient- supply and demand is a battle fought between insurance carriers (the economic consumer) and medical organizations (the supplier).  

Consumers of medical services have few real choices- be sick or plug into a complex, gold plated system. In order for the medical system to be a functioning marketplace, there must be lower octane choices for the consumer.

That part of the affluence bell curve that cannot pay for modern, high tech, and expensive health services really must have access to a form of care that they can afford. The health care “debate” should focus on new forms of affordable medical services rather than simply new mechanisms of payment for a system that is economically distorted and inaccesible to significant numbers of people.

Medical school needs to be cheaper so that more universities can train more doctors to feed into the market. This is a supply & demand question that we seem to be unable to even define. The professional and business elitism of medicine must be toned down a bit. It is not sustainable.

Is Private Sector Buggery Better than Gov’t Incompetence?

Healthcare in the USA is wildly expensive and is growing more so at a rate that exceeds inflation. This is well known. The battle for healthcare reform in DC is bogging down under the weight of private interests and infighting.  Soaring rhetoric from both left and right is mistaken for intellection and reason. It is evident that the fix to the problem was started before there was a clear understanding of the variables.

If you look at healthcare as a manufacturing activity with labor, capital equipment, and materials as input and some sort of health benefit as the output, you can start to see what cost inputs may begin to dominate. Of course this is very simplistic, but hang with me.

A round of health care involves attention by highly trained and expensive labor. A health care worker can only attend to one person at a time, though that worker may have many patients under his/her supervision. If a patient is stabilized, the care worker can also attend to other patients and achieve some sort of parallel production for better cost containment. In the heirarchy of medicine, the docs are managers who provide oversight to nurses who manage the patients. Docs also do consultations, examinations, and perform surgery, so they are not pure people managers- they get their hands dirty. Docs are a unique class of management all by themselves.

To exaggerate the effects of labor costs, imagine if you had a doc or a nurse picking strawberries, how expensive would the strawberries be? Even if Dr. Picker was very fast, the berries would be expensive. To have reasonably priced berries you have to find workers who will do the work at a lower wage. Lower wages derive from an abundance of willing labor.

In the end, medical schools control the scarcity of physicians by controlling enrollment. And the enrollment is defined by the curriculum, faculty size, and the particulars of the coursework- availability of clinical experiences, lab space, equipment, etc. But, you have to wonder what would happen to medical costs if there was less labor scarcity.

The most important resource a medical school has, other than faculty, might be the university hospital. What if more hospitals had medical schools rather than the other way around? I don’t think that the existing medical schools have absorbed all of the bright candidates out there.

Health care is a kind of economic chimera. The recipient of medical treatment is not the person in control of the costs. Physicians prescribe the type and extent of resources and the insurance companies release the funds. The medical establishment receives payment for services irrespective of outcome. Insurance companies profit by denial of services. The patient is left to sort out how to get the best value from available treatment.

American medicine is very much influenced by technological triumphalism.  New and expensive materials and devices hit the market all of the time. The question every potential marketer of medically related items must ask is- will the docs use or prescribe it? The most powerful instrument in medicine is the physician’s pen. The question for drug and equipment makers is, how do you get the docs to use their pens to your advantage?

The view that a disease or an injury is a sales opportunity is what drives for-profit clinics and hospitals. Without chronic disease, accidents, and sporadic outbreaks of mayhem, growth and profit in the healthcare industry might be more static.

So in the end, who do you trust? Do you put your faith in the private sector whose avowed goal is to profit on your illness? Or do you trust the government which, though accountable to its citizens, is prone to profound organizational inertia and a lackluster draw to talented staff?  This is the balance of opposing forces the fools in Washington are trying to sort out. Howard help us all.

The Bitter Barn

At the recent San Francisco APA meeting, a call was made to define bitterness as a pathological condition. The proposed acronym is PTED – Post Traumatic Embitterment Disorder. I guess it covers the range from pissy to postal. Maybe our pharma friends can find an enzyme to inhibit for the treatment of PTED. Better yet, perhaps there is an animal model out there- say, badgers or wolverines. Sounds like a market opportunity!

Freeman Dyson- Climate Skeptic

An excellent entry into interesting and high quality articles on the net can be found at Arts & Letters Daily. I found an interview of physicist Freeman Dyson. In the interview, the writer is trying to understand how someone of Dyson’s stature could be skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Basically, Dyson is skeptical of the models used and is skeptical of the assumption that the pre-industrial climate is automatically a valid baseline climate. Dyson accepts that there may be more desirable climate scenarios and that climate change is not automatically bad.

What is lost in most of the public discussion is the history of climate over the past million or so years. The fossil and geological record does not support the assumption that the global climate is static. We’re presently 10 or 12 thousand years past the latest glaciation episode in a series of glaciation episodes. As I recall, the interglacial periods in North America have averaged something like 10-15 thousand years.

What happens to atmospheric CO2 levels as the temperature rises or falls? Does rising atmospheric CO2 lead to a temperature rise or is it a result of a temperature rise? I have not encountered an adequate explanation taking into account the temperature sensitivity of carbonate equilibrium.

CO2 is not an inert substance. It reacts strongly with water to form carbonate.  Obviously CO2 will get absorbed by the biosphere. Do the atmospheric models take the various carbon sinks into account? Perhaps a reader knows.

Water vapour is a potent greenhouse gas and is certainly more abundant than CO2. It must account for some aspect of atmospheric temperature change. Do cloud aerosols and sea spray absorb significant CO2? It’s kinda complex.

Talibanistan

Holy smokes. Who’da thought that Pakistan’s western frontier would fold like a lawn chair to an invasion of jabbering, hairy, religious freaks? Someone has commented that while most countries have an army, Pakistan was really an army that had a country. It is difficult to understand the dynamics of this part of the world and how Pakistan could allow the Taliban warriers such a generous incursion.

North Korea is another army that has a country. As bad as the Pakistan situation is and no matter how belligerent the Iranians are, I suspect it will be North Korea who pops off the first nuclear warshot since Nagasaki. The question is, will it be against Japan, South Korea, or the US Navy? 

Then there is China which is apparently in possession of anti-ship ballistic missile technology (ASBM). This capability basically nullifies US superiority in force projection in the China Sea by our carrier fleet. US surface ships are helpless against attack by smart ballistic missiles raining in at Mach 10 or whatever the particular hypervelocity is.

Biohackers

A recent article in the WSJ solemnly described several amateur biologists who were doing simple molecular biology experiments in their homes. Naturally, this has not escaped the attention of certain authorities and certain deeply conservative establishment news corporations.

What is distressing is the reflexive conclusion that their activity is automatically dangerous and likely to be symptomatic of malevolent intent.  It is common for those in power to look over their ramparts and view the world as a spectrum of threats. And so it is in this case that distrust has arisen and reporters are using the words “weapons of mass destruction” or “ebola virus”. 

Could it not be that some people outside of the heavily in-bred fields of science have a genuine and scholarly interest in molecular biology but no interest in grad school?

The entrance to scientific activity is highly formalized with layers of degree requirements, preferred pedigree, institutional infrastructure, regulatory complications, and a mafia-like oligarchy that disperses the resources and opportunity that is so necessary for buoyancy in science.

How does a creative amateur scientist get to take a jouney of discovery in a field that is institutionally inaccessible to them? And how does an interested individual who is clever enough to conduct experiments deal with a government whose reflex is to see WMD and terrorists behind every lilac bush? There are serious civil liberties problems here that pit the brain stem against the frontal cortex.

It is in the nature of some people to be distrustful and find threats behind every shrub. It has been my observation that people who default into a distrustful posture are very often not trustworthy themselves. The distrustful often invoke slippery slope arguments as rhetorical devices to block their opponents move into new conceptual turf. What the distrustful and paranoid fail to see is that we live every minute of every day on multiple slippery slopes, yet we somehow survive and thrive.

Libertarians and Epidemics

If the USA were more substantially libertarian in construction and demeanor, how would we respond to the arrival of an epidemic or pandemic of some nasty pathogen like swine flu? If the USA were decentralized into quanta of individual market units, each responsible for his/her own well being, how could the spread of contagion be averted?

Would a libertarian republic be philosophically opposed to collectivist activity like combining resources to marshal a defense against a virus. Or, would the Austrian-school economists brush off the event as nothing more than a Malthusian disturbance in the direction of a much needed equilibrium between resources and population? If you cannot afford to protect yourself, then you are lazy or sadly unlucky. In any case, you’re on your own.

Would a Libertarian system first act to protect property and guns? Would libertarian economists issue a statement condemning collectivism and promoting the rights of individuals to buy as much Lysol, duct tape, plastic drop cloths, and surgical masks as the market will allow? Perhaps a Libertarian President (whatever that means) would put a team of economists on a pandemic, or better yet, the lowest bidding epidemiologists available from Craigs list?

Libertarians make a good deal of noise about the horrors of taxation and their unflinching admiration for the genius of the marketplace, property, and the right to stockpile guns and ammo.  I agree, we’re paying too much in taxes. Government is way too big. And the dynamics of the market do provide lots of cool stuff for better living. True enough.

But the market is like a stomach (I had a better analogy, but it was rather unwholesome). It only knows that it is hungry. The stomach has no brain. The stomach only wants more. The stomach did not invent antibiotics, polyethylene, Buicks, antacid, jet engines, or bikinis. But the stomach did facilitate the invention of each of these items. We need a market mentality, but we also need an overarching sense of direction. We need a market that can sense and avoid driving off a Malthusian cliff.

Civilization is about infrastructure. And part of the infrastructure that the country as a whole can provide is biotechnology.  Biotechnology was not developed by Warren Buffett or Ronald Reagan or the legions of celebrated MBA’s. It was slowly developed by publically financed university institutions over many years of apparently irrelevant research projects. University educated scientists were hired by private and public corporations who began to find ways of marketing biomedical technology.  It evolved into molecular biology and medicine and eventually commercialized as a result of front funding by millions of skeptical and myopic taxpayers over several generations. Yes, the market has a big part in this in terms of the rational distribution of goods.

As a result of all of the initial “collectivism” through publically funded science, we have a first class infrastructure (the CDC) that is capable of monitoring the onset and progress of contagious diseases. This system funded originally by the public is able to mobilize vaccines and small molecule medicines to prevent suffering and the spread of disease.  It is able to coordinate efforts and resources to benefit even the chronically irritable Libertarians.

Liptonian Symbolism

Never one to allow reason to interfere with sentimentality, my blackened heart is softened somewhat by the recent shipment of Lipton Tea bags delivered to Th’ Gaussling from an online admirer via the US Postal Service. 

The tea in this gift shall be symbolically applied to the local waterway, but not before being used to formulate some refreshing iced beverage via aqueous extraction.  A vessel filled with aqueous goodness (OPE-Our Pure Essence) will be charged with the anthocyanin and alkaloid laden forest litter for extended exposure to solar radiation. Brownian motion will be relied upon to disperse the colloidal value away from the biomass.

Once so processed, the fortifying beverage will be passed through a pair of kidneys as a symbol of my dark contempt for the IRS. This nephro-raffinate will be discharged into the municipal fluid collection system for a kind of Nicene rectification that will provide further philosophical processing of the symbolic gesture. Finally, after the Liptonian fluids have been subjected to Libertarian aeration and Calvinist filtration, the clarified symbol will be discharged into the river for its turbulent hero’s journey to the drinking water inlets of New Orleans and beyond.

Tuesday’s Select Linkography

Juan Enriquez talks about Homo evolutis. This is a TED video.

ARR Inc., is offering its Suparator (R) technology for separating an upper oil phase from water by means of a cleverly designed staged weir system. According to the product literature, the passive device collects, concentrates, and separates oil from flowing water. This widget uses Bernoulli effects to draw water from collection zones and top the upper phase over a final weir for isolation.

Admittedly, I have not kept up with the progress of wier technology, but to a non-engineer like myself, this seems pretty clever.

Suparator Diagram

Suparator Diagram

GOP Apparachiki Rattling Sticks in Bucket of Swill

It certainly seems as though the GOP is orchestrating a pageant of contrived television events meant to draw in followers who may have gone astray. Tea parties and theatrical outrage over alerts issued from homeland security. Broadcasters find this kind of thing irresistable and, like stray cats, are drawn to lap up footage from a saucer of engineered controversy.

Tejas Governor Perry will probably have to eat his words about independence. If he is smart, he’ll realize that crow is best eaten while still warm.

What is striking about post-election GOP behavior is the magnitude of the mean spiritedness and the heat of the invective spewing from the right. These people are pissed off about their role as the minority party.

The fact of power is the act of power.  What is so telling about the character of the GOP core is that despite the mandate of the last election, GOP soldiers continue to vociferously spout expired doctrine despite the will of the majority of voters. Contrary to the interest of voting citizens, these people are gaming every rule, squirting glue in all the locks, and dropping flaming bags of political shit on every doorstep they can find.

This is a valuable insight into the party of “character and values”. Instead, they have betrayed themselves as the party of “win at all costs and take no prisoners”.