Yes, you are never to big to have this much fun with a…

Oh Branch, be mine forever. Source: National Toy Hall of Fame

…branch!  “What?  Tinker Toys, oh Teddy, yea Teddy you want to play?  No!!!  Fuck you!  I’m going outside with my branch that I can hit things with and…poke my sister in the eye with…and hit some more stuff with!”  So tragic is the lineup in the National Toy Hall of Fame that they have actually…

Homeless shelter aka kids toy. Source: National Toy Hall of Fame

…stolen homeless people’s cardboard shelters!!  Where was the city of New York on this?!?  No wonder homelessness skyrocketed in the 1980′s, no one had a place to stay?!!  After I examined the lineup even further I realized the kids weren’t kids at all!!

Pictured above: The oldes toys in the world. Source: National Toy Hall of Fame

Scrabble?  What kid plays Scrabble?  Yea, hmmmm, let me see yesterday I played with a cardboard box, the day before that I was waving a stick around the back yard, but today, oh today I am going to play a game of English language mastery and complex strategy that most adults lose the ability to complete after they have two glasses of wine.  And look to the right of the scrabble board.  Yea, those aren’t roller skates my friend.  Those are wheels you strap onto your shoes!!  When were those even made 1920?  Is it really that big of a mental leap to just go ahead and build the shoe right on into to the wheels there?

When are we going to get something awesome inducted like He-man figures or Thundercats or Voltron?  Dear National Toy Hall of Fame…do it…do it.

Source: AFP

Source: New York Times Freakonomics Blog

Make it snow bitches!!  For the second time in this new winter season China has bent mother nature over a rail and given her a metaphorical money shot on the not-so-metaphorical city of Beijing.

Source: AFP

With reports of geoengineering on the rise (see the headline below regarding the mayoral promise in Moscow) criticism from environmental advocates is also likely to increase.  Environmentalists don’t like geoengineering for the same reason that hard-line religious folk don’t like abortion:  it’s cheating.  Life needs to be fair—if I have to go without a big black dick because it’s a sin to have sex out of wedlock, then Goddammit so do you!  And if you do get to have premarital sex with a twenty-five year old Denzel Washington look-alike, well then, you better have to face the consequences in the form of harboring the worst form of incurable STDs—a child.

Source: Popular Science

The environmental corollary is that geofriendly hippies have spent their lives next to homeless guys on the bus in the name of a reduced carbon footprint while I get to partake in my most indulgent indulgence:  taking 2-hour hot-water-running-over-my-feet-with-the-drain-open foot baths while the the TV is running full bore with SportsCenter highlights in the other room.  And that’s not fair.

That the very foundational purpose of these groups’ life-long sacrifice might be easily and painlessly mitigated by current technology not only takes away their desire to yell about things, but indeed their very identity which has become indistinguishably entangled with that very sacrifice.  If your ethical framework, not to mention your career, is founded on environmental protectionism by way of giving up on all the Honda Civic-terrorizing escapades you might otherwise have had in your Hummer, then the day you find out that a modified 747 can simply fly overhead once a month and piss out some silver iodine to cool things down thereby giving a free pass to all those Hummer owners who actually did make a group of 17-year high school girls piss their pants, is likely to be a very bad day indeed.

But as David Deutsch points out in this TED video from the 2005 conference in Oxford, England, it may well have been too late to combat climate change even back in the late ’50s and early ’60s when we began to discover that global warming might be affecting our planet.  And even the possibility that global warming may be an inevitability (and one that we couldn’t have knowingly avoided) instead of a world-wide environmental “sickness” that simply needs the right type and duration of “cure”, doesn’t merely suggestion, but rather mandates, that geoengineering be investigated and considered as a viable solution to global warming (at least if we really believe that global warming could kill us and we do, in fact, want to live).  In other words, perhaps in addition to curbing, in the hopes of eventually stopping, carbon output and therefore global warming, we should have a backup plan—learning to live on a planet that has 5 degree higher average temperatures.

Source: New York Times Freakonomics Blog

In the end, regardless of your stance on the geoengineering issue, its increased usage and currently unregulated legal status dictate that its likely to be quickly moved to the forefront of the world’s environmental and political discussion in the next 5 years.  After all, we don’t want to end up with more instances of the problems faced in Moscow:

Source: Popular Science

Intelligent readers will point out that I have oversimplified the story of earth’s problem.  Global warming is a piece, albeit the most important piece, of a larger picture of sustainability that involves efforts to curb deforestation, desertification, invasive encroachment on animal habitats, overpopulation, and a litany of other man-induced global impacts.  However, we may well find that technological innovations in coming years can also cause major positive impacts on these issues as well without the painful sacrifice we now believe to be necessary.

For my money, no amount of branches in the solution tree imply a mutually exclusive path of action that negates the others.  Whatever the most effective resolution turns out to be, we should pursue an environmentally sustainable stance not simply because it will save our lives (although that is a compelling reason), but because it is morally good to be stewards of our home.  The same goes for increasingly effective public policy efforts to reduce the number of elective abortions.  After all, just because it is humanly possible to drink your own piss without getting sick, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t rather have a Coke.  And that would still be the case even if you could fix this “problem” by injecting my piss with, as they say on TV, “more real Coke taste”.  You know what I’m saying ya’ll?

Source: Gallup

So Sean Hannity of Fox News fame is about to reference this figure in an interview with Frank Luntz.

Source: Fox News.

Yes, who can the American people blame?  Well, apparently as late as September 17, 2009 the American people were blaming…Republicans?

Source: Gallup

Ok, but that was then.  As Hannity points out the American people, well, they are waking up!

Source: Fox News.

That’s right!  Obama is a radical ideol—huh…

Source: Gallup.

Hannity is right about one thing.  Obama’s approval ratings are going down:

Source: Fox News.

Ok, but if decreasing approval ratings makes Obama a “radical ideologue” that the American people are “waking up” to, then what was George Bush…?

Source: Gallup

Source: Gallup

Good thing Hannity got a chance to ask President Bush that very question just days before he left office.  Stick it to ‘em Hannity!!!

Source: Fox News.

Nice move, set ‘em up for the sneak attack and then…nail ‘em!!!

Hannity?!?!  What the hell man?  That was your chance?  Oh, I see, so if Obama’s approval rating is 53% it’s a clear message that people are waking up to his socialist agenda, but when Bush bottoms out at 25% it’s just the American people failing to understand the difficult job of a principled hero doing his best to live up to the American presidency?  So I guess it’s all about principles isn’t it.  Hmmmm, if only there was a way to prove that Obama, too, had guiding principles…

Source: Fox News.

Source: Fox News

Oh man!!!  Yes, the Republican National Committee released a statement Thursday admitting that the health care plan for their own employees covers elective abortion. Stupid Cigna!  This just days after the Stupak amendment was added to the health bill that passed the House of Representatives which would eliminate all federal funding for abortions other than those in cases of rape or life-threatening medical harm to the mother.  According to the RNC spokeswomen Gail Gitcho the policy has been in place since 1991, you know, only 18 years.

Of course this RNC policy isn’t that big a deal. There were no reports so far of anyone actually using the provision for this coverage.  So it’s not really that hypocritical.  And besides Stupak and the others who supported his amendment, including nearly all Republicans, did the right thing.  I mean, as we know the majority of Americans are against abortion, which is why American tax dollars shouldn’t go to fund, you know…the legal…constitutionally backed…right of women.  But, if the majority of our citizenry are backing a pro-life stance, isn’t it our government’s job to listen, ya know, to the majority of Americans and give ‘em what they want?

Source: Pew Research Center (Oct. 9th 2009)

Ok wait, that is completely off topic.  Surely with the long and deliberate debate about health care reform we have gotten a good sense of what Americans want.  And with headlines like this it’s pretty easy to know what the right thing to do is:

Glenn has a point.  If the American people speak we should really back them.  After all America is about the people, and if the people decide something we should listen, accept it, and then move forward.  So if, you know, the very fabric of our country’s founding doctrine breaks down and the American people go all crazy n’ shit and start supporting some evil dictatorial system where the government encroaches on our freedoms and civil liberties; if the American people do go crazy and want “Socialism” we should give it to them.

Source: Gallup

Devil’s Magic!!  Yea, ok fine, but 50% to 46%?  Really?  I’m not a mathematician, but I know that is not statistically significant.  There is much broader general support for abor—

Source: Gallup

Oh God.  Hmmmm, I wonder if public opinion flip-flops to 47%-46% in favor of a pro-choice stance if we have to rewrite the amendment to put government abortion funding back in to the health care bill.  After all, it’s about the American people isn’t it?

Today, with subtle simplicity, I will shock and startle you with stagger statistics, and other things that start with the letter “s”.  I’ll be using a calculator and ye ol’ noggin to add and subtract things from each other.  And I’ll be laying down the law with information and stats you won’t get anywhere else…cause I’ll be making them up to prove my point.  Just like a real life politician!!

So let’s get started!  To help explain things I’ve brought along my friend.  He’ll be playing the part of you, the 6 people who followed this link from my Facebook page, and asking the questions you want to know!!

“Hello, I’m Meebo, an alien from the planet Zardor, why do we need a new health care system?”  Great question Meebo (but try to add a little more emotion next time!!  Give me…give me, curious little alien!)  First of all, the US health care system is expensive.  Really expensive.

In 2008 the United States spent a combined $2.4 trillion dollars on health care.  But how much money is that really?  Well, if you took 2.4 trillion gallons of milk, you could fill the Grand Cany—no, I kid.  But 2.4 trillion is a lot.  It turns out it is over $7,000 per person in yearly health care costs.  It’s 16% of the entire US GDP.  And, most incredibly (and you aren’t gonna find this statistic anywhere else folks) the 2008 US health care costs are equal to the entire economic development aid package from ALL developed donor countries to ALL recipient developing nations for the past 50 years combined!!!  Waaaaaahhhmmmp Waaahhhh.  Depressing!  Time to make myself a whiskey sour.  (Find out more on the NHE Fact Sheet at the US Department of Health and Human Services website).

Well, I mean it could be wor--$4.4 trillion dollars by 2018?!!? WTF?!!? No, seriously, WTF! I'll be back, I'm gonna go out back and kill myself. Source: US Department of Health and Human Services

(A topic for another post to be sure, but this amount of development aid has actually grossly underfunded developing nations.  As of 2007 the US devoted just .17% of GDP to aid.  Much less than the average American would guess and despite the fact that on numerous occasions dating back to as early as 1970 the US committed to a funding level of .7% of GDP.  This is not meant to bash the US, all other rich countries have failed to meet this same obligation).

We win!! Take that world! Source: www.wikipedia.org (2006)

“That is a lot.  On Zardor, I have 2.4 trillion children.  Things get kind of hectic during the holidays to say the least.  But I bet your health care system is the best!”

Well Meebo, you would think it is, but it turns out standard health care doesn’t even cover the cost of a typical penis reduction surgery.  And that’s tough news if your nickname is 12-inch Mitch.

The most commonly cited study among reporters in the “newspapers” and other “media” out there is the 2000 World Health Organization investigation that ranked the world’s health care systems.  The good news is that if you’re game for living abroad you could have the cool breeze of the Mediterranean wind running through your hair on the beach of Cyprus and still have better health care than the US.  The bad news is if you’re anywhere in Africa other than Morocco and have a cold, you’re pretty much gonna die.  The US ranked 37th if you’re wondering, wedged between Costa Rica and Slovenia.  Of course Costa Rica is a tropical paradise and Slovenia happens to have Italy as a neighbor.  Meanwhile we’re over here wearing Canada as a hat.

“Wow, well tha—”

Wait, Meebo.  There’s more! Let’s rattle off some more statistics to confuse and amaze our reading public.

Only 46% of percent of US doctors use those newfangled “electronic light box machines” to store medical records.  Apparently Australia is full of hippies because the rate over on convict island is 95%.

Thank God Canada is always around to make us look good. Source: Commonwealth Fund

The 2009 US life expectancy is ranked #50 in the world according to the CIA Factbook, lower than Bosnia-Herzegovina which garnered this description from the CIA:

Oh Bosnia, you're so silly.

According to the same publication we ranked 180th in infant mortality.  Yes, 180th!!  Out of 224 countries!  What’s that?  O0000hhhhhh, the countries are ranked in order from highest to lowest infant mortality.  So, so then…it’s good to be low.  Hmmm, time for some CIA arithmetic!!!  Let’s see 224 minus 180 divided by a staged moon landing multiplied by covering up the Kennedy assassination, oh 44!  We rank 44th!  Oh happy day, let’s see who’s above us this time…hhhmmm, some place called Wallis and Futuna (which is ripe to compete with Jamacia at the next Olympic bobsled competition), Cuba (which has a warning posted about human sex trafficking), and some country named after New Jersey, called…Jersey.  I’m not making that up.

Are you real? Why haven't I seen you at the Olympics.

You don't need to read the rest, it doesn't get any less depressing.

"Eh, don't fuck wit me. Yea, go fuck ya motha, I'm from Jersey ya dick faced son-of-a-bitch."

In a study several years back ranking 14 of the richest countries in the world, the US ranked last in preventable deaths.

Source: "Measuring The Health Of Nations: Updating An Earlier Analysis", Ellen Nolte and C. Martin McKee, Health Affairs, 27, no. 1 (2008): 58-71

A more recent study showed even worse results:

Source: Timely Analysis of Immediate Health Policy Issues (August 2009)

And when 8 key measures of heath care are taken into account, as in this 1997 study by The World Health Organization, America ranks 72nd.

Iraq?  Iraq!  We were 3 places above fucking Iraq in 1997!?!?!  Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq in 1997!  Good Lord Jesus.  Perhaps things have changed a bit since then (I’m guessing Iraq is a total shit hole as far as health care goes these days), but does anyone really believe that America has actually floated up to the top of the metaphorical barrel to get our metaphorical apple bobbed by the metaphorical 8-year old Nebraskan boy at the metaphorical county fair?  What the fuck am I talking about?!?!  But more importantly, what the fuck is wrong with us?!??!

Americans can’t even poop right!!!  Thanks to the people over at Ranking America I found this little gem.

Seriously, wtf. 72nd? Com'on guys, buy some fucking Imodium.

Seventy-second?!?!?  There are seventy-one countries that know how to poop better than us?!?!  Com’on man, let’s start eating our fucking Wheaties and getting some fiber in our diet.

Things are even worse if you happen to be Black Meebo.  According to a often cited article in The New England Journal of Medicine, well, let’s just let this beautiful little graphic I made up speak for itself.

In all fairness Bangladish is home to Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus.

Yes, that’s right.  The average black man in Harlem in 1990, could expect to die before the average man in Bangladesh.  I could tell you what our friends over at the CIA World Factbook think about Bangladesh, but it would just depress you.  What might depress you more is that things haven’t changed much since 1990.  As reported in a 2006 paper presented at the American Medical Informatics Association’s Annual Symposium, this truly shocking fact is still shockingly true.

A recent report in The American Human Development Project’s Portrait of Louisiana, confirms that, well, basically Black People are fucked.

Uh...yea, that's not right.

“That’s horrible!  I love Black People.”

Meebo, we all do, we all do.

The sad part is many Americans have no health insurance at all.  As a 2008 report by the US Census Bureau points out, “Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008.”

Source: US Census Bureau

“If our health care system is in such dire straights, why do some people call it the best health care system in the world?”

Right on cue Meebo!  What they mean to say is that the American health care system is the best paying system in the world, if you’re a politician that is.

During the 2008 election cycle the industry contributed over $166 million to federal candidates.  (Center for Responsible Politics).

OoooOOOOooo, colors! Source: Center for Responsible Politics

The total lobbying efforts (from the health insurance industry’s over 3,500 lobbies as of Oct. 26 2009) have totaled over $396 million.  Looking at the totals since 1990, we are getting damn close to a billion dollars in insurance industry lobbying in the last 20 years.  That’s second only behind the financial industry, which as we know, was at the heart of the worst economic collapse since the 1930′s.  Downer!!!  Let’s all go out to Chucky Cheese and…and just, you know, “fun” our woes away with root bear and ski ball!

Ok, that is a lot, but I just found out we could built an underwater train tunnel from New York to London for only $13 trillion. Source: Center for Responsible Politics.

“What can we do about it?”

Great body language Meebo!  Strange as it sounds, we can take a page from our friends over in Cuba and China.

“Are you talking about Communism?  I knew you were a Commie, that’s why you made me split the dinner bill with you last night!”

Well maybe if you didn’t order the steak Meebo, we wou—.  I’m sorry Meebo.  Let’s not fight.  No, I’m not a Communist.  I’m a Realist.  Rimshot please! But to explain it, I have to call in another friend.  Serious Bob.

Serious Bob, how are you feeling?  Are you ready to enlighten us about world politics using your trademark non-humorous style?  Serious Bob just nodded in a serious manner.  He’ll be reading a an expert from his book Serious Bob Gets Serious, Seriously.  Go for it Bob.

“You may have heard right-wing politicians banter about “Socialism” and “Communism” as if those are bad words.  These forms of government are economically unfeasible—they lack the proper economic incentive structure for workers or corporations.  Politically they are wrought with strife—they encroach on some of our fundamental freedoms regarding employment, investment, and settlement.  And to be sure they have been poorly implemented throughout the years which has led to dictatorship and oppression.  But as a fundamental philosophy—that members of a society should be willing to sacrifice—to pay more in taxes, or time, or effort, or otherwise offer up their well-being—in an attempt to help their neighbor—I think there is a lot Americans can learn.”

Well said Serious Bob.  You may think we are on a slippery slop here, heading towards a discussion of universal health care.  But why have universal health care when you can have galactical health care.  It just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it.  Go ahead, say it out loud, G-a-l-a-c-t-i-c-a-l.  Oh man, I just love astronomy jokes.

Under our current system, we are actually closer to galactical health care than you might think.  There are currently about 50 million Americans covered under Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention over a million servicemen and women in the US armed forces, and countless state and federal employees (actually someone was bored enough to count them and there are about 20 million).  We’ve got a great start!!!  We can do it, I believe in us!  All we have to do is start paying for the other 236 million Americans and we’ll be all set!!

Source: Data 360 created this chart from US Census Bureau statistics.

Of course health insurance for all these fine folks is graciously paid right from our tax dollars.  Which brings us to one of the biggest criticism of galactical health care—the fear that if implemented, it will bring about massive tax increases.

Meebo, are you awake?

“No this is boring, let’s go teepee the neighbor’s house.”

Listen Meebo, it’s time for your uncle 12-inch Mitch to give you a little lesson in economics.  See Meebo, we are already paying a hidden “tax” under our current system.  Of course you know about premiums and deductibles, but in addition to these costs your company is helping to subsidize the cost of your health care.  The reason for this dates back decades, but essentially employers started offering health insurance as a benefit to lure the best and brightest to their organization.  That’s how we ended up with the system that is in place now where most plain Janes and Jims get there coverage from their employer.

Employers do have to pay for your coverage and the money does have come from somewhere.  But where?  The answer, of course, is you.  Maybe it is smaller cost of living adjustments or raises, perhaps it’s reduced benefits in other areas, your company might choose to hire less workers, or the money might simply be raised by charging higher prices for goods and services.

But ultimately you are fitting the bill.  It is true that if the government took over your our health care system taxes would be higher, but that increase would be more than offset by the amount you would save due to decreased costs across industry (or increases in pay or other benefits).  But what do the numbers really look like?

For starters, let’s think back to that number I gave you earlier.  Health care in the United States costs $7,000 per person.  Again, that cost manifests itself in the portion we currently pay in taxes for Medicaid and Medicaid (and other insurance for government and military employees) as well as the increased costs of goods and services (or decreased pay).  But that $7,000 is misleading.  It is the number that results when you calculate the total US health care costs and spread them across the total US population.  But that’s a bit unfair.  After all, children under 18 (a full quarter of the population) as well as the retired and unemployed aren’t shouldering any of this burden.

Just to keep you interested.

It’s the rest of us tax paying citizens that really have to pay for all this health care.  So how much are we actually paying?  According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the US work force in 2007 was around 154 million.  For comparison’s sake we can use the 2007 health care costs which are $2.2 trillion.  Doing the math, each employed citizen of the US is spending about $14,000 on health care (a simple in-the-head calculation would also prove this—about half of the 307 million Americans work, therefore the burden shouldered by the actual workforce should be about double the larger per capita cost).

OK, so basically if you are reading this at work right now you will be thrilled to know you are spending a fully loaded Chevey Aveo per year on health care.  According to 2007 US Census Bureau statistics the latest median household income (which was reported in 2007) was $50,740.  Ignoring the fact that there are actually 2.59 persons per household (last reported in 2000), we can do a little math.  The burden paid toward health care divided by the household income yields a “tax” rate of 27%.

Running the same calculation for our arch enemy Canada, which has an admittedly smaller population of 33 million, we get a burden of about $7,300 per working person.  The average income in Canada in US PPP dollars is $38,000 which equates to a “tax” burden of 19%.

Say it now Meebo!

“But what about the wait times?”

Great work!

Just a little somethin' extra. Source: www.wikipedia.org

Ahhh yes Meebo, wait times.  Critics argue that America’s system is clearly better than Canada’s because, well, we don’t have to wait as long!  Right, except for the part where Canadians spend half as much per capita on health care (and, as I have just shown, 8% less in effective health care taxes per year) and have a system that is ranked 37 spots higher than ours in overall health quality (not to mention they have zero uninsured).  So what we are basically saying is that America is like that guy who passes the bouncer an extra 20 bucks at the club to cut in line; only instead of heading up to the VIP lounge, he has to go down and sit in the basement.  (“Hey, look where I’m going Canada!  In the club!  Yea, fuck you.  See ya lat—What?  That way?  Down there…?  Oooooohhhhhhhhhh.  Pouty face.”)

But what about those wait times.  Yes it is true wait times are longer in countries like Canada and the UK as shown by the chart below.  (I experienced this recently while seeking out treatment during a holiday to Spain).  But look at Germany, a country with universal, oops, sorry, galatical, health care.  They rank number one in 3 out of the 4 wait times measured.  New Zeland is shoring up the shutout of America by claiming the remaining wait time measure.

Source: Commonwealth Fund

Here Meebo, read that sheet of paper I just gave you.

“OK!  This chart is interesting, but it seems to be focused on the rare cases when we need to see specialists or go in for surgery.  What about if I just want to go to the doctor?”

I’m glad you asked.  Here is the data from a survey involving patients of those same 6 countries when asked about wait times for doctor’s visits.

Source: Commonwealth Fund

So yes, the United States does beat out some countries when it comes to wait times.  But when compared to other industrialized countries who have “figured it out” the argument against galatical health insurance on this basis is not founded in fact.

And even if it were, there are ways around it.  Applications of efficiency improvement methods used in manufacturing processes have shown to be useful in reducing wait times and quality of care.  Simple upgrades like TVs, books and magazines, or Wifi help patients tolerate the lines and reduce the amount of lost productivity.  But there is a far more sophisticated model based on economic theory.

In some countries, such as Spain, there is a double provider option.  The government offers health care to all citizens, this helps support the poor and those with pre-existing conditions or expensive medical needs, but in addition citizens are free to contract with private insurers.  If you can afford it, and don’t like waiting, you pay the $20-$25 a month in private insurance and get to skip the long lines.  If you are poor, or are going in for an expensive surgery, you tolerate the wait and get your government provided care.

This method, or a similar one, combines the best practices and benefits from both public and private insurance.

But, in cases you are still on the fence about galatical health care, maybe you should read this guy’s recently NY Times Op-Ed.

As Mr. Kristof points out, “Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.”

“Ok, let’s wrap this up, I have to go back home and watch my favorite show, Celebrity Dance-Cooking on the Runway For Love.“

No problem Meebo.  And no problem to you meebos.  All you little meebos out there reading away.  Take us away Serious Bob.

“Our health care system is broken, that’s easy enough to figure out.  But updates to the current system will not help.  Creating an online marketplace for those who are unemployed will not help.  If you are poor and have spent your life lacking proper access to education how are you expected to navigate a complex online marketplace with different plans covering different options from different providers.  If you are an insurance company and suddenly required to take on tens of thousands of patients with expensive pre-existing conditions, how are you expected to keep costs down.  If you are a doctor who is reimbursed from insurance companies not based on a metric of patient wellness and quality of care, but on the number of procedures you perform, how can you be expected to be great.  And if you are one of the over 150 million Americans that has company provided health insurance, the kind that is subsidized by the labor force, the kind that obfuscates and fails to internalize the real costs of health care into your daily decision making process, how can you be expected to make the proper choice between preventative care and needless doctor visits.

And if every other industrialized country in the world, if our servicemen and women, if our elderly and our poor, already rely on taxpayer funded health care, can we really paint it in the same light as dictatorial regimes in 1940′s Germany and Russia?  Can we say that universal health care is Socialist and Communist?  And if we can, then let us say it.  Let us tell the American people that our closest allies and supporters are Socialists.  Let us tell Britain, and Canada, and Germany, “You are Socialists.”

But I think I’ll know what they’ll say.  I know what I would say.  I would say, “Yes, I am.”  I would say that everyone who resides under my flag is part of my country.  I would say that I take care of my own and that my own take care of their neighbors; that they are willing to sacrifice what they want for that which their neighbor must have.

Is universal health care Orwellian?  A little.  But so are a lot of government programs.  So is Medicare with its coverage of over 50 million Americans with our tax dollars.  So is regulation of capital markets which stamps out unfettered capitalism…and also might have helped to prevent the worst global financial meltdown of our lifetime.  So is the state and federal refusal to let millions of gay and lesbian Americans—Americans who have committed no crime, who pay their taxes, who risk their lives for our country—express their love through the act of marriage.

Universal health care may be Orwellian, but a system in which the very institutions the government is charged with overseeing and regulating are giving our politicians contributions in the hundreds of millions of dollars is worse than Orwellian, it’s corrupt.  How can Congress defend Washingotn’s surveillance of our cell phone calls and violation of our civil liberties in the name of homeland security, yet in the same breath deny our right to equal, accessible, and affordable health care over fears of a hegemonic government?

If we view it as our government’s job to provide public schooling with taxpayer money; if it is their job to provide for our elderly American’s health in their final years with our public funds; indeed, if it is their job to protect us from harm domestically and abroad, to fly half-way around the world and engage in deadly warfare in the name of preventing violence on our home soil, with our money; if that is their job then how can we, with full hearts and clear eyes, really say it is not their job, and our responsibility, to provide health care for every American under those fifty stars.

If universal health care were drastically more expensive, or if the wait times really were unbearable; if high quality of care could not be supported in such a system, if it were unfair or bigoted, we would have reason to scoff.  But it is none of these things.  This is no longer an experiment.  Universal health care has proven to be viable in every other industrialized nation in the world.  It works, plain and simple.

Much of American politics, indeed politics in general, is fraught with missed opportunity.  In many ways it is defined by missed opportunity.  And we are forced to look back on past events and know that one day long ago, at a single moment in time there was a choice to be made.  And that we made the wrong one.  Let us not do that here.  Universal health care is right, and it is coming.  One day we will look back in curiosity that this inevitability seemed so foreign to us and we will wish with sad hearts that we could go back to make right what, in that moment long ago, was made wrong.  Yes my friends, universal health care is right, and it is coming.  And every day between this day and that is a wasted moment.  It is wasted on the sickest among us.  It is wasted on what could have been.  It is wasted on America not living up to its potential as a country that paves the way for the rest of the world into the twenty-first century.  Thank you, and good night.”

Thanks Bob.  Wow, this is serious…

]]> http://douchebagsworld.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/forget-about-universal-health-care-i-want-galactical-health-care/feed/ 0 James M screen-capture-19 800px-International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP screen-capture screen-capture-1 screen-capture-2 screen-capture-6 screen-capture-5 screen-capture-8 screen-capture-11 screen-capture-15 screen-capture-16 screen-capture-14 screen-capture-10 screen-capture-13 screen-capture-11 screen-capture-7 screen-capture-14 screen-capture-17 screen-capture-18 screen-capture-3 evalongoria screen-capture-9 screen-capture-4 screen-capture-15 screen-capture-10 http://douchebagsworld.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/body-image-shmody-image/ http://douchebagsworld.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/body-image-shmody-image/#comments Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:13:52 +0000 James M http://douchebagsworld.wordpress.com/?p=5 ]]> In my inaugural post I want to tackle an issue that has been raging in America for damn near 40 years now—body image.  Once again neo-feminsits, media haters, and ugly people (just a guess) are blaring loudly about America´s body image issue that is, apparently, at the heart of dateless prom nights everywhere.  This is of course unless you happen to look like one of the women on the cover of Self Magazine, which to me is much more tragic because, quite frankly, teenage girls shouldn´t show up to prom looking like a sweaty 30-year old wearing a sports bra and the most high tech Nike trainers on the market.  (Q:  “Hey, who´s the hot new teacher?”  A:  “Jim, that´s a student.¨  Awkward silence…).

The reasons are the same as they have always been for this vitriolic dialogue.  Media conglomerates in a “hey wouldn´t you like to look like her” attempt to ”make it rain” in the boardroom, adorn magazine covers with pictures of young lasses that no ordinary woman could hope to defeat.  Or even worse in some cases:  One of the recent retouching ”scandals” involved Kelly Clarkson on an August cover of the publication noted above for sending overage women to proms (Hey, that´s just what I heard).  An article then ran later that month in People magazine designed to “prove” that the Self Magazine cover was indeed “fake” by placing the cover photo side-by-side with a more candid picture thereby making Kelly look like a “fatty”.

Protestors find the later case even more disturbing since we aren´t  starting with a hottie we´d shiv our best friend to sleep with, but rather with someone like Kelly Clarkson whom, of course, we´ve just learned from People Magazine is in fact a fatty.  And the question is why can´t we just let fatties be fatties, and photograph them with proud muffin tops next to the tagline, ¨Fuck you, I´m fat and still sexy as hell.  Deal with it.¨  The answer, of course, is that most fatties are not sexy, not because they lack the potential, but because they are too concerned with their body image to feel confident.  After all, Self Magazine is subtly telling them that their fatty roll models (get it, ¨roll¨ models) are too embarrassed to be themselves.  People Magazine on the other hand is just plain making fun of them.

But, I find these arguments ridiculous not least because the very premise of much of the commentary revolves around knowledge of an industry, and specifically, a software tool that very few of the critics actually understand.  Which is why I have to hear the following line of dialogue while at the supermarket waiting in line to buy my Odwalla and organic muffins (Hey, I live in Seattle), “Look at her boobs, totally Photoshopped.”

Ah yes, Photoshop.  Devil´s magic if you ask me!  Simply by the click of a few buttons we can turn Kelly Clarkson-barely-fitting-into-black-stretch-pants-with-a-strange-look-on-her-face, into Kelly Clarkson-in-some-purple-top-thingy-doing-the-hot-hand-on-the-hip-pose.  Or can we?  I won´t deny that the women we see on magazine covers are highly ¨dolled up¨ (more on what that means in a second) and that even perhaps, if seen in real life we would only bludgeon our friend to death to sleep with these women, and not actually shiv them (“I´d like to shiv her, if you know what I mean!”  Douchebag high five!).  But is an innocent software product produced by the classy folks at Adobe really to blame?  (And here´s the real paradox:  How do we know that People Magazine didn´t photoshop its picture to make Clarkson look less attractive.  Yea, think about it.)

Scott Kelby, one of the great advocates of digital photography, recently wrote a fantastic post on his blog Photoshop Insider where he pointed out all of the work that goes into a photo shoot (you can read it here).  This includes professionals catering to every intricate element of these models including their hair, makeup (full body, not just facial), wardrobe, lighting, background, and camera angle.  As Scott points out (and I´m paraphrasing), a photo shoot doesn´t consist of a ragtag team of interns with point-and-shoot Kodaks snapping away like monkeys and then leaving it to the Photoshop-man-in-the-magic-light-box  to conjure up a magazine quality result.  Indeed the photo shoot is highly orchestrated and the result is a photograph that often by itself could be printed, and one that certainly has the effect of making a women look her best.

By the way, to put the nail in the coffin on this one, I´d like to also state for the record that Scott is the President of the National Association of Photoshop Professionals as well as a publisher of several books, magazines, training materials, and podcasts on the subject, so he kinda knows what he´s talking about when it comes to this stuff.

The point is that Photoshop isn´t used in a beauty-and-the-beast attempt to turn a crappy initial photograph into something magnificent.  It is used to subtly retouch a photograph that is already the result of a variety of real-world techniques that distort the “truth” in favor of our valiant model.  Again, the key is subtlety.

Oh, what?  What´s that?  You´ve gotten something for me to see.  OK, by all means please go ahead.

God dammit Ralf Lauren.  Why you gotta piss all over my shit like that?  OK, ok, there are exceptions to the rule…like this truly, truly ridiculous picture.  The first time I saw it, I shit you not I thought this cover was a post-modern commentary on the fashion industry.  And I was like, “Hell yea!  Right on RL, way to make a statement, be hilarious, and sell product all at the same time¨.  Wrong!

Anyway, back to making fun of ugly people.  What I´m saying is that we view Photoshop as somehow “cheating” while we never hear at the supermarket while buying Nirvana CDs (In Seattle, every store sells Nirvana CDs), ¨Man look how skinny she looks.  Totally a result of the black slimming pants, long vertical lines on her top, creative lighting and fifty-degree-off-center angle of shooting.”

So what´s the point?  Mostly, that these people really exist.  Hot people I mean.  You know, they are out there.  Walking among us.  Just getting paid to be hot.  Maybe they´re not quite as hot as on the magazine cover on which they sit, but they´re maybe 90% of that hotness.  It´s not a ploy by Adobe to get more masturbation material available to the seven teenage boys who are still learning to use the internet.  These women we hate, the ones that don´t really look like that, yea, mostly, they do really look like that.

And you do to.  What I mean is totheextentthat the fashion industry portrays unrealistic body image by employing a set of tools—makeup, and perms, and tans, and, I mean, don´t tell me you don´t know about the black pants or vertical-lined top trick—you do to.  You don´t walk out of the house without makeup.  You love makeup.  I know because the makeup section in Nordstrom is way too fucking big.  And it´s always on the first floor right by the entrance.  And it´s always next to the perfume section, because I mean, makeup and perfume go together right.  Which is the reason why when I walk in to buy some jeans I feel like I´m being attacked by Agent Orange and can barely breath while I slowly succumb to the overwhelming scent of horrid female odorizer.  Anyway, boy do you love makeup.  And you obviously love clothes.  And shoes.  And jewelry.  And the list goes on. 

In short, you try to make yourself look the best you can.  You like looking your best.  And you don´t do it because of the fashion industry.  You do it because it makes you feel good.  You like the way men look at you.  You like the way women look at you.  And when you wear that low cut black dress with the visible decolletage and you can tell other women are thinking, “What a slut”, you just smile because you´re convinced they´re just  jealous and all you do is say to yourself, ”You ain´t got tits like these do ya bitch!”  And then pull your dress the extra notch lower.

And so the only thing the fashion industry does for you is what it is suppose to do—it makes you buy shit.  And that´s OK because that´s their job.  Just like Toyota´s job is to make us buy cars.  You don´t need to be persuaded.  Simply being female is enough of a reason for you to love making yourself look your best by employing all of the same strategies the fashion industry does to sell magazines.  And if there was a real life Photoshop tool.  You´d use that too.  So please, stop fronting.

And those teenage girls you´re worried about.  The ones that feel fat and ugly because they see Eva Longoria on the cover of a magazine and wonder why they don´t look like that.  Yea, they know they are fat and ugly.  Cause at school, you know that place they spend all day at, the place that doesn´t sell any magazines, yea, at that place the dudes, they´re all after the hot girls.  And it isn´t because a magazine told them what a hot chick is suppose to look like.  It´s because they are 15-year old boys.  And with very little variation, all 15-year old boys find the same thing attractive.  Just like, with very little variation, all 35-year old men find the same thing attractive.  It´s called evolution.

So let´s all just shut up about the fashion industry´s affect on body image.  Sure, it´s a shame more “average” looking people don´t make their way onto the covers.  But it´s stupid in the same way that 12-episode seasons of Entourage are stupid.  Everyone with half a brain knows things should be different, but we all have more important things to do than write to the producers.  (Dear Sir, please stop being a fucking moron and show Entourage all year round.  Six hours of Entourage a season?  Really?).

And now time for a PSA:  You know I´m a funny guy;  but some things are no laughing matter.  So I want to end on a serious note.  A magazine cover´s effect on our teenage girls is number 863 on the list of things we should be worrying about.  When we get rid of all of the real problems—the 50% American divorce rate, the traumatic childhood so many face as a result of alcoholism, or abusive and abandoning parents, the fact that those same teenage girls may be among the poorest in our country and therefore lack proper access to health care or education, the real physical and emotional bullying that goes on inside our schools—then we can focus on the fashion industry. 

For now, we should give our children the obvious practical advice they deserve.  If you´re overweight, work out and eat health.  If you have acne, take Accutane.  If your teeth aren´t straight, get braces.  In short, if you don´t like something about yourself, change what you can.  Then focus on being more interesting and funny and engaging than the Barbie doll look-alikes and eventually things will work themselves out…and we´ll all grow up to be like Kelly Clarkson.

Notes:  The photograph of Kelly in People Magazine came from Scott Kelby´s blog.  The photograph of the Ralf Lauren cover came from the fine folks at BoingBoing.com (read their article here).  I would like to state for the record that I know all too well about this subject.  In high school I was 6´5¨, 150 Ibs with braces, a parted hair cut and moderate acne.  No one was there fighting on my behalf to get the shirtless guy with the 6-pack abs and huge arms off of the cover of Men´s Fitness.  And I turned out OK.  Really.