Just returned home from Illinois where I attended my eldest son's graduation from a master program. I was a good trip and I found a few things to comment about.
During the graduation ceremony one of the speaker tried to get some easy applause by saying: "Are you happy?" This will usually bring a loud round of applause from the graduates. But this time the response was rather subdued. The speaker tried again: "Last year's class seemed much happier!" Usually the crowd would try to clap and yell louder to that challenge. But again the response was mild. I think the reason is that this year's graduates know the daunting task ahead of them in trying to find a job in this ec0nomy. I can't blame them. At a time where the future should be bright, they face uncertainty. Hopefully things will be better for them soon.
On the bright side Springfield, Illinois where the ceremony took place seem not to be affected by the recession. There is no change from what I saw last August when I was there. The restaurants are even busier and there are not many houses with for sale signs. This is different from California and other areas of the country I heard about. I think the main reason is that Springfield is the capital of Illinois. In a recession one of the few sectors that are still hiring is the government. So while during boom times government towns like Springfield may not benefit much, during recession these towns survive better. I think Sacramento is doing ok compare to other cities in California. Lansing is probably better off than Detroit, I think.
This was the 200 birthday of Lincoln and so Springfield is going all out to promote all things Lincoln. We went to the Lincoln museum. I enjoyed the place a lot. Particularly I like the section of cartoons about Lincoln from when he was president. It just reminds me of the politics today except the Republicans are the liberals then. Some of the stuff was racist and would not be published today, I think. But it is interesting that even back then the president is pulled from both sides. The supporters of slavery obviously hated Lincoln. But the supporters of emancipation also had harsh words for Lincoln as they think he was not moving fast enough and that he was trying to placate the other side. I am sure Obama would appreciate this. The more things change the more it is the same!
The last observation is that despite a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democratic governor, Illinois has trouble passing a budget. They are almost as dysfunctional as California! Forget about bipartianship, we may need dictatorship!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Watched John Stossel on 20/20 last night. In a kind of take off from his "give me a break" segment, he talked about 6 things that would be politically incorrect to debate about. I'll give my take on these items.
The first one was about the law that protect pregnant women from being fired. Stossel says that it backfires on women because employers don't want to get sue so they are less likely to hire women who may become pregnant. As a business owner, I can understand his point. When a woman takes a maternity leave others in the company have to do more or employer has to hire a temp. If a woman is self-emplyed, she certainly can't take a maternity leave and expect her business will not suffer during her absence. The truth is if a woman is a good employee, the employer will hold the job for her until she comes back even without a law.
The second one is about irridiation of food. Stossel says that food poisoning kills 5 thousand people a year and irridiation prevents that and unlike what the fear-mongering activists say, irridiation is perfectly safe. I agree that irridiation is safe but I don't agree that we need to irridiate most of our food. There are 300 million people in the country and so 900 million meals a day are eaten. So 5,ooo deaths from food is hardly a high percentage. Most of the deaths are from old and sick people. I think if the general population is never exposed to germs in the food then they would be more likely to get sick if they go some place where food is not irridiated. So unless there is germ warfare against us, irridiation is not needed.
The third one is about people doing dangerous activities and need to be rescued, then they should have to pay for the rescue. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is not just the money but this put the people doing the rescue in risky situations. So yes, charge these people or put them in jail for reckless endangerment of the rescuers.
The next one is about saving endangered species such as the tiger by allowing people to farm them. Since places like China want tiger bones for herbal medicine, there is an incentive to poach the tigers and driving them to extinction. The argument is that by farming them the tiger won't be extinct, just like chickens will not be extinct. If I am a tiger I wouldn't like that argument. I would rather be free in the wild and not be eventully killed for my bones. I think scientific studies need to be done to see if there is any medicinal benefit of tiger bones. If not, I think as China becomes more modernized, the demand will decrease, although I am not sure if that will be in time to save the tiger.
The next one is about steroid use in sports. Stossel argues that there is no evidence that steroid is dangerous and adults should be able to use them if they choose. I totally disagree here. There is no epidemiology studies on steroid use because nobody has been able to get enough subjects to study them. There are rumors that the former USSR and East German athletes are dying at a younger age. Obviously the truth of that is not revealed in this country. And we don't know which athletes used them in this country 30 or 40 years ago and see if they are dying at a younger age than expected. It is well known that erythropoietin used in increasing blood count and thus oxygen level can lead to congestive heart failure if used in excessive. Even if you argue that adults should be allowed to take chances with their lives, if steroids are legalize, you know that kids will use them even more than they are now because they will follow their sports heroes.
The last one is about medicare which is a benefit to all seniors regardless of income. Stossel correctly points out that even the ultra-rich seniors get this benefit and at this pace the young people will have nothing left by the time they are old. I agree with that although it is not the seniors' fault. The actuaries who calculated this for the government should have seen this before. The pay in should have been higher years ago. I agree that we need to raise the age of eligibility and decrease benefits for wealthy seniors. Of course instead of cutting benefit, the government added prescription coverage which also covered wealthy seniors and put us further in deficit!
All these topics can be discussed in much more detail. But the only one that is of great importance is the last one because we all will be seniors one day, hopefully. Add to that the deficits we are running as a nation and the cost of heathcare in general, we need to debate this topics more frequently and in greater depth.
The first one was about the law that protect pregnant women from being fired. Stossel says that it backfires on women because employers don't want to get sue so they are less likely to hire women who may become pregnant. As a business owner, I can understand his point. When a woman takes a maternity leave others in the company have to do more or employer has to hire a temp. If a woman is self-emplyed, she certainly can't take a maternity leave and expect her business will not suffer during her absence. The truth is if a woman is a good employee, the employer will hold the job for her until she comes back even without a law.
The second one is about irridiation of food. Stossel says that food poisoning kills 5 thousand people a year and irridiation prevents that and unlike what the fear-mongering activists say, irridiation is perfectly safe. I agree that irridiation is safe but I don't agree that we need to irridiate most of our food. There are 300 million people in the country and so 900 million meals a day are eaten. So 5,ooo deaths from food is hardly a high percentage. Most of the deaths are from old and sick people. I think if the general population is never exposed to germs in the food then they would be more likely to get sick if they go some place where food is not irridiated. So unless there is germ warfare against us, irridiation is not needed.
The third one is about people doing dangerous activities and need to be rescued, then they should have to pay for the rescue. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is not just the money but this put the people doing the rescue in risky situations. So yes, charge these people or put them in jail for reckless endangerment of the rescuers.
The next one is about saving endangered species such as the tiger by allowing people to farm them. Since places like China want tiger bones for herbal medicine, there is an incentive to poach the tigers and driving them to extinction. The argument is that by farming them the tiger won't be extinct, just like chickens will not be extinct. If I am a tiger I wouldn't like that argument. I would rather be free in the wild and not be eventully killed for my bones. I think scientific studies need to be done to see if there is any medicinal benefit of tiger bones. If not, I think as China becomes more modernized, the demand will decrease, although I am not sure if that will be in time to save the tiger.
The next one is about steroid use in sports. Stossel argues that there is no evidence that steroid is dangerous and adults should be able to use them if they choose. I totally disagree here. There is no epidemiology studies on steroid use because nobody has been able to get enough subjects to study them. There are rumors that the former USSR and East German athletes are dying at a younger age. Obviously the truth of that is not revealed in this country. And we don't know which athletes used them in this country 30 or 40 years ago and see if they are dying at a younger age than expected. It is well known that erythropoietin used in increasing blood count and thus oxygen level can lead to congestive heart failure if used in excessive. Even if you argue that adults should be allowed to take chances with their lives, if steroids are legalize, you know that kids will use them even more than they are now because they will follow their sports heroes.
The last one is about medicare which is a benefit to all seniors regardless of income. Stossel correctly points out that even the ultra-rich seniors get this benefit and at this pace the young people will have nothing left by the time they are old. I agree with that although it is not the seniors' fault. The actuaries who calculated this for the government should have seen this before. The pay in should have been higher years ago. I agree that we need to raise the age of eligibility and decrease benefits for wealthy seniors. Of course instead of cutting benefit, the government added prescription coverage which also covered wealthy seniors and put us further in deficit!
All these topics can be discussed in much more detail. But the only one that is of great importance is the last one because we all will be seniors one day, hopefully. Add to that the deficits we are running as a nation and the cost of heathcare in general, we need to debate this topics more frequently and in greater depth.
Friday, May 01, 2009
I have not written anything for awhile. There are several things I wanted to write about in the past week. But I have been very busy at work and have been too tired to think when I got home. Obviously I have been busy because of the swine flu situation. It is not that I have seen any cases of this disease so far but I have been busy answering questions from patients who have nothing or some other infection symptoms. I don't think this disease is any more dangerous than the usual flu. In fact its symptoms are the same as any ordinary flu. It has probably been working its way through Mexico for awhile but now that it is recognized as a new strain and has a name attached to it, people get more nervous. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that it will fade in 2 to 3 weeks. It may make a come back in the winter season but by then we should be well prepared for it.
There are still couple of important questions that nobody has been able to answer. One is why people in Mexico die and people in the U.S. so far have not? The second one is why does this flu affect young healthy people more than the elderly or infants? I will give my take on these, not that I know anything concrete and maybe proven way off base later. First of all the Mexican death rate of this disease may not be any different that an usual flu death rate. Once we know the exact number infected and the exact number of death then we can see if this really more deadly than other flu. As more Americans get infected we are likely to have deaths from this although again it may not be a higher rate than the usual flu.
As for young healthy people getting sicker my theory is that this disease is causing the body's immune system to overreact and injur itself. In other words like friendly fire in a war. Now healthy young people normally have a stronger immune system which would kill pathogens quicker and more effectively. In this case it may overreact and cause damage to its own cells. Mexicans are probably exposed to more disease than the average Americans and so may have a slightly stronger immune system but in this case it may back fire. Do I have scientific data to back up this theory? No, but my experience is that when Americans go to Mexico and eat in the villages like the natives do, they get sick. But the natives don't get sick eating the same food because they have built immunity. So I think generally the young Mexicans would do better against infections than Americans, but maybe the immunological reaction is too strong this time. Well, I put my 2 cents worth on this subject and will see how it plays out over the next couple of weeks.
There are still couple of important questions that nobody has been able to answer. One is why people in Mexico die and people in the U.S. so far have not? The second one is why does this flu affect young healthy people more than the elderly or infants? I will give my take on these, not that I know anything concrete and maybe proven way off base later. First of all the Mexican death rate of this disease may not be any different that an usual flu death rate. Once we know the exact number infected and the exact number of death then we can see if this really more deadly than other flu. As more Americans get infected we are likely to have deaths from this although again it may not be a higher rate than the usual flu.
As for young healthy people getting sicker my theory is that this disease is causing the body's immune system to overreact and injur itself. In other words like friendly fire in a war. Now healthy young people normally have a stronger immune system which would kill pathogens quicker and more effectively. In this case it may overreact and cause damage to its own cells. Mexicans are probably exposed to more disease than the average Americans and so may have a slightly stronger immune system but in this case it may back fire. Do I have scientific data to back up this theory? No, but my experience is that when Americans go to Mexico and eat in the villages like the natives do, they get sick. But the natives don't get sick eating the same food because they have built immunity. So I think generally the young Mexicans would do better against infections than Americans, but maybe the immunological reaction is too strong this time. Well, I put my 2 cents worth on this subject and will see how it plays out over the next couple of weeks.