Showdown with the public sector coming.
Cost sharing in US healthcare. I don't agree with all of this editorial, certainly not the assertion that the reason we spend more is limited to 1) our exceptional medicine and 2) because we encourage overuse. Those are reasons, but there are many more. However, the editorial does highlight one of the myths that continually circulates in discussions of US health care- that US consumers have higher out of pocket costs than people in other countries.
Felix Salmon has the economic statistic of the decade.
Awesome.
The 20 Most Important Philosophers of All Time. Observations: Surprised Aristotle does not nab the top spot, but at least it was close. Embarrassed that I did not know who Frege or Leibniz are. Descartes might be a little high, Aquinas a little low.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Cold
In Milwaukee visiting my family. All 12 (My parents, 4 brothers, and 5 sisters) of us together for the first time in I don't know how long. It is crazy cold up here (20 degrees or so) and I had to drive in snow and ice for the first time in forever as well.
Big plans are to hit Elsa's (if you ever got to Milwaukee it's a must) and the Sprecher brewery, one of the finest breweries in the world, if I have time.
It has been great to see everyone, although visiting always makes me realize how odd my family is. But I guess that's kind of true for everyone. While there is still time for someone to qualify (it might even be me), I have to give my parents props because you'd figure that out of ten kids that at least one would be some type of screw-up. I mean the odds just kind of suggest it.
Big plans are to hit Elsa's (if you ever got to Milwaukee it's a must) and the Sprecher brewery, one of the finest breweries in the world, if I have time.
It has been great to see everyone, although visiting always makes me realize how odd my family is. But I guess that's kind of true for everyone. While there is still time for someone to qualify (it might even be me), I have to give my parents props because you'd figure that out of ten kids that at least one would be some type of screw-up. I mean the odds just kind of suggest it.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Health Care "Reform"
Well, the US Senate passed the health "reform" bill on a vote of 60-39. Very few people know what is in the bill outside of the general descriptions we have heard from the press which has done its typically horrendous job covering this issue.
The short(ish) version:
The bill expands coverage to a number of people without coverage right now through a massive expansion of the Medicaid program (good luck finding providers) and through new subsidies for those purchasing small employer coverage or individual coverage through the new exchanges. The bill is paid for through a variety of new taxes, including an increase in the Medicare payroll tax, the excise tax on "Cadillac" plans (which somehow contains costs while generating ever higher revenues), and taxes on insurers, pharmaceuticals, and DME (all of which will simply be passed along to consumers through higher prices).
The bill makes substantial changes to the insurance market by preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, limiting rate variation through adjusted community rating mechanism, regulating loss ratios (a truly idiotic idea), guarantee issue, minimum benefits, no lifetime caps etc. The new exchanges will operate as a single marketplace for coverage but also as a regulator by determining which plans are eligible to be offered.
The bill contains a number of pilots aimed at reducing cost, but really the strategy in the bill for dealing with health care costs is to pray they won't go up. (The bill does make it more affordable for some people by subsidizing coverage, but that's not the same as addressing cost of coverage).
And that's really the problem. The goal of the bill was never to address the primary issue in health care- cost. The goal was to expand coverage, enshrine universal care as a right, and deal with tricky issues like "how the hell do we pay for this" later...or never, which is far more likely. Look at the Medicare program, the current system operated by the government. Slated to run out of money in eight years, $70+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, and no plan for how to deal with it. Maybe that's not entirely fair. There are some plans out there, they're just laughably awful. Like- let's establish a center that measures whether certain health care procedures are really worth the cost. See, once we have evidence that something isn't really effective (which already exists) then people will see it should not be paid for (like annual mammograms!) and health care spending will go down. See? Everything will be fine.
At the end of the day, the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies will expand coverage significantly through a transfer of wealth from higher income earners to lower income earners. See Keith Hennessy's outstanding post on the impact for people by income bracket. The bill, as noted above, does almost nothing to address cost. But I think that's a calculation of the bill's supporters. Going backwards on entitlements is very difficult to do. Once you get universal coverage in place you can deal with the cost issue later- just like we have with Social Security and Medicare. Except not at all. The problem will be "dealt" with through large tax increases, which I suspect many of the bill supporters find to be a pleasant side effect.
Can't wait to see their energy policy!
The short(ish) version:
The bill expands coverage to a number of people without coverage right now through a massive expansion of the Medicaid program (good luck finding providers) and through new subsidies for those purchasing small employer coverage or individual coverage through the new exchanges. The bill is paid for through a variety of new taxes, including an increase in the Medicare payroll tax, the excise tax on "Cadillac" plans (which somehow contains costs while generating ever higher revenues), and taxes on insurers, pharmaceuticals, and DME (all of which will simply be passed along to consumers through higher prices).
The bill makes substantial changes to the insurance market by preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, limiting rate variation through adjusted community rating mechanism, regulating loss ratios (a truly idiotic idea), guarantee issue, minimum benefits, no lifetime caps etc. The new exchanges will operate as a single marketplace for coverage but also as a regulator by determining which plans are eligible to be offered.
The bill contains a number of pilots aimed at reducing cost, but really the strategy in the bill for dealing with health care costs is to pray they won't go up. (The bill does make it more affordable for some people by subsidizing coverage, but that's not the same as addressing cost of coverage).
And that's really the problem. The goal of the bill was never to address the primary issue in health care- cost. The goal was to expand coverage, enshrine universal care as a right, and deal with tricky issues like "how the hell do we pay for this" later...or never, which is far more likely. Look at the Medicare program, the current system operated by the government. Slated to run out of money in eight years, $70+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, and no plan for how to deal with it. Maybe that's not entirely fair. There are some plans out there, they're just laughably awful. Like- let's establish a center that measures whether certain health care procedures are really worth the cost. See, once we have evidence that something isn't really effective (which already exists) then people will see it should not be paid for (like annual mammograms!) and health care spending will go down. See? Everything will be fine.
At the end of the day, the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies will expand coverage significantly through a transfer of wealth from higher income earners to lower income earners. See Keith Hennessy's outstanding post on the impact for people by income bracket. The bill, as noted above, does almost nothing to address cost. But I think that's a calculation of the bill's supporters. Going backwards on entitlements is very difficult to do. Once you get universal coverage in place you can deal with the cost issue later- just like we have with Social Security and Medicare. Except not at all. The problem will be "dealt" with through large tax increases, which I suspect many of the bill supporters find to be a pleasant side effect.
Can't wait to see their energy policy!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Man, I Am F-ing Stoopid
Ok. I know I still have to post about the rest of the Europe trip. Short version, it was awesome, but I'll post more later. Anyway, about me being f-ing stoopid. It's poker related.
Final tabled the Full Tilt tourney today. 1300+ players, we're down to the final 8 and I've got about $600K with blinds at 10/20K. I get dealt 6s6h, middle position player raises and I flat from the button. That's pretty bad for starters but I had a lot of chips so I was willing to see a flop and he was pretty bad so I thought I could float him if the flop came with anything to scary. Flop is Q74 and the original raiser leads for $120K. I tank for awhile and ship it. He calls and shows KK. I suck. Out three hands later.
The play itself sucks and is enough for me to say definitively that I am a moron. What made it extra super stoopid was that the table, save for one other player who was great, was incredibly soft. All I had to do was bide my time and they would have handed me their chips. But like I said, I'm not so bright.
Happy to final table, but very disappointed with the finish. It takes a lot of effort and luck to sort through that size field and I just can't fathom why I made that move. Live and learn.
Final tabled the Full Tilt tourney today. 1300+ players, we're down to the final 8 and I've got about $600K with blinds at 10/20K. I get dealt 6s6h, middle position player raises and I flat from the button. That's pretty bad for starters but I had a lot of chips so I was willing to see a flop and he was pretty bad so I thought I could float him if the flop came with anything to scary. Flop is Q74 and the original raiser leads for $120K. I tank for awhile and ship it. He calls and shows KK. I suck. Out three hands later.
The play itself sucks and is enough for me to say definitively that I am a moron. What made it extra super stoopid was that the table, save for one other player who was great, was incredibly soft. All I had to do was bide my time and they would have handed me their chips. But like I said, I'm not so bright.
Happy to final table, but very disappointed with the finish. It takes a lot of effort and luck to sort through that size field and I just can't fathom why I made that move. Live and learn.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Italy
I'm writing this post from the balcony of our hotel in Florence and I'm staring at the facade of the Duomo which is about 100 yards away. Very cool.
Our trip began in Rome. Like many people, I spent a semester abroad in college and Rome was where our campus was located. I remember being annoyed at Rome at the beginning. It was filthy in parts, stunningly inefficient, and chaotic. By the end of the semester I found myself in love with the place. That is probably in part due to the many friends I made, the tendency to romanticize one's travels, etc., but I've been back three times now and I still love Rome as I did then. I don't know when or why the chaos became something wonderful or when the inefficiency of it all made me smile rather than shake my head and long for the States, but it happened.
Some random observations:
1) I don't know what bus drivers make in Italy but whatever it is, it isn't enough. NASCAR drivers have nothing on these guys. We did a day trip to Siena yesterday and there were a few moments of sheer terror as we went around corners side by side with semi trucks and I could have literally reached out my window and touched the truck driver. This was considered by moped drivers to be plenty of space to pass between. Crazy.
2) The myth of the ugly American. Maybe it's a myth no longer in circulation but I can say that I simply have never seen it. Quite the contrary in fact. They tend to speak louder in public settings and they have an annoying tendency to shout in English as an attempt to communicate with Italians as if somehow the volume will assist the attempt at communication. That's about it though. The worst? The French, and it is not even close.
3) Europeans are thinner as a group, but it sure as hell is not because they eat less. Leigh and I usually split a salad and then each have a primi or secondi for dinner. Most of the Italiand have an antipasti, a salad, a primi, a secondi, possibly dessert.
4) My favorite day so far has been the day where we made no plans. We just got off the Metro at Spagna (the best stop) and got lost for the entire day. It was wonderful just to walk around the city and soak it in.
Off to explore. Uffizi today and Academia tomorrow.
Our trip began in Rome. Like many people, I spent a semester abroad in college and Rome was where our campus was located. I remember being annoyed at Rome at the beginning. It was filthy in parts, stunningly inefficient, and chaotic. By the end of the semester I found myself in love with the place. That is probably in part due to the many friends I made, the tendency to romanticize one's travels, etc., but I've been back three times now and I still love Rome as I did then. I don't know when or why the chaos became something wonderful or when the inefficiency of it all made me smile rather than shake my head and long for the States, but it happened.
Some random observations:
1) I don't know what bus drivers make in Italy but whatever it is, it isn't enough. NASCAR drivers have nothing on these guys. We did a day trip to Siena yesterday and there were a few moments of sheer terror as we went around corners side by side with semi trucks and I could have literally reached out my window and touched the truck driver. This was considered by moped drivers to be plenty of space to pass between. Crazy.
2) The myth of the ugly American. Maybe it's a myth no longer in circulation but I can say that I simply have never seen it. Quite the contrary in fact. They tend to speak louder in public settings and they have an annoying tendency to shout in English as an attempt to communicate with Italians as if somehow the volume will assist the attempt at communication. That's about it though. The worst? The French, and it is not even close.
3) Europeans are thinner as a group, but it sure as hell is not because they eat less. Leigh and I usually split a salad and then each have a primi or secondi for dinner. Most of the Italiand have an antipasti, a salad, a primi, a secondi, possibly dessert.
4) My favorite day so far has been the day where we made no plans. We just got off the Metro at Spagna (the best stop) and got lost for the entire day. It was wonderful just to walk around the city and soak it in.
Off to explore. Uffizi today and Academia tomorrow.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Vacation Time
Heading out of the country on Monday for a long-awaited vacation. I'm pretty excited as we will be in Europe for a month and I'm going to be in a few countries I've never been to before. Here's the itinerary:
Fly into Rome and spend a few days there, then off to Florence. Florence to Lake Como (one of my favorite places in the world). Lake Como to Interlaken. Interlaken to Paris. Paris to Ireland. We're staring in Shannon, going to Dingle, then ending up in Dublin. Finally, we head to London for a week before returning home.
I've been to Paris, but never spent meaningful time there. Also, for all the traveling I've done I have never set foot in the United Kingdom which is kind of odd. Ireland will be new for me as well. Pretty cool trip.
Fly into Rome and spend a few days there, then off to Florence. Florence to Lake Como (one of my favorite places in the world). Lake Como to Interlaken. Interlaken to Paris. Paris to Ireland. We're staring in Shannon, going to Dingle, then ending up in Dublin. Finally, we head to London for a week before returning home.
I've been to Paris, but never spent meaningful time there. Also, for all the traveling I've done I have never set foot in the United Kingdom which is kind of odd. Ireland will be new for me as well. Pretty cool trip.
Consumer Crap
One of my favorite things to do at the grocery store involves slowly browsing the aisles for the latest nonsense products. I really need to start taking pictures. A few of my favorites from this past week:
- A prepackaged hot dog in the bun. Who buys this? How is that any better or easier than placing a hot dog in the bun yourself and nuking it? Reminds me of this classic from The Onion.
- Breakfast cookies. No explanation needed.
- Oreo Cakesters. Vomit.
- Not from the grocery store, but Quizno's across from my office is offering "Toasty Bullets" which appears to be a slightly smaller version of a normal sandwich with a terrible name.
- A prepackaged hot dog in the bun. Who buys this? How is that any better or easier than placing a hot dog in the bun yourself and nuking it? Reminds me of this classic from The Onion.
- Breakfast cookies. No explanation needed.
- Oreo Cakesters. Vomit.
- Not from the grocery store, but Quizno's across from my office is offering "Toasty Bullets" which appears to be a slightly smaller version of a normal sandwich with a terrible name.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Of Tea Parties, Astroturf, and Townhalls
I've been watching with interest the volleying between all sides as to who has the "real grassroots" in the health care fight. I do think it is funny that one side claims the other is astroturfing while at the same time ads such as this one offering $15 per hour to promote Obama's plan are making the rounds.
My sense of the townhall debacles is that they are legit. People are PISSED. I don't know why and I'm not sure many of them know precisely why. The performance of some of the elected officials has not done much to calm them down either. Taking phone calls while constitutents are speaking, admittting you have not read nor are you familiar with the details of massive reform bills, dismisisng constituents as partisan activisits, etc. has not done much to smooth over the public's understandable angst.
I'm not the first person to suggest it, but there seems to be a sentiment that the D's have just overreached. It's understandable as they've been waiting 12 years or so for a shot at having a say. But the public's repudiation of the R's, the Bush fatigue, and Obama's undeniable popularity must have convinced them that the public had embraced their entire agenda. I think the townhalls, Tea Parties, and polls cast serious doubt on that idea.
My sense of the townhall debacles is that they are legit. People are PISSED. I don't know why and I'm not sure many of them know precisely why. The performance of some of the elected officials has not done much to calm them down either. Taking phone calls while constitutents are speaking, admittting you have not read nor are you familiar with the details of massive reform bills, dismisisng constituents as partisan activisits, etc. has not done much to smooth over the public's understandable angst.
I'm not the first person to suggest it, but there seems to be a sentiment that the D's have just overreached. It's understandable as they've been waiting 12 years or so for a shot at having a say. But the public's repudiation of the R's, the Bush fatigue, and Obama's undeniable popularity must have convinced them that the public had embraced their entire agenda. I think the townhalls, Tea Parties, and polls cast serious doubt on that idea.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Austin Energy
Here in the People's Republic, the city council has made the decision to shift toward "green energy." I've got mixed feelings on how much government, particularly city councils, should be doing on this front and particularly this city council which has a pretty lousy track record with some of their grand social engineering projects. Whatever.
Anyway, there are some aspects of the plan which offer substantial subsidies to homeowners and businesses. Tax credits which will offset up to 45% the cost of installing solar panels in some cases. They also offer free energy audits for your home. Well, I decided to take them up on that offer. Our AC broke and we were going to have to get a new one anyway and one of the choices was the super energy efficient one which was far more expensive list, but about the same after accounting for city, state, and federal tax credits. So we bought the super energy efficient one, and did some retrofits to the abode. I figured since we were staying in our house for a while it would be an ok purchase and Austin is moving toward required retrofits for houses before you can sell anyway.
I was really interested to see what our energy bills would look like. I have to say I've been really surprised. In the midst of a sweltering summer, our energy bills have dropped substantially- like 15-30% per month.
Anyway, there are some aspects of the plan which offer substantial subsidies to homeowners and businesses. Tax credits which will offset up to 45% the cost of installing solar panels in some cases. They also offer free energy audits for your home. Well, I decided to take them up on that offer. Our AC broke and we were going to have to get a new one anyway and one of the choices was the super energy efficient one which was far more expensive list, but about the same after accounting for city, state, and federal tax credits. So we bought the super energy efficient one, and did some retrofits to the abode. I figured since we were staying in our house for a while it would be an ok purchase and Austin is moving toward required retrofits for houses before you can sell anyway.
I was really interested to see what our energy bills would look like. I have to say I've been really surprised. In the midst of a sweltering summer, our energy bills have dropped substantially- like 15-30% per month.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Health Care Reform
The current debate over "health care reform" is actually pretty comical. Most pundits and politicians decry the system as "unsustainable" (true) and that is cannot be defended. We have heard ad nauseam that the United States spends more that any other country (true) with worse results (not so true). The comedy is that this is exactly the system politicians and people want.
In the history of health care delivery in the United States we have utilized exactly one model that worked to contain costs while delivering care....the HMO. And because it worked we immediately set about dismantling it. Texas actually serves as a wonderful case study. We have had one of the highest rates of uninsured for the last....well forever really. However, there was a brief period of time when HMOs began to take hold in Texas and the annual increases in medical costs not only slowed to inflation, they actually were negative. While there was a lag period, the lower costs of medical care resulted in fewer uninsured and the rate began to drop.
The problem is that every dollar in health care spending is someone's income (yes, that includes the health plans that I represent). There are basically two ways to contain costs, either you reduce the unit cost or you reduce the rate of utilization. Both of those avenues take money out of the pocket of....medical providers. And that is not a situation which they will tolerate. So as HMOs gained further footing the medical providers in Texas (docs and hospitals) mounted a massive campaign to dismantle HMOs and they were largely successful. Since that time, medical costs have basically been on a steady upward climb.
We had a model that worked. Quality was the same as or better under HMOs as it was under the fee-for-service system. The cost, however, was far less. We voted for a system that was more expensive, less efficient, delivers worse care, and is unsustainable. So where is the comdey you ask? Well, the solution that many in DC are now proposing- the same people, mind you, that railed against HMOs- is to create a giant government run HMO. Somehow the voters will find this far more acceptable because the government will be running it despite that fact that the health plan they currently operate, Medicare, has $35 trillion (yes, trillion) in unfunded liabilities and they have zero idea how to address that problem outside some laughable savings numbers that will supposedly be achieved through adoption of electronic medical records and rooting out "waste." Truly pathetic.
Many would suggest we just adopt the system that works in other countries...say France. I'd content that we don't have to look that far. If the idea is just to find a location where health care is cheap and replicate it, we can just do what South Dakota does. In all seriousness, the solution will be a difficult one but it frustrates me to hear people suggest that the private sector has tried and failed to deliver health care effectively. The truth is that the private sector did it effectively, that interfered with the monopoly rent system enjoyed by providers who petitioned the overnment to intervene on their behalf, the government did so, and now we complain that the private sector has somehow failed. It didn't, it was made to fail.
In the history of health care delivery in the United States we have utilized exactly one model that worked to contain costs while delivering care....the HMO. And because it worked we immediately set about dismantling it. Texas actually serves as a wonderful case study. We have had one of the highest rates of uninsured for the last....well forever really. However, there was a brief period of time when HMOs began to take hold in Texas and the annual increases in medical costs not only slowed to inflation, they actually were negative. While there was a lag period, the lower costs of medical care resulted in fewer uninsured and the rate began to drop.
The problem is that every dollar in health care spending is someone's income (yes, that includes the health plans that I represent). There are basically two ways to contain costs, either you reduce the unit cost or you reduce the rate of utilization. Both of those avenues take money out of the pocket of....medical providers. And that is not a situation which they will tolerate. So as HMOs gained further footing the medical providers in Texas (docs and hospitals) mounted a massive campaign to dismantle HMOs and they were largely successful. Since that time, medical costs have basically been on a steady upward climb.
We had a model that worked. Quality was the same as or better under HMOs as it was under the fee-for-service system. The cost, however, was far less. We voted for a system that was more expensive, less efficient, delivers worse care, and is unsustainable. So where is the comdey you ask? Well, the solution that many in DC are now proposing- the same people, mind you, that railed against HMOs- is to create a giant government run HMO. Somehow the voters will find this far more acceptable because the government will be running it despite that fact that the health plan they currently operate, Medicare, has $35 trillion (yes, trillion) in unfunded liabilities and they have zero idea how to address that problem outside some laughable savings numbers that will supposedly be achieved through adoption of electronic medical records and rooting out "waste." Truly pathetic.
Many would suggest we just adopt the system that works in other countries...say France. I'd content that we don't have to look that far. If the idea is just to find a location where health care is cheap and replicate it, we can just do what South Dakota does. In all seriousness, the solution will be a difficult one but it frustrates me to hear people suggest that the private sector has tried and failed to deliver health care effectively. The truth is that the private sector did it effectively, that interfered with the monopoly rent system enjoyed by providers who petitioned the overnment to intervene on their behalf, the government did so, and now we complain that the private sector has somehow failed. It didn't, it was made to fail.
Back Again
Another extended break. This time due to sheer laziness. Oh, we also had to go into special session in the Legislature, but that was kind of a formality. It went about as smoothly as possible.
Working in and around the Texas Legislature has done crazy things to the way I view the passage of time. The Legislature meets 140 days every two years. My first session was the 76th (1999) which is widely regarded as the best legislative session ever, in any state, any country, anything. That was the year W was running for President and the entire session was just one big party. I still cringe thinking back to how stupid and naive I was. Anyway, I now measure the passage of time by legislative sessions and it is difficult for me to conceive of a work environment that doesn't have the massive swings in intensity.
During the session, I am generally at work by 7AM and I rarely am finished before 9PM and towards the end of session it usually 1 or 2 in the morning before I'm done. It's incredibly intense and the prospect of elected officials, many or most of whom have little knowledge or interest in your area, deciding your fate is nerve wracking. But like I said, it's difficult for me to conceive of work any other way now. At the same time, now that session is over I come and go as I please and have the opportunity to take significant time off to travel.
I'm not sure this really has a point. What got me thinking about was some friends of ours who wanted to have dinner and they wanted to have dinner at....6PM!!! I asked the Tamerwife what kind of crazy people eat at 6PM? We generally eat dinner at 830 or 9PM. She informed me, much to my surprise, that we are the outliers in this case. That got me to thinking about the messed up way I now view the passage of time.
Working in and around the Texas Legislature has done crazy things to the way I view the passage of time. The Legislature meets 140 days every two years. My first session was the 76th (1999) which is widely regarded as the best legislative session ever, in any state, any country, anything. That was the year W was running for President and the entire session was just one big party. I still cringe thinking back to how stupid and naive I was. Anyway, I now measure the passage of time by legislative sessions and it is difficult for me to conceive of a work environment that doesn't have the massive swings in intensity.
During the session, I am generally at work by 7AM and I rarely am finished before 9PM and towards the end of session it usually 1 or 2 in the morning before I'm done. It's incredibly intense and the prospect of elected officials, many or most of whom have little knowledge or interest in your area, deciding your fate is nerve wracking. But like I said, it's difficult for me to conceive of work any other way now. At the same time, now that session is over I come and go as I please and have the opportunity to take significant time off to travel.
I'm not sure this really has a point. What got me thinking about was some friends of ours who wanted to have dinner and they wanted to have dinner at....6PM!!! I asked the Tamerwife what kind of crazy people eat at 6PM? We generally eat dinner at 830 or 9PM. She informed me, much to my surprise, that we are the outliers in this case. That got me to thinking about the messed up way I now view the passage of time.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Comments Policy
This is outfrickingstanding. In so many ways too. The self-importance, the condescension, living up to every cliche of the humorless feminist, the consistent use of PC terms that literally have no meaning, etc.
The first commenter pretty much sums it all up.
The first commenter pretty much sums it all up.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Palm Pre
This past Saturday I stood in line at 6AM in order to purchase the Palm Pre. I'm not much of a technology geek, but I was motivated to get this one just so my friends would stop making fun of the fact that my phone had a stylus and because I was not quite ready to join the Apple cult. Worth the wait. It's a pretty phenomenal piece of hardware. Now I just need an 8-year old to teach me how to use it.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Back
Took a short break there for a while (since January). I had hoped to do some blogging while in legislative session, but it was not to be. Part of it is just time constraints as we keep fairly insane hours during session. Part of it is also fear of writing something I may regret during the heated environment of the legislative session. In any case, back to it.
This session was a pretty intense one for the folks I represent, the health plans. The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) was up for Sunset review. Every agency in Texas undergoes Sunset review every 12 years. The review process is designed to review all of the agency functions to determine if there is still a need for the agency and, since the answer to that is usually yes, to determine what changes in statute need to be made to either expend or contract statutory authority. Without a proactive step from the legislature (passing a bill) the agency ceases to exist. Well, that is what happened with TDI. The legislature did not pass the elgislation and so one year from September the agency will cease to exist.
How did that happen? Well, the Sunset review process makes a lot of sense on paper. In reality, I think many legislators believe the process is broken. Because the legislation which reauthorizes the agencies is so broad, the Sunset bills have become "Christmas trees" rather than focusing on the agency's actual role or statutory duties. The TDI Sunset bill, for instance, had more than 179 amendments filed for cosnideration. The Transportation Sunset bill was filed as a 145 page bill and ended up at over 500 pages. The final bill was Many of these contained significant changes in policy that had never been discussed or reviewed as part of the normal legilative process. They were simply trying to catch a ride on what many thought was a "must pass" bill. (Regardless of the merit of each of these amendments, this strikes me as a really lousy way to make policy.) The TDI Sunset bill never made it to the floor of the Texas House, mainly due to a major fight between Democrats and Republicans over Voter ID; I'll write some about that later. The contingency for this is to place all of the Sunset bills into a safety net bill which extends the agencies for two more years. This keeps the agencies in existence whicle ensuring they will be reviewed again the next session. Well, at the end of session the safety net bill was killed on a point of order. They then tried to resurrect the safety net bill by amending a fiscal matters bill that would have extended the agency two more years. The House did just that and then adjourned sine die (they ended the session). This put the Senate in the position of having to concur witht he House rather than negotiating on anumber of remaining issues. The Senate decided that they could not live with that and so they adjourned sine die as well without taking any action.
That leaves the state with no department of insurance, no department of transportation, and no agency regulating gaming. The plans I represent have regular dealings with TDI and while they are often frustrated by the positions the agency takes, they all agree on a need for the agency and vouch for the integrity of the folks who work there. Beyond that, eliminating the agency would be a radical change in the market dynamic and most businesses, insurance in particular, crave stability and consistency.
Given the importance of this issue, it would be normal to expect a special session to be called by the Governor. But these are not normal times. The Governor (Rick Perry) is expected to be involved in a hotly contested primary by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and this is going to enter into any decision he makes about calling a special session. Many of the Republicans would prefer not to have a special session on insurance because it might put them in the position of having to vote on populist measures that are terrible policy (like electing an insurance commissioner) and because the trial lawyers view the insurance Sunset bill as an opportunity to attacke many of the tort reform measures enacted in Texas in recent years. Democrats for their part do not want a special session either. Democrats brought the Texas House to a standstill to prevent consideration of the Voter ID bill, a bill they view as doing damage to minority constituencies that many of them represent. Well, it is almost guaranteed that any special session called will have Voter ID as a matter to be considered. The Governor has sole discretion to determine what can be considered during a special session and Voter ID is a huge issue for Republican primary voters. Add to the equation that the 2/3 rule which usually applies in the Senate (requires 2/3 of the Senators to agree to take up any bill) does not apply in special session adn you can see why the Democrats would be nervous.
So that was one of the big stories of this session. I'll write more about how we fared later, but this was kind of a big deal.
This session was a pretty intense one for the folks I represent, the health plans. The Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) was up for Sunset review. Every agency in Texas undergoes Sunset review every 12 years. The review process is designed to review all of the agency functions to determine if there is still a need for the agency and, since the answer to that is usually yes, to determine what changes in statute need to be made to either expend or contract statutory authority. Without a proactive step from the legislature (passing a bill) the agency ceases to exist. Well, that is what happened with TDI. The legislature did not pass the elgislation and so one year from September the agency will cease to exist.
How did that happen? Well, the Sunset review process makes a lot of sense on paper. In reality, I think many legislators believe the process is broken. Because the legislation which reauthorizes the agencies is so broad, the Sunset bills have become "Christmas trees" rather than focusing on the agency's actual role or statutory duties. The TDI Sunset bill, for instance, had more than 179 amendments filed for cosnideration. The Transportation Sunset bill was filed as a 145 page bill and ended up at over 500 pages. The final bill was Many of these contained significant changes in policy that had never been discussed or reviewed as part of the normal legilative process. They were simply trying to catch a ride on what many thought was a "must pass" bill. (Regardless of the merit of each of these amendments, this strikes me as a really lousy way to make policy.) The TDI Sunset bill never made it to the floor of the Texas House, mainly due to a major fight between Democrats and Republicans over Voter ID; I'll write some about that later. The contingency for this is to place all of the Sunset bills into a safety net bill which extends the agencies for two more years. This keeps the agencies in existence whicle ensuring they will be reviewed again the next session. Well, at the end of session the safety net bill was killed on a point of order. They then tried to resurrect the safety net bill by amending a fiscal matters bill that would have extended the agency two more years. The House did just that and then adjourned sine die (they ended the session). This put the Senate in the position of having to concur witht he House rather than negotiating on anumber of remaining issues. The Senate decided that they could not live with that and so they adjourned sine die as well without taking any action.
That leaves the state with no department of insurance, no department of transportation, and no agency regulating gaming. The plans I represent have regular dealings with TDI and while they are often frustrated by the positions the agency takes, they all agree on a need for the agency and vouch for the integrity of the folks who work there. Beyond that, eliminating the agency would be a radical change in the market dynamic and most businesses, insurance in particular, crave stability and consistency.
Given the importance of this issue, it would be normal to expect a special session to be called by the Governor. But these are not normal times. The Governor (Rick Perry) is expected to be involved in a hotly contested primary by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and this is going to enter into any decision he makes about calling a special session. Many of the Republicans would prefer not to have a special session on insurance because it might put them in the position of having to vote on populist measures that are terrible policy (like electing an insurance commissioner) and because the trial lawyers view the insurance Sunset bill as an opportunity to attacke many of the tort reform measures enacted in Texas in recent years. Democrats for their part do not want a special session either. Democrats brought the Texas House to a standstill to prevent consideration of the Voter ID bill, a bill they view as doing damage to minority constituencies that many of them represent. Well, it is almost guaranteed that any special session called will have Voter ID as a matter to be considered. The Governor has sole discretion to determine what can be considered during a special session and Voter ID is a huge issue for Republican primary voters. Add to the equation that the 2/3 rule which usually applies in the Senate (requires 2/3 of the Senators to agree to take up any bill) does not apply in special session adn you can see why the Democrats would be nervous.
So that was one of the big stories of this session. I'll write more about how we fared later, but this was kind of a big deal.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Rick Barry on LeBron
"He's got major flaws in his game. He's six years into the NBA. How can a man six years into the NBA with his talent have a major flaw in his shot? How can he not use screens effectively? ... I watch the game very carefully, he doesn't use screens effectively and this is not LeBron's fault. It's the fault of the people who are teaching him ... There is no doubt in my mind that LeBron, if shown these things, would do them, because he wants to be a great player, he wants to win a championship. As great as he is, he should be better."
Here are LeBron's career stats. You might notice that they are awesome. You also might notice that the Cavaliers are 34-8 and have the best record in the league. Then you might notice that the Cavs have already been to an NBA championship with LeBron. And then you might notice that LeBron is only 25 years old. He came into the league with ridiculously high expectations and, somehow, has managed to surpass them.
Lord make me as flawed as LeBron.
Here are LeBron's career stats. You might notice that they are awesome. You also might notice that the Cavaliers are 34-8 and have the best record in the league. Then you might notice that the Cavs have already been to an NBA championship with LeBron. And then you might notice that LeBron is only 25 years old. He came into the league with ridiculously high expectations and, somehow, has managed to surpass them.
Lord make me as flawed as LeBron.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
My Bike
I took the saddle bags off cause they looked pretty dumb. I know it's trite, but it really is a feeling of freedom when you're riding.
Lobbyists
Dumb.
I've never understood the obsession people have with banning lobbyists from transition teams, appointments, staff positions, etc. Granted, I'm probably biased, but it really is dumb. No person exists who doesn't have personal relationships and so the idea that somehow a lobbyist is too corrupted to serve in these positions ignores the fact that all people bring baggage to the table. There are a few kind of lobbyists. One type is the former legislator/bigwig that trades on their relationships and insight into the process. Another type of lobbyist is the subject matter expert. Those folks know more about the issues then other people. And they should, it is their job to know more than other people. That also makes them uniquely qualified to serve.
Obama seems to have taken the worst approach of all. Pretend like it is a huge problem to have former lobbyists in certain positions while recognizing that they are uniquely qualified and then finding a way around it. Like I said, it's dumb.
I've never understood the obsession people have with banning lobbyists from transition teams, appointments, staff positions, etc. Granted, I'm probably biased, but it really is dumb. No person exists who doesn't have personal relationships and so the idea that somehow a lobbyist is too corrupted to serve in these positions ignores the fact that all people bring baggage to the table. There are a few kind of lobbyists. One type is the former legislator/bigwig that trades on their relationships and insight into the process. Another type of lobbyist is the subject matter expert. Those folks know more about the issues then other people. And they should, it is their job to know more than other people. That also makes them uniquely qualified to serve.
Obama seems to have taken the worst approach of all. Pretend like it is a huge problem to have former lobbyists in certain positions while recognizing that they are uniquely qualified and then finding a way around it. Like I said, it's dumb.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
I Are Pissed
So during the last month my car has been hit, while stationary, three times. In each of these instances the transgressor has failed to leave a note or accept responsibility. Yesterday, I went into the liquor store for 5 minutes and came out to find the front passenger side dented. Very annoying.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
Molly Wolfe RIP
Our dog died today. We had to put her to sleep. She had a number of ailments and it was clearly the right thing for her. But I'm crushed all the same. She was a smart, beautiful, loving dog and she and my wife were connected in a special way. I will really miss her. I already do.
Friday, January 2, 2009
BMW K1200s
In these uncertain financial times, there are few better investments than vehicles (right honey?). Please enjoy the BMW K1200s motorcycle. This beauty will take you from 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. Yes, 2.8 seconds. Please count to three in your head. You are now going 60mph.
O8 hand
I like to think I'm a pretty good Omaha Hi-Lo (aka O8) player. Omaha is a variation of Texas Hold Em, but you get 4 cards instead of two. However, unlike Hold Em you have to use two cards in your hand. In Hi-Lo, as the name implies, the high hand and the low hand split the pot. You can use all 4 cards in your hand (two to make a high hand and a different two to make a low hand) and the goal is really to scoop pots by winning both the high and the low. So here is an awesome hand from a tournament I was playing in yesterday. When I say "awesome" I mean it in the literal sense. I am still in awe of how unbelievably badly my opponent, who had made it down to the final 100 out of 600 people, played this hand. So, here we go.
Folded around to me on the button. I have QQ35 (double suited in hearts and clubs). I generally think bad players tend to overplay big pairs in O8, but on the button without anyone else in the pot this is a raising hand. I raise. Small blind flats, big blind folds.
Flop: 9hTh5d
So let's review. In order to make a low hand in O8 you have to have five unpaired cards all under 8. The best low hand is the wheel, A2345, the worst low hand is 87654. So given the board, a player playing a low draw is going to need the last two cards to be under an 8 in order to make a low hand and they can figure that even then they will be drawing to only half the pot. Can you see where this is headed?
I bet the pot (about $8K) which represents about 90% of my opponent's remaining chips. He calls.
Turn: 6d
I bet enough to put my opponent in, because I have to but I'm a little concerned now that I'm beat, but it doesn't matter because there is way too much money in the pot and my opponent has almost no chips left. So the cards are flipped over and my opponent shows me....drumroll.....Ac2d3d4h.
River: 8d
I lose a massive pot to a 8 high flush and he has the best possible low.
So my opponent was absolutely correct to call preflop, he has a premium starting hand and could have even raised me and I would have folded immediately. Post flop looks good for me as I have an overpair and a flush draw, though not a very good one, and any low drawing hand is clearly folding since they completely missed the flop. At least, that is what a normal, rationale human being would think. My opponent, however, decided it ould be a good deal to call off all his chips with no pair, no draw, and needing the board to come consecutive diamonds to make the worst flush possible or to have two low cards come consecutively to win only half the pot. Fortunately for him he was playing against me and while the math on this hand suggests that I'm in a dominating position (I'll scoop it over 60% of the time and win the high 80% of the time) that is exactly what occurred. Well played sir.
I used to get mad about these types of beats, but now I just wonder why someone would play for 5 hours and then decide that they want to bet all their money when they have almost no chance of winning. Very odd. Also, I'm a huge liar as I am still furious and I would gladly murder this person and his entire family given the opportunity.
Folded around to me on the button. I have QQ35 (double suited in hearts and clubs). I generally think bad players tend to overplay big pairs in O8, but on the button without anyone else in the pot this is a raising hand. I raise. Small blind flats, big blind folds.
Flop: 9hTh5d
So let's review. In order to make a low hand in O8 you have to have five unpaired cards all under 8. The best low hand is the wheel, A2345, the worst low hand is 87654. So given the board, a player playing a low draw is going to need the last two cards to be under an 8 in order to make a low hand and they can figure that even then they will be drawing to only half the pot. Can you see where this is headed?
I bet the pot (about $8K) which represents about 90% of my opponent's remaining chips. He calls.
Turn: 6d
I bet enough to put my opponent in, because I have to but I'm a little concerned now that I'm beat, but it doesn't matter because there is way too much money in the pot and my opponent has almost no chips left. So the cards are flipped over and my opponent shows me....drumroll.....Ac2d3d4h.
River: 8d
I lose a massive pot to a 8 high flush and he has the best possible low.
So my opponent was absolutely correct to call preflop, he has a premium starting hand and could have even raised me and I would have folded immediately. Post flop looks good for me as I have an overpair and a flush draw, though not a very good one, and any low drawing hand is clearly folding since they completely missed the flop. At least, that is what a normal, rationale human being would think. My opponent, however, decided it ould be a good deal to call off all his chips with no pair, no draw, and needing the board to come consecutive diamonds to make the worst flush possible or to have two low cards come consecutively to win only half the pot. Fortunately for him he was playing against me and while the math on this hand suggests that I'm in a dominating position (I'll scoop it over 60% of the time and win the high 80% of the time) that is exactly what occurred. Well played sir.
I used to get mad about these types of beats, but now I just wonder why someone would play for 5 hours and then decide that they want to bet all their money when they have almost no chance of winning. Very odd. Also, I'm a huge liar as I am still furious and I would gladly murder this person and his entire family given the opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
