Tidbits (various)

Of course, I am mathematically stuck and avoiding work…

Optical Illusions: check this out.

Or, just for the heck of this, download this photo and then watch what happens to the colors of the “blue” and “green” bars as you zoom in:

Update: a commenter on the blog post above has posted a link to images that he/she has created:

image 1
image 2
image 3
image 4
image 5

A friend of mine thought that I’d appreciate the racewalking photo that appears here.

Note that these ladies have near perfect form; note that you can’t tell (from this still) whether the lady in the forefront is lifting or not.

But my guess is that my friend’s “Fernanda Keller” reference meant that he thought that I’d appreciate other, ahem, aspects of the photo.

Media Matters

From here

Yes, they reference what they put out.

24 June 09

Workout notes 4.2 mile run (40:47) followed by a 3 mile walk (untimed but periods of technique) and stretching/push-ups (2 sets of 30).

I was surprised at how bad the run felt (legs were ok but I got out of breath towards the end) and at how good the walk felt.

I am always sluggish after donating blood.

Health Care

Here is some advice for the President:

From Robert Reich: here he shoots down common “anti-public arguments”. I’ll post a couple of his arguments.

Without a public option, the other parties that comprise America’s non-system of health care — private insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and medical suppliers — have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now.
[...]

Critics complain that a public plan has an inherent advantage over private plans because the public won’t have to show profits. But plenty of private plans are already not-for-profit. And if nonprofit plans can offer high-quality health care more cheaply than for-profit plans, why should for-profit plans be coddled? The public plan would merely force profit-making private plans to take whatever steps were necessary to become more competitive. Once again, that’s a plus.

Critics charge that the public plan will be subsidized by the government. Here they have their facts wrong. Under every plan that’s being discussed on Capitol Hill, subsidies go to individuals and families who need them in order to afford health care, not to a public plan. Individuals and families use the subsidies to shop for the best care they can find. They’re free to choose the public plan, but that’s only one option. They could take their subsidy and buy a private plan just as easily. Legislation should also make crystal clear that the public plan, for its part, may not dip into general revenues to cover its costs. It must pay for itself. And any government entity that oversees the health-insurance pool or acts as referee in setting ground rules for all plans must not favor the public plan.

Paul Krugman: points out that most Democrats who are against the public option come from small population states in which certain plans have no competition at all:

Great catch by Digby, who quotes Sen. Blanche Lincoln about how terrible it would be if a government-run insurance plan undermined free-market competition, then links to this:

The Justice Department considers an industry to be “highly concentrated” if one company has 42 percent of the market. In Arkansas — Senator Lincoln should take note — Blue Cross Blue Shield has 75 percent of the market. If you take government self-insurance plans out of the equation, it’s higher. The state ranks as the ninth most concentrated in the country. Is it any wonder that insurance premiums have risen five times as fast as wages?

The truth is that the notion of beneficial competition in the insurance industry is all wrong in the first place: insurers mainly compete by engaging in “risk selection” — that is, the most successful companies are those that do the best job of denying coverage to those who need it most. But in any case, Arkansas is in effect a one-insurer monopoly state, with no competition at all — unless a public plan is created.

As far as the Republicans: Krugman sees them as hopeless and so resorts to some ridicule.

Hint:

Krugman fears that President Obama might be a bit too ready to compromise and that he will be willing to throw the public option under the bus (which is why Krugman backed Hillary Clinton in the primary)

Science/Religion Mano Singham has a thoughtful post about the accommodationist controversy:

While this debate has been going on for some time, the latest resurgence was triggered by Jerry Coyne, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and the author of a new book Why Evolution is True (which is on my reading list), who wrote a scathing review of two new books by scientists trying to reconcile science with religion: Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution by Karl W. Giberson and Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul by Kenneth R. Miller. The review, titled Seeing and Believing: The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail, contains arguments and conclusions that will be familiar to regular readers of this blog, but it is all in one place and very well-written, well worth reading.

In the accommodationist camp are people like biologist Kenneth Miller, philosopher Michael Ruse, journalist Andrew Brown, and chemist Francis Collins. (You can read my detailed nine-part review of Collins’s appalling book The Language of God here.)

There have always been religious scientists who manage to find reasons to hold on to their faith in the face of the challenge posed by science. Michael Shermer puts it well when he says that the people who believe weird things are not stupid: “Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.” (Why People Believe Weird Things (2002), p. 283). More problematic is the accommodationist view taken by prestigious scientific organizations like the National Academy of Science (NAS), which I will examine at a later date.

In the anti-accommodationist camp (sometimes referred to as the ‘new atheists’) are people like Richard Dawkins, biologist Jerry Coyne, biologist P. Z. Myers, and philosopher Daniel Dennett. Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised to learn that my sympathies lie entirely with this latter group. (Also see here and here.)

Read the rest of this post; Singham goes on to discuss the legal ramifications of seeing sciences as being incompatible with religion.

Politics again Kathleen Parker has some fun at the expense of possible Republican candidates for 2012. Of course, the usual caveats apply.

23 june pm (links)

Yoga; watch and learn how to learn Scorpion:

Security: It is possible to figure out what is being printed by “listening” to the printer!

Science: See an excellent photo of a “poison dart” frog here.

Evolution: a plant has learned to mimic sickness to keep insects from eating it.

Science and Academia Women have different career patterns in science; female Ph. Ds actually go into academia at a lower rate than men do.

Religion and Science: a cosmologist gives his take on science and religion. What is interesting is how he notes that many who think that religion and science are compatible redefine religion in a big way.

Health care Senator McCaskill points out that she is being targeted over this and that the fight will be hard and protracted.

Here is a satire on some of the dumber objections:

President Obama: Had a press conference. Note to reporters: he IS smarter than you. Be aware of that.

Here is an edited version

To see all of it (or to pick and choose parts), go to CNN.

Here is the whole thing from start to finish (53 minutes)

A Doctor’s View on the Health Care Debate

I found this to be refreshingly honest. I’ll quote a snippet:

Which brings me to my problem with the president’s plan: despite being an admirer, I just don’t see how the president can pull off the reform he has in mind without cost cutting. I recently came on a phrase in an article in the journal “Annals of Internal Medicine” about an axiom of medical economics: a dollar spent on medical care is a dollar of income for someone. I have been reciting this as a mantra ever since. It may be the single most important fact about health care in America that you or I need to know. It means that all of us—doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, drug companies, nurses, home health agencies, and so many others—are drinking at the same trough which happens to hold $2.1 trillion, or 16% of our GDP. Every group who feeds at this trough has its lobbyists and has made contributions to Congressional campaigns to try to keep their spot and their share of the grub. Why not?—it’s hog heaven. But reform cannot happen without cutting costs, without turning people away from the trough and having them eat less. If you do that, you have to be prepared for the buzz saw of protest that dissuaded Roosevelt, defeated Truman’s plan and scuttled Hillary Clinton’s proposal. The good news is that the AMA, representing perhaps 15% of active practicing physicians, is not as powerful as it was in Truman’s time, and in the eyes of the public and many in medicine, it’s identity in the reform debate, is that of a protectionist, self-serving, organization; as a result, even their most progressive statements are viewed with suspicion. I’ve found the views of the American Medical Student Association particularly exciting—the next generation of physicians I sense has a deeper commitment to affordable health care for all than ours; they are, simply put, better people.

We may not like it, but the only way a government can control costs is by wielding great purchasing power to get concessions on the price of drugs, physician fees, and hospital services; the only way they can control administrative costs is by providing a simplified service, yes, the Medicare model (with a 3% overhead), and not allowing private insurance to cherry-pick patients (some of them operating with 30% overheads, the cost passed on to you).

Contrary to what we might think, comparative studies show us that the US when compared to other advanced countries, does not have a sicker population: we actually use fewer prescription drugs and we have shorter hospital stays (though we manage to do a lot more imaging in those short stays—got to feed the MRI machines). The bottom line is that our health care is costly because it is costly, not because we deliver more care, better care or special care. Alas, a solution that does not address the cost of care, and negotiate new prices for the services offered will not work; a solution that does not put caps on spending and that instead projects cost-savings here and there also won’t cut it. Leaders have to make tough and unpopular decisions, and if he is to be the first President to successfully accomplish reform there does not seem to be much choice: cut costs.

In short:

1. Cost cutting means taking away some other people’s salary. Expect these folks to resist.

2. Prevention: it isn’t always cost effective. There is a wonderful paragraph in the above article where it talks about giving a cholesterol test to a “well” patient in order to screen for potential heart disease problems. Yes, a high number may well indicate a future problem, but only in a tiny minority of those who get the high reading. In short, you need to do this hundreds of times (at least) to catch one “true” problem early. Is the cost “worth it”?

Of course, good lifestyle choices (weigh, exercise, not smoking) are worth it.

This problem isn’t an easy one to solve.

If any other MDs are reading this, I warmly welcome your input, even if you flame me.

23 June 2009

Workout notes 3.75 mile walk to yoga (no birds), 3.25+ mile walk back (about 43 minutes back via 2-1) I was sweating like a pig; minimal behind the knee pain (weather change is impending). Shortening my stride and focusing on the push-off really helps.

Blood donation today: I am recording this so I can record when I fully “recover” from it.

Posts
The governor of South Carolina “takes a hike”. Literally.

Science: check out this mushroom cloud: from a volcano. Also, check out the shockwave (almost a perfect disk) formed in the clouds.

Health care: Robert Reich advises President Obama to get some LBJ in him and get us a public option. Forget the Republicans; we need enough D votes.

Note: Professor Reich slams President Obama’s bank plans. He is no “yes person”.

2012 Republican Candidates for President?

Just for grins, I revisited a 2005 article about possible Democratic candidates for President in 2008.

Notice anything?

Oh wait, I had something to say as well.

I’ve dug up some more websites on Democrats who might be presidential candidates in 2008 (I am neglecting Senator Obama as he is more like 2016 material):

* Dennis Kucinich, reelection site and blog.
* Russ Fiengold, blog and PAC.
* Mark Warner
* Joe Biden (who has at least announced that he is running)
* Evan Bayh (his PAC)

Ooops!

22 June PM quips

The above was seen at a event:

On Saturday, Pat Buchanan hosted a conference to discuss how Republicans can regain a majority in America. During one discussion, panelists suggested supporting English-only initiatives as a prime way of attracting “working class white Democrats.”

Here Mr. Buchanan is with a white nationalist. Read the sign. FAIL.

Health care
What is wrong with “Free Market only” insurance plan. In short: insurance companies deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions and they look for ways to avoid paying out claims.

22 June 2009

Workout notes 2000 yard swim; sort of a “welcome back to swimming” thing. I then took Olivia out for an outer loop of the Forrest Park Nature Center (a hilly; somewhat muddy trail about 3.5 miles long).

Neighborhood notes Yes, many of the houses and yards look nice. The price: a near constant drone of weed eaters, edgers, power mowers, etc. I’d rather have more peace and a bit more sloppiness in the yards.

Athletic Notes: I’ve thought about my recent 15K run; the blunt truths are these:

1. The results are in the local newspaper. I used to finish in the “first column”; this year I am listed in the “last column”.

2. I did some playing around with the formulas, age adjustments and the like. First note that this is a very hilly 15K course so doing the old “predictions” based on a flat 5K time just doesn’t wash.

So for the heck of it:

1998: best 5K: 19:53 Steamboat 15K (similar weather conditions): 1:08:22. Slow down ratio: 3.44
2009: best 5K: 24:00 Steamboat 15K: 1:27:23. Slow down ratio: 3.64
Note: my age graded 5K time is 21:38 (meaning 19:53 in 1998 is like 21:38 now) and so with the same slow down ratio I’d my 2009 performance would have been 1:14:29.

So, about 6 minutes of my slow-down can be accounted for by age.
What about the other 13 minutes?
Well, note that 24 times 3.44 is 1:22:34. So about 8 minutes of my slow down can be explained by my 5K slow down; that is, I just don’t run nearly as much as I used to (more swimming and lots of walking).

The remaining 5 minutes can be explained by fatigue from this year’s McNaughton 100, the marathon in May and the 50 miler (24 hour…good 50 plus a 16 mile cool down) two weeks ago.

In fact, I ran a 1:23:13 back in 2005 when I was running a 23:30 (roughly 5K); the slow down was 3.54 which works out to about 1:25:00 even. So I can conclude that the “fatigue/easy race” factor due to the 24 hour race is about 2:20 as I didn’t do a 24 hour race so close to steamboat that year.

Of course, almost all of the above is just meaningless play with the numbers, but I enjoy doing such things from time to time.

Various Posts

Supreme Court: Sotomayor’s nomination didn’t rake in the cash for the GOP as they had hoped.

Republican Extremists: The Republicans aren’t homophobic enough. They don’t follow the Bible closely enough.

Health Care Lobby money is hampering the “public option”. Sure, there is popular support for the public option, but Nate Silver teases out the role that lobby money is playing in fighting the public option. Of course, some oppose the public option on principle, and yes, the general public doesn’t always know what is best (e. g., think of evolution). Nevertheless the statistical analysis of the support and what is influencing Congressional support is interesting.

Health Care You know, having a public option for health care is bad because it enables unhealthy behavior on the part of the public. Or, in other words, when insurance prices are high, people take better care of themselves just to save money. Really.

Science Is gray hair a correlated but non-causal consequence of cancer protection?

The idea is that DNA damage causes stem cells to differentiate into melanocytes that eventually die. Since there are fewer stem cells there will be fewer melanocytes produced over time and hair becomes grey. The fact that damaged stem cells undergo terminal differentiation instead of remaining as stem cells means that they are probably less likely to serve as the progenitors of a cancerous cell line.

Whether this has any real effect on protecting us from cancer is an open question. I doubt it very much but it’s an easy hypothesis to test. Is it true that people with grey hair develop fewer cancers than people of the same age with darker hair?

Interesting possibility, no?

Miracles?

This post from PZ Myers got me to thinking:

There are two ways of looking at this event. You either look at all the hard work that was put into saving Kear and helping him recover (the left column), or you ignore all that and pretend it was a group of people sitting around with folded hands who magically prodded an invisible man to do indetectable things that saved him (the right column).

(Surf to the post to see the chart; the left hand shows that the person got top notch first aid and medical care; the right hand shows the family praying)

Prayer can calm one down and help one do their job to the best of their ability. But ultimately, it comes down to the laws of nature and to what people do.

That “magic” had any part of rescuing someone is ridiculous.