This morning Brad and Britt are discussing the shooting at Fort Hood. During the conversation, Britt makes the statement that we can’t afford to piss ’em off, because that’s where we get all our oil!
It made me stop and wonder why he thought we were talking about Canada.
Oil Imports October 29, 2009
Or Mexico.
Weird, those guys.
Posted in Energy, Politics: International, Politics: National
Tagged Brad and Britt, Oil
This can’t be good news for Obama.
AT FIRST sight, the idea that Europe has anything to teach America about tackling unemployment seems preposterous. America has some of the most flexible labour markets in the developed world, while continental Europe, in the popular imagination, is a sclerotic place with powerful unions, rigid labour markets and high entrenched joblessness. Over the past quarter-century America’s unemployment rate has averaged 5.8%, compared with 9.5% in France and 9.1% in Germany.
This picture may be changing. Although output in the euro area has fallen as much as in America, the unemployment rolls have not grown as much. The euro-wide jobless rate is up by less than a third, compared with a doubling across the Atlantic. At 9.7%, euro-area unemployment is high, but slightly lower than in America, where new figures due on November 6th were expected to show joblessness hitting double digits.
Well, then again it might. I am convinced that our President is out to build a more left leaning European socialist state than the right leaning socialist state that we have now. So really, it’s hard to tell. But what I mean, really mean, is that The Economist is actually calling him out on it!
The United States has put in place a hefty fiscal stimulus, but relatively little of that money has gone into labour-market policies—schemes to slow firing, boost hiring or support the jobless.
…
Europe’s policymakers, in contrast, appear to have a more coherent strategy: one which uses government money to subsidise a shortened work week, cuts labour costs and, in a few cases, offers tax subsidies to support new jobs. The OECD says 22 out of 29 of its member countries have extended support for workers on furlough, and 16 have cut payroll taxes and other social contributions
Now, before we get all “crazy talk” here, I wanna point out that shortened work weeks and paid furloughs are NOT my ideas of economic good ideas. And as I was reading my edition of The Economist at my favorite Thai place, I just about lost my belly. See, I mostly think that The Economist calls itself The Economist because they wanna trick conservatives into reading leftist views. Almost as if…. But then, in a last second Hail Mary, The Economist pulls off the improbable:
Consider the subsidising of shorter work weeks, continental Europe’s most dramatic innovation. By in effect paying firms to hoard workers, governments have slowed the rise in joblessness and helped prop up consumer confidence and demand. In a vicious temporary slump, driven by a credit crunch and the collapse of global spending, such subsidies make short-term sense. But they prop up demand by fossilising a country’s job structure and preventing the shift of workers from industries with excess capacity (like carmaking) to more promising ones. That ossification will surely come to haunt continental Europe. And in an economy like America’s, where the end of the debt-fuelled consumer-spending binge is forcing big structural shifts, it would be insane.
And the revolution over at The Economist continues:
That is why Europe’s governments are right to focus on waiving or reducing their high payroll taxes, especially for additional hires. And it is why American proposals to finance an extension of unemployment insurance with payroll taxes are misguided. Heavy labour taxes are one reason why Europe entered the downturn with far higher unemployment than America. Lightening that burden would do most to boost jobs—on both sides of the Atlantic.
Thai tasted a whole lot better today. And it was just some more bad news for Obama.
This is what Obama thinks is better:
Raleigh, N.C. — Wake County officials have temporarily closed the county’s H1N1 vaccine clinics due to a depleted supply of the vaccine.
To be fair, Wake County is reporting:
“While the five Wake County H1N1 clinics that opened this morning have run out of vaccine, many physicians and pharmacies in our community do have vaccine available.” said Wake County Community Health Director Sue Lynn Ledford.
And here comes more news of tomorrow:
The closure started at 4 p.m. after the county distributed more than 6,000 doses of the vaccine at five clinics.
Karen North waited in line two hours to get her sons vaccinated at the Public Health Center, G-35, 10 Sunnybrook Road in Raleigh, on Monday.
Can you say Soviet bread lines?
Are they waiting for bread or medicine?
And the most chilling part?
“At this point, we are just trying to prioritize and get those patients who would benefit from it the most right now,” said Dr. Sharmell Wilson, of Growing Child Pediatrics.
You can ration by price or you can ration by fiat.
Posted in Health Care, Politics: National, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged North Carolina, Politics
Washington state has to play the “add-value” card, not “low-cost-leader” ace
That’s the headline from the Seattle Times this morning discussing why Puget Sound lost out on the Boeing factory to South Carolina.
We all look for value in the things that we buy. Old Milwaukee is a cheaper beer than Long Hammer. You can buy WAY more of it than you can that better beer for the money. But, then again, Long Hammer is a better beer. So, what do you buy? Well, that depends. On YOUR value proposition. Almost every American I know enjoys this freedom, this Liberty. The ability to tend to your individual tastes and take advantage of choices. We do it with beer, with gas and even with eye glasses.
Why wouldn’t a corporation do the same? In fact, value is one of the key considerations for corporations. If they do NOT go after the best value, you could argue that they aren’t acting in the best interest of their shareholders. Which makes this just laughable:
Boeing’s decision to establish a second 787 production line in South Carolina was a “race to the bottom” on pay punch to the solar plexus of the Puget Sound region.
Boeing didn’t decide to establish its second production line in South Carolina because of low pay. They established their second production line in South Carolina because it offered more VALUE. But Mr. Talson, contrary to his headline, hammers home the point of low pay:
After all, South Carolina’s new Boeing workers will make about $15 an hour compared with on average the $26 earned by veterans in the company’s Washington-state factories.
But wait, it gets even better. As if lower pay isn’t enough, these Southern states offer such “amenities” as :
few unions and light environmental regulations
Further, those States have *gasp*
spent billions of dollars on incentives, such as cutting taxes and providing job training.
How dare those States create tax structures such that businesses can survive and even flourish. And don’t even get me started on job training; down right repressive!
After these first few salvos, the tone of the article changes. Mostly nonsense not having to do with why South Carolina won the line and Washington lost it. But then comes this gem:
Washington workers are caught in the same downdraft that has been affecting Americans for at least 30 years: slowing growth of middle-class incomes, declining benefits and, through most of the 2000s, stagnant wages.
Ahh, huh?
When you ask the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, they disagree:
Whatever. Different topic for a different post. However, its stunning what people can just write. Because they want to. Simply stunning.
Posted in Economics, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Leftist, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Taxes, zNorth Carolina
I posted yesterday about a North Carolina Democrat that was going to vote against the health care bill; and he did. I also mentioned that we needed Heath Shuler; and we got him. The ones we missed I knew we were going to miss.
Those that voted against:
This dog of a bill made its way through the House but will have a much tougher way finding its way through the Senate. First, it has to get 60 votes to prevent a filibuster and I don’t think it will get that. The Senator from Connecticut seems to have committed that he will not support the bill. Further, there are several Democrats that are more fiscally conservative than others, and they may save the day. Further, thhe vote in Virginia and in Jersey may be weighing on these guy’s minds; American’s don’t want this thing.
Posted in Health Care, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Conservative, Liberal, North Carolina, North Carolina Politics
Posted in Economy
Tagged Barack Obama, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Recession, Unemployment
I just finished a post about Minnesota Democrats being split on the health care bill. Good for them. Then I lamented the fact that they just be holding out for more “what’s in it for them.” Shame on them.
Note to Minnesota Democrats; THIS is how ya git’er done!
WASHINGTON — North Carolina Rep. Mike McIntyre has announced that he will vote against a $1.2 trillion health-care bill in the House of Representatives, saying that reform needs to fiscally responsible and done in targeted steps.
Not only is McIntyre standing up for what is fiscally sound, but he is doing it at significant risk to his standing within the Democratic party:
President Barack Obama met with Democratic lawmakers in closed-door meetings Saturday to woo last-minute commitments.
I like the use of the word “woo.”
But even more than this, Rep. McIntyre actually articulates his reasons. And these aren’t the normal crappy politician speak we normally hear from these folks:
Republicans should grab this guy and thank him for the two gifts he has delivered:
Now all we have to do is work on Rep. Heath Shuler.
Apparently the Minnesota delegation of Democrat Congressmen are split on the health care bill being considered this afternoon:
Firmly in favor: McCollum and Walz; may vote “yes”: Oberstar and Ellison; solid “no”: Peterson
I am relatively surprised. Minnesota is a hugely Democratic state. Perhaps this is due to the fact that there is a significant amount of agricultural population as well as a high ratio of teachers. However, even with that said, Minnesota is one of the States that is fighting the Federal takeover of health care.
But, but. Politicians simply can STOP being politicians:
“It can be a smart strategy for members to hold out until the last minute to support their party’s legislation because they might be able to extract something from this,” said Kathryn Pearson, political science professor at the University of Minnesota.
Sigh. What are we to do?
The race is on. Health Care reform’s time has come-or gone. Whatever side you come down on, the debate is intense. And so it has been with friends and colleagues of mine. One one side you have those that claim the United States spends more money per year on health care and has one of the worst systems in the industrial world. On the other side you have the opposite. These people admit that while we may spend more than any other nation on health care this claim would be equally true of expenditures on blue jeans, pro sporting tickets, aquariums, X-boxes and lawn mowers. Further, rather than being one of the worst providers of medical care, these folks would argue that the Unites States delivers the best care in the world.
Who is right? Let’s go to the data. I am going to focus on the infant mortality rate – IMR. Those who champion universal health care claim that the United States ranks 30th in the world in IMR. A quick check shows that indeed, we do:
Further, they claim that infant mortality rate is an indicator of health care services in a country. For this to be true, three conditions must be met:
Consistency in Reporting
We know for a fact that not all nations count the infant mortality rate the same. In the United States, we use the WHO definition:
Live birth refers to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of the pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life – e.g. beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles – whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached. Each product of such a birth is considered live born.
In Europe, for example, they use a different definition: [see page 122]
The infant mortality rate is defined as the number of infant deaths (days 0-364) after live birth at or
after 22 completed weeks of gestation in a given year, expressed per 1000 live births in the same
year.
And yet, even this definition is not standard across the European Countries: [see page 122]
Almost all countries provided data on overall infant mortality rates. However, many fewer were able to provide data on infant mortality rates by gestational age or birth weight, since infant deaths are registered in separate systems and not linked to perinatal data. These data were available for gestational age only from Flanders and Brussels in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, Austria, Poland, Finland, Sweden, the UK, and Norway.
This means, of course, that for countries like Portugal, France, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and the Netherlands the method for counting don’t abide to even the less restrictive definition that the rest of the EU uses. And all of these countries rank higher than the United Sates in the ranking by the CDC. Further, the United States actually OVER reports the live births and subsequent deaths.
What happens when adjustments are made for these differences?
Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States.
Which Infants Are Dying
The reason for the death is important in measuring IMR as well. If, for example, there is an indicator that results in a much larger IMR than another, and that indicator is present in one population but not another, that would explain a difference in the two IMR rankings. One of the first things that we should look at in determining if these IMR rankings are accurate is to identify if such in indicator exists. And it does:
In 2004, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) was 5.8, nearly twice the rate of 3.0 for Sweden, one of the two European countries with the lowest infant mortality rate (along with Norway).
Using direct standardization (10), we applied the U.S. gestational-age specific infant mortality rates to Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age. If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births—a decline of 33%.
In fact, if we use the numbers above, and just the numbers above, the US moves from its current ranking of 30th to a ranking of 12; tied with Germany. And this does not even include the adjustments that certainly would move many of those countries 1-11 even lower.
And how does the US rank in Preterm Birth Percentage?
We rank among the highest in the world. The ranking that WHO and the CDC and the CIA report are now, perhaps, showing a different story. They may not be showing a picture of the medical delivery service in America for infants, rather, they may be showing that America delivers far more Preterm babies than the rest of the world. Or, or, that we REPORT more preterm live births than the rest of the world. If even one of these two statistics were reported, the US would jump either near the very top or would move up 18 spots on the list.
Non-medical Factors
Lastly, when looking at the IMR as an indicator on the medical delivery, or health care, system, it is equally important to look into factors that contribute to IMR that have nothing to do with that system. And again, we see that there are such factors:
It jumps out of the page; black babies dies at a higher rate than any other followed by Hawaiian and Native American. And why the discrepancy in black women?
the largest difference in rates between the two groups was for preterm birth/low birthweight infants— infants born to Black women had an infant death rate due to preterm birth/low birthweight four times higher than those born to White women.
And why are we seeing black women delivering babies with such low birthrates? Two possible reasons:
One reason African-American mothers have babies who weigh less at birth is that they are at greater risk for such conditions as high blood pressure and preeclampsia.
And the other:
Also, minority women are subject to stress caused by perceived racial discrimination, the researchers said.
David and Collins spoke with black women who had babies with normal weights at birth, comparing them with black women whose babies’ birth weight was very low — under three pounds.
They asked the mothers if they had ever been treated unfairly because of their race when looking for a job, in an educational setting or in other situations.
Those who felt discriminated against had a twofold increase in low birth weights. And for those who experienced discrimination in three “domains,” the increase was nearly threefold.
In David and Collins’ study of black women who gave birth in two Chicago hospitals, 16 percent said their partner was in jail during the pregnancy.
“We interpreted this finding as another indicator of stress, but one caused by institutional rather than interpersonal racial discrimination,” David said.
Net/net, the United States has work to do. We have whole groups of people who need to be served. There are improvements that can be made. But the raw statistic showing that the United States has such a low IMR is simply not accurate. And where it is accurate, it can be explained in large part, to conditions that may have nothing to do with medical service delivery.
In fact, the US has reason to shout out to our medical system:
Since 2000, 42 of the world’s 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States.
Posted in Health Care, Politics: North Carolina
Tagged Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, North Carolina, North Carolina Politics, Politics, Republican
