"Racial Profiling"

Ever heard of the police calling in a profiler? When they have some particularly heinous crime, or a what they think might be a serial killer, they request a profiler from the FBI come in and try to establish a profile of what/who the killer may be/look like/do in his "regular" life. Profiling is used because it works. Arizona is just the most recent scream of, "racial profiling." The screamers want to equate profiling with discrimination. All the entertainers who are calling this a civil rights violation clearly haven't read the bill. A Yahoo! news article (here) misrepresents the bill when it says:

The law, signed by Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer last Friday, allows police to question anyone they believe may be an illegal immigrant, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime.

Interesting, but if you've bothered to read sb 1070, you know this is not true. The law specifically states that individuals cannot be stopped only to question them about their immigration status.
In a twist, the article also states that in a recent poll, roughly 71% of Americans supported the new law. So once again, the main stream media is putting way to much light on the protesters, and failing to note the opinion of the majority, which, by the way simply supports the federal laws already written governing immigration.

But I digress. The title of this post is, "Racial Profiling." Several years ago, I remember a quote from, I believe, Andy Rooney, who said, "When the police arrest 95% African Americans in a community that is 95% African American, that is not profiling, that is statistics." Quite frankly, if the arrest rate for non-African Americans was significantly higher, that would argue for racial profiling away from African Americans. There has been a huge outcry against the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) profiling for middle eastern or "islamic" types. Because of this, they bypass the most probable suspect for a terrorist, but shake down a midwest grandma. With the recent uproar about Jihad Jane and other homegrown terrorists, the liberals have been crowing about how racial profiling isn't going to work. Once again, the mainstream media has been right there promoting this attitude. But you know what? If I'm at the track betting on the ponies, and horse A wins 98% of his races, and horse B wins 2% of his races, who do you think I'm gonna bet on? It's called statistics (BTW, a fascinating subject, but definately not my favorite), and using this same approach, I'm gonna chance it that I might miss grandma with a bomb in her underwear, and take a closer look at the 3 or 4 chaps with the funny sounding names coming from somewhere in the middle east or saharan africa.
In Arizona, I personally think it's time for the authorities to throw off any denying of racial profiling. As governor, sheriff, police chief, etc., I would step up to the podium and state clearly and firmly:

We are not worried, here in Arizona, about Canadian illegal immigrants. Nor have we seen a significant increase in the number of Norwegians, Swedes, Russians, or Brits trying to sneak across our border into Arizona. Here in Arizona, 99.9% of the illegal aliens is Hispanic. Therefore, we will focus our attention in seeking out illegal aliens out individuals of Hispanic descent. We will continue to actively pull over and arrest Anyone who appears intoxicated, is speeding, has expired plates, or is seen leaving a bank robbery, regardless of race. If you are a legal immigrant in Arizona, please help us by obeying the posted laws, and having your papers with you, as you were instructed at the time you entered this country. If you are a US citizen, please have an appropriate State Issued ID with you. You know, the one you're supposed to have with you when driving, the one you use to cash your checks, sign in at the doctor's office or the hospital? Yeah, that one.

It is very hard for someone to make a huge stink about profiling if you step up to the mic and say, "Yep, we're using profiling because It works!!

Take care,

ILLEGAL Immigration

On Friday, April 23, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law a bill that will require police to determine immigration status on anyone of suspicion. There is a huge left wing outcry blowing up with this issue, as all sorts of "minority groups" scream of racial profiling and discrimination. They threaten court action to have the new law declared unconstitutional, and are accusing Gov. Brewer of racism. This whole concept seems pretty overwhelming to me, so let's break it down a little, maybe look at the little parts more closely. First off, let's put the new law out there so that you can read it. Arizona Senate Bill 1070. This is the full text of the bill. It is 16 pages long (wouldn't it be nice if our federal government could learn to keep them this short?), so go ahead and read through it. If you type Arizona Immigration Bill into your search engine, you get an enormous list of news coverage, most of it about protest rallies and other such attention getting behavior. This is a nice little left winger special that I read through that hits on all of the so called concerns. (Mexidata) It's not particularly long, and a quick read through gives some nice discussion points to address.
After a couple of days of being tied up with various issues, I finished reading the bill. It really is pretty simple and straight forward. It doesn't have any specific Immigration language in it, it simple says, Arrest illegal aliens, fine and penalize those that knowingly employ them, and fine, arrest, and confiscate vehicles being used to transport them. Much of the bill is amendments and additions to already existing state statutes. There is NO WHERE in this bill where it discusses "racial profiling", or attempts to define characteristics of an illegal alien. But it really is impressive to listen to the protesters and see their signs and rhetoric. I would suspect none of these people have read the bill. And they are a peaceful bunch, too, throwing bottles and trash at the police, and screaming epitaphs and threats. This whole issue is wrapped up in "citizens' rights," "discrimination," "police state," and a host of other buzz/catch phrases. But let's boil this down a little.
1) The police are required to ask for documentation if you are stopped for some other violation, to prove legality.
2) If you can not provide said documentation, you are referred to immigration/federal authorities to make that determination.
3) If you knowingly hire illegals, you can be fined for it.
4) If you knowingly transport, hide, shelter, or support illegals, you may be fined, arrested, or suffer confiscation of property used in this offense.

Pretty simple. I've been listening to a lot of these talking heads screaming about getting arrested and deported if you "forget" to have your documents with you. No, the bill does allow for proving legality if you should happen to be without. But even on that count, let's think about this documentation thing a little. If you are driving a vehicle, you must have your driver's license with you. Pretty much fifty states agree on that, and all fifty agree that a driver's license is accepted as ID. Medicaid/medicare now requires a picture ID be copied and in the chart before getting services. In most school districts around the country, students are required to have a student ID. In my son's high school, here in the midwest, in a pretty peaceful suburb, the students are required to wear the ID by a neck lanyard, with the ID approximately in the middle of the torso, At All Times of the school day. Not having your ID will get you "disciplinary action." As tourist/legal aliens enter the country, they are issued visas, or green cards, or some other form of documentation. Additionally, they are instructed to have these documents with them at all times. They are instructed to keep their passports with them. Are you seeing a pattern here? If you don't have some form of documentation, as dictated by our already overbearing government, you're probably already on the suspicious side of the deal. So you know what? I call Bulls**t. If you're legit, you've got the documentation. And quite frankly, if you've been in the habit of not routinely carrying it with you, you now have officially been warned--go home, get the ID, etc, and put it in your pocket.

We'll have a short discussion about racial profiling later.

Take care.

The Next Obamination

Well,
The financial reform bill is now coming to the floor. And the Dems, led by the heroic Chris Dodd, are once again telling us how important it is to Get This Through FAST! But ya know, I find myself falling back on an old philosophy that has served me well throughout my life. There really isn't anything out there that I should throw a big chunk of money at without sleeping on it. This bill has been brewing for months, below the radar as the Government takeover of healthcare was filling the sky. The bill is 1,408 pages long, and could very well do to the financial industry what Obamao has done to the healthcare industry. To quote Rahm Emanuel, Obamao's chief of staff, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." So rather than sit down with this massive bill, and dissect out every little nuance, and most likely trim out a significant amount of pork to boot, it's rush, rush, rush, gotta get it NOW. Think about this a little. Your old chevy's feelin it's age, and it's time for a new set of wheels. When you get to the lot, the salesman's got the perfect ride for you. Step right up, it slices, it dices, it juliennes! 500 horsepower and 90 miles to the gallon, with room for 10 to sit comfortable. No greenhouse gases, and it never needs an oil change. And all this for just........ a few hundred billion (give or take a little). Boy, howdy, that got my sucker radar hummin red hot, and I wrote it!! As my favorite fictional character, Lazarus Long, once said, "When a man tells you how good it is for you, and what a loss it is for him, step back quickly and check your wallet. Then look around to find out what's in it for him. Look hard, and you'll find it."
It's rather interesting, as a side note, that just as this bill moves onto the senate floor, the suit against Goldman Sach's is released, helping rile up the public against the evil banking industry. And just in the nick of time, along comes the Fed to protect us from the monsters. Rather than recap the whole thing, I'll refer you to someone who has read the whole thing.

Senator Dodd’s Regulation Plan: 14 Fatal Flaws

Published on April 22, 2010 by James Gattuso

Mr Gattuso is a Senior Research Fellow with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank and research institute. The Heritage Foundation is an excellent resource for those wishing to get a conservative assessment of what's going on in our government. I'm going to leave tonight's blog short, and let Mr Gattuso speak for me.

Good Night,
and Good Luck.

Saving the Environment

Global Warming.

According to Al Gore, The Debate is Over. Well, I guess it probably is for Al. After failing in his bid for presidency, he found himself searching for another source of power and influence, and after a fairly limited debate with himself, settled on environmental issues to propel himself back into the limelight and power. While the debate for Al may be over, the real debate is far from over. It's interesting to note that over the last few years, the language has changed. What once were cries of man made global warming are now cries of man made global climate change. The number of scandals that have rocked the doomsayers is mind boggling, with everything from suddenly "lost" data to revelations of what can only be called junk science. Then to really stir up the stench of a conspiracy (by the warmers), the East Anglia Email hack spilled all the tawdry dirty laundry of this crowd into the spot light. You know, maybe Al is right, the debate is over. There is NO man made Climate change, just the random fluxes in temperature that the earth has been cycling through for a billion years or so.
But the really significant thing to take away from all this is to look at what the goal of all of this has been in the first place. How does Al Gore propose we save the planet? By government control of every aspect of human existence. Does that sound familiar? Yep, there it is again, good 'ol left wing liberalism, where it clearly understood that the government knows your needs better than you do, and if everyone would just let them run things, we'd all be alot better off. But if you take a close look at environmentalism in this country, you suddenly see gaping holes in the logic they use, and, more importantly, some of the disasters they have created.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an example of liberal environmentalism gone insanely wrong. Passed in 1973, it has given the government and environmentalists sweeping confiscatory powers over landowners across the country. Visualize this scenario: You are a farmer with five hundred acres of land. You've been successful, and, looking to expand, you purchase another 500 acres not far from your original property. You assume a debt to make this purchase, realizing that the increased production will more than offset that debt. You spend a year cleaning up the acreage, with the intent of planting come spring. But come April, a man from the EPA comes knocking on your door. Environmentalists have examined your new land, and it appears to be habitat for the endangered kangaroo rat. You are now prohibited from tilling, planting, harvesting, modifying, draining, etc the land. It may be "your" land, but you no longer have a say in what happens with it. But what about the debt you assumed? Tuff. What about the labor invested already? Be glad we don't fine you for that encroachment. Well, since the EPA is controlling everything about it, they'll buy it from you at fair market value, so you don't loose your shirt, right? Nope, the EPA doesn't want to own it, they're just going to tell you what you can (or, more appropriately, can't) do with it. Realizing your predicament, you put the land back on the open market. But now, with the land under Endangered Species EPA control, what you paid $1000/acre is now worth about $10/acre. Who wants land you can't use?
This Gestapo like approach to the environment has led to a landowner reaction of known as the three 'S's'. If you see something on your property that may be "endangered," Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. Was that a Spotted Wood Owl on your back 40? Kill it, and dispose of the evidence, quickly.
In Iain Murray's book, The Really Inconvenient Truths, he gives the following example of Endangered Species Act working at it's very finest. Benjamin Cone, of North Carolina, purchased about 8,000 acres of clear cut land. He and his family replanted the forest, and tended it, and over time, redeveloped the healthy, productive forest that had once stood on those 8,000 acres. He had a reason for doing this, of course. He was looking to create a constantly renewable resource for himself and his family, with timber production as a primary resource. Unfortunately, along with the hundreds of habitats that sprang up from this careful management, a habitat for an endangered woodpecker also sprang up. Suddenly, he was denied logging rights to his own property on over 1500 acres of prime timber. Could he sell it off? A real estate appraisal valued the land at $1.7 million without the woodpecker, but only $260,000 with the woodpecker and the accompanying land restrictions. Keep in mind, the woodpecker had moved into the habitat while it was being worked. Apparently, Mr. Cone's thinning, trimming, controlled burns, and selective logging had not prevented the bird from setting up housekeeping in the first place. Mr Cone's reaction to this? He clear cut all of his remaining forest, rather than risk it becoming inhabited by the woodpecker. Score one for the Endangered Species Act. Endangered woodpecker: looser.
OK, I've gotta run, this snoozer has run on too long already. Stay tuned, multiple installments are brewing and in the works.

Doc

Do I need a Regulation to Breath?

Greetings from the bunker!!
I talked the other day about bureaucrats and the internet, and the idea of the free market. Today, let's talk about just a few more examples of the government's interference with Healthcare. One of the hospitals I work with expanded their OR recently. Really, I should say, about six months ago, but we did not start using the new rooms until a week ago. In the interval, the rooms sat empty and unused. Why? Because before the new rooms could be opened for service, they needed a state approval. So why did we wait so long to get this approval? It wasn't for lack of our requesting it. While the hospital space and money were sitting idle, the state Board of Pubic Health waited almost six months before they performed the inspection. They didn't schedule an appointment, give us a date, nothing. And you think the cable guy with, "between 2 and 5 on Friday," is a pain. Keep in mind that OR space is the some of the most expensive real estate in a hospital, very specialized, with very specific requirements. There's no fine for the state for everyday over 'X' that they don't show up, no penalty. That's because there is no accountability. These bureaucrats are faceless, nameless, and unelected. They have no boss to complain to, no supervisor to appeal to, and even if you could find one, firing a government employee is pretty near impossible. I think God himself would have to fill out paperwork to try to fire a government employee.
In a pretty similar vein, any idea of what's required if you, as a private corporation, wish to expand in the hospital business? Let's see. Find some land in what looks like a good market. Maybe do some market studies to see if it looks like a good market. Buy the land, hire an architect to design the building, of course meeting federal, state, county, and city building requirements and zoning codes. Hire a contractor, and build your hospital. Oh, whoops. Missed a little detail. Before you can build, you have to get permission from the state. They'll look things over, and then tell you IF you can build a hospital. If so, HOW MANY beds it can have. How many OR's it can have. If the nice people in the specific bureaucracy don't think THE PEOPLE need a new, better, nicer, bigger, etc, hospital, you can't build. period. OK, so maybe you'll just expand the hospital you've already got. Whoops. Same deal, gotta get the state's permission, and they'll decide if you can get bigger or better. Free Market? What's that?

The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals, or JACHO (pronounced "Jay'-Coe" started in the early part of the twentieth century under the auspices of the American College of Surgeons. It's purpose was to evaluate hospitals to determine if they were safe for doing surgery in. As the number and size of hospitals increased, the program became more unwieldly, and was then merged with the College of Physicians to expand it's scope. It is now simple, "The Joint Commission," and from friends who've recently been inspected, they get a little prickly if you even refer to them as Jaycoe. What was once a service to physicians to help them provide the best care to their patients is now an unholy monster, whose sole purpose is to justify it's own existence. Where once the concern of JACHO was determining whether a hospital scrubbed down the OR between patients and had appropriate, properly used sterilization equipment, they now focus on such things as, "Do you keep appropriate records of all your staff meetings?" "How often are your staff meetings?" Do you have protocols to deal with patient complaints?" JACHO will get in a particular mood, and the entire culture of a hospital will change, almost yearly. I remember one year, JACHO's hot button was door stops, you know, those little rubber wedges used to keep a door open. JACHO decreed that if a door was meant to stay open, it would be built that way, and so door stops were a clear violation of.... something. So hospitals around the country cleaned out the door stops. I read an editorial in a surgeons' journal about one year when JACHO's blood thirst was for whether meeting minutes were typed up in portrait or landscape.
In recent months, the decree has come down from on high. Telephone orders, those middle of the night directions we give nurses when the patient has a fever, a temp, a pain, etc, must be countersigned within 24 hrs. Or maybe 48 hrs, I've seen both times listed. JACHO law. In addition, it has been decided, By His Royal Majesty, The JACHO, that ALL signatures, including, these telephone order countersignature, must be dated and timed. I see this as pretty much a no win situation for me. If I date and time my signature, it's a pretty good bet that I will fall out for not getting those signatures done with in the 24 hr window. If I don't date and time, well, I'm in trouble again. My question: Since the nurse dated and timed the order for when I gave it, and that's when I expected the order to be done, what difference does it make when I countersign the order? Answer: Not a damn bit.

Nuff said.

Goodnight

The Bureaucrats at Work

I just read the article below. This is a supreme example of faceless, unelected bureaucrats attempting to control you. While their expressed goal is "net neutrality," they absolutely fail to recognize the fact that an unfettered free market is the strongest, most effective creator of an unfettered broadband. Read it for yourself, and think of the implications of the government becoming involved in yet one more facet of your life, and a critical one at that. Obama's successful use of the internet in his election is well known. It now serves as the primary thorn in his, and his Marxist network's, side, as it provides an absolutely open forum for discussion of every aspect of his administration that he would, quite frankly, often not discuss.

The FCC and Broadband Regulation. What Part of "No" Did You Not Understand?

BTW, I strongly recommend you bookmark the Heritage Foundation, and make it a daily part of your reading schedule. It is the nation's largest conservative think tank, and a great antidote for the liberal lies spilling out of the mainstream media.

******************************************************************************

OK, so three minutes after I posted this (the first time), I read the following article.

Bandwidth hogs eat away at principle of net neutrality

At first glance, it appears to be in support of FCC regulation. But read on. The final solution offered is the free market at work, if only left alone to do so. The article discusses Comcast's attempt to limit a portion of the internet, in this case due to overly high usage, potentially limiting others' access. This restriction was censured by the FCC in the name of "net neutrality." So far, FCC looks good. But read on, and consider this specific case in the spotlight of the Heritage article, and in the answer provided by the article itself. Simply put, a free market that regulates itself. Let's consider the scenario with out FCC interference. 1) Bandwidth Hogs enter the market. 2) Comcast restricts Bandwidth Hogs. We reach a decision point in the road where consumers vote with their feet. For those who find this restriction bothersome, they change providers. Comcast looses business. If they loose enough business, they will retract the restrictions. ORRRR, maybe people with other providers see Comcast's delivery speeds increase dramatically, and switch to Comcast. These people aren't consumers of the bandwidth hogs, and could care less about them. Either way, the market will regulate itself. The key to this is that because the market is unfettered, there are alternatives to Comcast, and so people can, and will, change to meet their own needs. It is in this same market system that the solution proposed in the New Scientist, charging by volume rather than speed would function. People who truly need, or want, this high bandwidth, would either pay more, or switch providers. People not needing, or using, this bandwidth, would not notice the change per se. Or maybe they would become annoyed that their service is slow, because a high volume of bandwidth hogs continue on. Guess what? Yep, they'd vote with their feet again, and go find a provider with better service for their needs.

Yikes! enough!

Gotta run.

What to expect

OK, so last night I told you I would lay out some examples of your government managed health plan in action, and tonight I'm going to fulfill that promise. So let's see......
How about an entire healthcare system owned, managed, and run by the federal government. It's been around since 1930 give or take, and began to seriously run hospitals in 1945. Yup, the good 'ol VA Hospital system. Although the US government had had pension programs for soldiers going all the way back to the pre-Revolutionary conflicts, the VA as we recognize it came to be under Gen. Omar Bradley in 1945. On Feb. 1, 1946, Bradley reported that the VA was operating 97 hospitals with a total bed capacity of 82,241 patients. Hospital construction then in progress projected another 13,594 beds. Money was available for another 12,706 beds with the
construction of 25 more hospitals and additions to 11 others. (http://www1.va.gov/opa/publications/archives/docs/history_in_brief.pdf) Pretty good start, huh? While there are some good VA hospitals out there, it seems to me that most vets who have any other option avoid the VA hospital system. Over and over again, we here from vets who show up at 8am to see a doctor, wait all day, and are told to come back tomorrow at 4pm when the clinic closes for the day. Horror tales of unattentive staff, unsanitary conditions, and outdated equipment abounds. Even today, as our young men and women return from the gulf and Afghanistan, we hear tales of poor care within the VA system. This is the healthcare system that congress voted to give us on March 22, 2010.
OK, so that's just the VA. It's just a matter of too many vets to care of, because of the recent conflicts. If not for all the recent wars, the VA would be running fine. Well, we could argue the point of the VA bureaucracy being too burdened with regulations and government union contracts to be able to contract and expand quickly, as can be seen in the private sector, but instead, lets' go look at those other shining examples of government run healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid. Here's a few personal examples, from just the last few weeks.
A Medicare patient was sent to me for an endoscopy to check the stomach for a source for her anemia (low blood count). She was scheduled to be in the hospital for most of the next day receiving an Iron infusion, and so I offered to do the endoscopy at the same time. Nope. If we try to do both at the same time, Medicare won't pay for the endoscopy. We'll have to do it two separate days.
I removed a medicare patient's gallbladder yesterday. I normally do this surgery as an outpatient, with the patient going home from surgery without ever being admitted. Nope, can't do that. The patient has to be admitted for that surgery. And so, post op, I wrote admission orders and sent her to the inpatient floor. Once there, a nurse spent close to an hour filling out an "admissions packet," one of the myriad of things the government requires. This left her co-workers stretched to cover her patients while she was tied up with the paperwork. She went home from the floor an hour later, complaining about the delay in going home.
I am often consulted for evaluation and endoscopy (most commonly colonoscopy) for patients admitted with a GI bleed, or blood from the rectum. Once again, we have to work to coordinate discharge and the procedure, because if we do the procedure as an inpatient, we won't get paid for it. Instead, we wait until the patient is ready to go home, Discharge them, and wheel them down to surgery where we re-admit them for the outpatient procedure. Sounds efficient, doesn't it?
Another of my many tasks is to place special IV catheters for patients to receive 6 to 8 weeks of IV antibiotics. Ideally, this is done at home. But not on Medicare. Medicare dictates that it will not pay for home IV antibiotic treatment, and so these patients wind up either staying in the hospital for weeks to get the antibiotics, or have to be admitted to a nursing home. Now, wouldn't it seem that the best place for a patient to recover would be at home? It is, in 99.99% of cases, certainly safer.
This next example isn't with these government payment plans, but you can bet it will be coming soon from your government run healthcare provider.
I have had several opportunities to tangle with insurance companies, most commonly it the guise of the company benefits coordinator, a medical doctor usually. What happens is this: I call the insurance company to try to get my patient more "inpatient days," or maybe a particular procedure that I and the patient have discussed and feel is indicated. This is the conversation:

ME: "My patient isn't ready for discharge/needs procedure X"

Them: "Well, I'm sorry, but we've reviewed the chart, and do not feel that is appropriate"

ME: "OK, since you're going to manage this patient, could I please get your full name and qualifications, so I can transfer this patient to you, as you are apparently going to take over this patient's management"

Them: "Oh, no, we're not telling you what you can or cannot do, we're simple telling you what we're going to pay for. You and the patient can do whatever you feel is appropriate, it's just that we're not paying for it."

I've had to go through this with the private companies, but trust me, it's already happening with medicare/caid, too. What do you think is going to happen when "Them" is a faceless, nameless, government bureaucrat with quotas (set by other faceless, nameless bureaucrats) to meet on the other end of the phone line?

Whew!! I went way over what I had intended for this evening. I'm outta here. Tomorrow, some examples of State bureaucrats and their impact on health care.

Good night.