"Since 1970, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has risen eightfold versus defense spending and has tripled versus federal spending as a whole. It’s clear what’s driving the deficit bus."
"President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers issued a report earlier this month estimating that as much as 30 percent of Medicare spending is unnecessary for improving health outcomes. Given such opportunities for easy savings within government, and Medicare's weighty influence in the broader system (many private insurers set payments by adding a percentage to Medicare's rates), it would make sense to reform Medicare first, see what works and what doesn't, and then apply the lessons of that process later to any system-wide fix."
Unfortunately, my mother and I become the “experimentees.” Given my current experience with Medicare, that’s not an experience to which I look forward. Especially in a political environment unwilling to consider options beyond a "one-size-fits-all" single-payer system.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
ON DIVERSITY
In an editorial (Firefighters and Race), the New York Times argued that the Supreme Court decision in favor of the New Haven firemen has "dealt a blow to diversity in the American workplace." But the Times purity on diversity is in question.
If you like verbal evisceration, read the whole thing.
Maureen Dowd is a bonus.
It seems the "American workplace" (to use the Times description) that is the New Haven fire department has a higher percentage of minorities than the American workplace that is ... yes indeed ... the New York Times editorial board its very self. To be quite specific:• The New Haven fire department, according to press accounts, is 43% black and Latino. Or, if you prefer the term of art, 43% of the fire department is "minority."
• The New York Times editorial board, according to the information provided by The New York Times, is -- wait for it -- 12% black and Latino. Or, again, 12 % "minority" if you prefer the term.
• The New York Times Op-Ed page team of columnists, an elite group of which Ms. Dowd is a star, is 19% black and, again according to the Times listing of its Op-Ed page columnists, 0% Latino.
That's right. At the core of the beating intellectual heart of the left-wing establishment where such things are studied with the detail of Talmudic scholars, the New Haven fire department is doing more than three times better on race than the very liberal elites who have set themselves up as its sniffy critics.
If you like verbal evisceration, read the whole thing.
Maureen Dowd is a bonus.
WHY GREEN ENERGY FLOPS
In the comments to an earlier post, William asks "Is there a way to encourage consumption of green energy without subsidies?" To which I will add "or carbon taxes?"
It's an excellent question, and one worth an extended response. Here goes.
First, let's toss out the term "green energy." It's an emotionally laden, nonsensical, worthless piece of political correctness. Generally speaking, "green" is used for "renewable energy" sources (wind, solar, tides) and the term itself is emotionally loaded. Look, coal and oil are also renewable - go to any landfill and smell the methane emitted by rotting waste. It's just that the renewal time is, shall we say, a bit too long.
Now on to alternative energy sources. Can we encourage the consumption of energy from alternative sources without taxes (e.g., cap & trade) or subsidies? The short answer is (a) no, and (b) it's foolish (read as stupid) to try. The reason is that tax or subsidy - either one - removes the incentive to further develop the technology.
Why would I, as a solar cell manufacturer, try to improve my product if I'm making a healthy (subsidized) profit and my competitors - coal and oil - are taxed (by cap & trade) away from competing with me?
No, the only possible outcome, in either event, is to further delay development - and that's the one thing we don't need.
Now, let's move on to the three other topics that really needs discussion if one is to fully understand the "green energy" dilemma: density, storage and distribution.
Density. Of the three major alternative energy sources - solar, wind, and tides, all are diffuse, meaning that the collector must be quite large for each unit of energy collected. Coal and oil are quite dense by comparison. Take solar power for an example - I don't consider it likely that west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada will take kindly to being covered with solar collectors for the convenience of the other 43 connected states. Wind power? The same is true; wind turbines can't even be installed offshore in Massachusetts for fear of interrupting the view from Hyannisport. (I'll put a wind turbine in my back yard for personal use. Ed: Good luck at the zoning office.)
Storage. Coal, oil, and natural gas can easily be stored until needed. Solar, wind, and tides are intermittent, and storage isn't easy. Which is why the electric automobile is unlikely to ever be more than a niche machine. Battery technology today simply can't give a 300 mile range (20 mpg on a 15 gallon tank) and refueling takes a bit longer than 5 minutes at the pump. Scaling storage to megajoule and higher capacities is an engineering challenge, to say the least.
Distribution. Without a doubt, energy distribution is the most significant problem facing alternative energies. Any alternative, to be economical, will have to either have to have the source sited near the consumers (e.g., in or near the cities), or will have to take advantage of existing distribution systems; that is, transmission lines and oil/gas pipelines. Austin's GreenChoice program (referred to in the earlier post) is in trouble partly because of its distribution problems, and as I noted above, I don't think it too likely that west Texans are going to be very happy with high-voltage power lines running through their back yards to keep Austin liberals' air conditioners running on summer evenings.
All that said, none of the problems noted above are insoluble. They can - and will - be solved, just not easily or quickly, and subsidies/taxes won't speed the solution.
As a final point, let me say that in my view, there are two promising alternative energies.
The first is nuclear; put pebble-bed nuclear reactors in the center of every major city (What? Surely you're kidding. Ed: I'd suggest every college campus, starting with Harvard) and solve the electrical distribution problem. (But it's in my back yard! Ed: Yep; that's the point - if you want the energy, pay the price yourself.)
The second alternative is biomass for transportation fuel. The distribution system is already in place; as is flex-fuel technology for incorporation into new vehicles (and for that matter, retrofitting isn't hard). The only unsolved problem is that of avoiding use of existing farm land and food plants (like corn) for the biomass - and that's already being worked.
It's an excellent question, and one worth an extended response. Here goes.
First, let's toss out the term "green energy." It's an emotionally laden, nonsensical, worthless piece of political correctness. Generally speaking, "green" is used for "renewable energy" sources (wind, solar, tides) and the term itself is emotionally loaded. Look, coal and oil are also renewable - go to any landfill and smell the methane emitted by rotting waste. It's just that the renewal time is, shall we say, a bit too long.
Now on to alternative energy sources. Can we encourage the consumption of energy from alternative sources without taxes (e.g., cap & trade) or subsidies? The short answer is (a) no, and (b) it's foolish (read as stupid) to try. The reason is that tax or subsidy - either one - removes the incentive to further develop the technology.
Why would I, as a solar cell manufacturer, try to improve my product if I'm making a healthy (subsidized) profit and my competitors - coal and oil - are taxed (by cap & trade) away from competing with me?
No, the only possible outcome, in either event, is to further delay development - and that's the one thing we don't need.
Now, let's move on to the three other topics that really needs discussion if one is to fully understand the "green energy" dilemma: density, storage and distribution.
Density. Of the three major alternative energy sources - solar, wind, and tides, all are diffuse, meaning that the collector must be quite large for each unit of energy collected. Coal and oil are quite dense by comparison. Take solar power for an example - I don't consider it likely that west Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada will take kindly to being covered with solar collectors for the convenience of the other 43 connected states. Wind power? The same is true; wind turbines can't even be installed offshore in Massachusetts for fear of interrupting the view from Hyannisport. (I'll put a wind turbine in my back yard for personal use. Ed: Good luck at the zoning office.)
Storage. Coal, oil, and natural gas can easily be stored until needed. Solar, wind, and tides are intermittent, and storage isn't easy. Which is why the electric automobile is unlikely to ever be more than a niche machine. Battery technology today simply can't give a 300 mile range (20 mpg on a 15 gallon tank) and refueling takes a bit longer than 5 minutes at the pump. Scaling storage to megajoule and higher capacities is an engineering challenge, to say the least.
Distribution. Without a doubt, energy distribution is the most significant problem facing alternative energies. Any alternative, to be economical, will have to either have to have the source sited near the consumers (e.g., in or near the cities), or will have to take advantage of existing distribution systems; that is, transmission lines and oil/gas pipelines. Austin's GreenChoice program (referred to in the earlier post) is in trouble partly because of its distribution problems, and as I noted above, I don't think it too likely that west Texans are going to be very happy with high-voltage power lines running through their back yards to keep Austin liberals' air conditioners running on summer evenings.
All that said, none of the problems noted above are insoluble. They can - and will - be solved, just not easily or quickly, and subsidies/taxes won't speed the solution.
As a final point, let me say that in my view, there are two promising alternative energies.
The first is nuclear; put pebble-bed nuclear reactors in the center of every major city (What? Surely you're kidding. Ed: I'd suggest every college campus, starting with Harvard) and solve the electrical distribution problem. (But it's in my back yard! Ed: Yep; that's the point - if you want the energy, pay the price yourself.)
The second alternative is biomass for transportation fuel. The distribution system is already in place; as is flex-fuel technology for incorporation into new vehicles (and for that matter, retrofitting isn't hard). The only unsolved problem is that of avoiding use of existing farm land and food plants (like corn) for the biomass - and that's already being worked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
