The CDC Guy Isn't Filling Me With Confidence

Sorry for the lack of blog content lately, it's been a bit busy at work.

But how about that Ebola? Between the CDC telling us it's all going to be fine and people getting infected, it's not really inspiring much confidence.

For example, here's something the guy in charge of the CDC said the other day:

"I think there are two different parts of that equation," he continued. "The first is, if you’re a member of the traveling public and are healthy, should you be worried that you might have gotten it by sitting next to someone? And the answer is no."

"Second, if you are sick and you may have Ebola, should you get on a bus? And the answer to that is also no. You might become ill, you might have a problem that exposes someone around you," he said.

So let me get this straight. I can't get Ebola by sitting next to someone on a bus who has Ebola. Great. Got it. I feel safe. But immediately afterwards, this guys says that if I have Ebola, I shouldn't ride on the bus because I might give it to someone. Wait, what? I thought we were all good with Ebola people riding the bus. How does that work? You can't catch Ebola on the bus, but you can give someone Ebola on the bus?

Now, I'm kind of making fun of him here, because I see what he's trying to do. However, he's making his point in a horrible way. In the first part, he's saying that your likelihood of getting Ebola from riding the bus is really low, because it's highly unlikely that anyone on the bus has Ebola.

However, in the next part, he's talking about someone who actually has Ebola shouldn't ride the bus. Well, duh. Obviously. But that's apples and oranges. And it's kind of just a stupid way to say "Don't get all worried about this Ebola thing". But here's the problem: I don't think anyone would worry about Ebola very much if we all felt like the guys at the CDC were really worried about it on our behalf. However, that's not really the vibe they're sending out. The CDC guy keeps sending out the "This Is No Big Deal" vibe to me, and they keep screwing up the protocols.

Over at Brad's blog-o-rama the other day, Brad mentioned how in Tom Clancy's books, there were always competent and diligent professionals who were combating the bad guys - specifically in the situation where bad guys use Ebola against the US as a weapon.

I don't think that the current guy in charge of the CDC fits that mold. He just seems so reactive and passive. He's not an assertive kind of guy that I feel confident is going to do all the things necessary to really contain this disease in an aggressive manner. He seems mostly concerned with PR.

Which I'm sure really worries the Ebola virus.

Does Your Toddler Hate Itchy Clothing and Recoil from Loud Noises?

Why is everything a "disorder" these days?

For most toddlers, tantrums and clumsiness are just a part of life, something they grow out of. Yet a burgeoning number of parents, like Pamela Trigg, are reporting that their children exhibit baffling, intense behaviors. Some overreact, recoiling from loud noises or refusing to wear itchy clothes. Others underreact, showing little reaction to pain or crashing their bodies into walls.

Wait, what? First of all, no one that I know of (adult or child) likes to wear "itchy clothes". So let's just make sure we're not confused here. There's no such thing as "itchy clothes disorder". That's called wanting to be comfortable. And "recoiling from loud noises" is a symptom as well? Are you serious? If you find that baffling, like this "burgeoning number of parents" do, you may need to consult a therapist - for yourself.

Apparently, I've been suffering from "itchy clothing disorder" AND "loud noise aversion disorder" all my life.

Sure, sometimes kids just overreact to stuff, and sometimes they're pushing limits. However, under this theory of "sensory processing disorder" there is a whole new world of stuff opening up.

Parents can invest in “sensory-friendly” products and attire, from weighted vests to chewable jewelry. They can fit their homes with sensory gyms (some parents have launched crowdfundingcampaigns for home therapy equipment). They can send their children to schools that cater to students’ sensory intolerances and allow them to move around, take breaks and wear headphones. Public libraries host sensory storytimes, theaters stage quiet performances with modified lighting, museums conduct out-of-hours tours with cool-down rooms. Even hair salons are beginning to offer “sensory friendly” cuts.

Sensory friendly attire? Is that like the t-shirts that don't have the little tags in the back? Weighted vests? Are you kidding me? I would never put a weighted vest on a toddler. That sounds ridiculous, and it's probably not super-safe.

But quiet rooms actually sound nice. Maybe we could all benefit from some quiet rooms from time to time. I don't mean to discount actual disorders, but I think we're getting a little far afield here...

(via Althouse)

Medicaid Is Costing States More Money Than Expected - Also Medicare Doesn't Really Work Anyway

Gee, who could have possibly predicted that a government program would be more expensive than originally forecast?

Before President Obama's law expanded Medicaid eligibility, millions of people who were already entitled to its safety-net coverage were not enrolled. Those same people are now signing up in unexpectedly high numbers, partly because of publicity about getting insured under the law.

For states red or blue, the catch is that they must use more of their own money to cover this particular group.

You know, there are lots of folks who are arguing for South Carolina to expand Medicaid because it's "free money" from the federal government. As seems to now be the case, South Carolina's Medicaid expenses are going to be going up anyway.

This also doesn't address the more important fact that Medicaid doesn't actually improve medical outcomes for people relative to being uninsured.

Ultimately, the authors concluded that, “This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

So, the study suggests that expanding Medicaid is one way of reducing financial pressure on low-income groups, but it’s costly and does not improve their health.

Another interesting finding was that though medical spending increased among Medicaid enrollees due to more prescription drug usage and doctors’ visits, the study “did not find significant changes in visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions.” This undercuts another favorite talking point of liberals, which is that expanding insurance actually saves money by reducing costly emergency room visits.

But hey, for some people, the only way to improve a failing government program is to enlarge it.

365,000 Have Signed Up for Private Insurance through Obamacare

I say "signed up" for insurance rather than "obtained" insurance because I still think it remains to be seen how many people have actually had their information properly transmitted to the private insurance company. I'm not assuming a 100% success rate like the Washington Post seems to be. I'm also not sure this number is requiring that people to have actually mailed a payment.

 

 

Remember, an insurance policy is a contract. It doesn't exist until a payment is made. Let's assume everyone's paid though. (Ok, try to suppress your laughter. I'll wait.) I'll tell you what the real problem is.

Done laughing? The real problem is that 803,000 have been enrolled onto Medicaid. That's not exactly the same as private insurance. That means most of the people who have "signed up" aren't paying any premiums at all. They're getting free health insurance from the taxpayers.

Here are also a couple of things to consider. First, millions of people have had their private insurance cancelled because of Obamacare, so the 365,000 number still means that we're in net negative territory for total private plans.

Second, the 365,000 total is still far below what the original estimate of success was. Sure, measured against a total trainwreck of ZERO, it's better. Sure, anything is better than zero. But let's not start congratulating ourselves just yet.

Remember that HHS has a goal of 3.3 million signups by the end of the year. That means we're going to need another three million more people to get the private insurance (not Medicaid option) in the next two weeks. Don't forget, that's what the prices are based on. If they don't hit that total number, the policies are getting re-priced, in the upwards direction.

Finally, there's still no information on the demographics of who has signed up for these plans. Personally, I'm not optimistic that the necessary number of young people have signed up. Don't forget, getting enough premiums from the young, healthy people is one of the necessary conditions to make this whole thing work.

This whole business is going to get out of control. It's going to get out of control, and we'll be lucky to live through it.

Chicks With Guns (15 Million of them)

My son had his first check-up at the pediatrician today. Taking after his mother, he got a perfect score on all tests, and finished early. However, one thing was odd. On the "patient history" form, that I filled out it asked a wide-variety of questions about conditions in the house "smoking or non?"; "heat or no?" "is your water fluoridated?" which all seemed relevant to caring for the child and the child's health. These are all normal questions. The odd part was the last section, which asked whether there were firearms in the home, how many, and what kind?

Now, obviously unattended or lose firearms in the home can be a danger to children. But so can my power tools, painting supplies, cabinets with sharp corners, stairs, and a plethora of other things. Why the focus on firearms? I'm not sure. In any event, I refused to answer those questions out of general principle. Our pediatrician was cool with it and laughed it off. In any event, the issue reminded me of this article I read that had some interesting pictures of women (or "chicks" as they prefer to be called) with guns. Even if you don't read it, the pictures alone are worth a look. 

Here's my favorite.

Which one (gun or chick) do you like? By the way, Pamela (with the .454) is packing some serious heat.