I’ve read in many places how stupid it is (and how harmful to economic incentives) to have an insurance company paying for everything a doctor or a hospital does for us, comparing the situation to our car insurance companies paying for our gasoline or new tires (or even homeowner policies paying for our groceries).  For the large part I agree, but there seems to be a much bigger problem drawing a line somewhere in the field of medical care than there is in the auto insurance industry.  The type of auto insurance that is required for all drivers is liability insurance: basically that your insurance provider will compensate the other party should you cause an accident.  Collision coverage (which is not required) will also pay to repair your own vehicle if you cause an accident.  Note here that auto insurance only deals with accidents: unforeseen events.

But what would constitute an unforeseen medical accident?  Surely an industrial accident or car crash would qualify, but those are generally covered by other forms of insurance than our own personal health insurance.  Cancer would be a good example, although certain types of it can be tied to specific actions, such as lung cancer can result from smoking.  At what point does medical care stop being routine maintenance and start being something that insurance would cover in any realm besides healthcare?

Another thing to consider is that health insurance companies may have incentives to pay for preventative care because it would lead to fewer (and less expensive) claims in the future.  Just like we perform (or pay for) regular maintencance on our cars to prevent a more costly breakdown in the future, how do (and should?) insurance companies deal with preventative maintence on our bodies to avoid more costly future bills.  (This also raises more questions about the degree of discretion insurance companies should have when paying claims or issuing policies for people who make unhealthy lifestyle choices.)

P.S. Do mountaineering and rock climbing constitute unhealthy lifestyle choices?

I used to have a lot more respect for John McCain. But this is an example of the same old Washington DC ‘look like you’re actually doing something‘ play. By his campaigns own estimates it will reduce transportation funding by $6.8 billion. Isn’t transportation infrastructure underfunded as it is? Didn’t we have a BRIDGE COLLAPSE in Minnesota last year? I’m glad that Obama opposes this. At least one politician is being intellectually honest about the costs and benefits of this. It’s pandering of the worst kind: claiming to help ‘working families’ while not putting enough money in their pockets to even buy lunch. I’m not surprised at that Hillary Clinton has joined McCain in this endeavor. If they really wanted help ‘working families’, how about cutting the ethanol subsidies that are helping to drive food prices through the roof?

Some Saturday reconnaissance of Exit 38 (Far Side and Deception) revealed that the rock is dry, with a couple of exceptions at Gun Show, Winter Block, (both Far Side) and Nevermind (Deception). Also: NO CROWDS. Plenty of open routes at all areas surveyed. (And the discovery that I’m not as out-of-hiking-shape as I was afraid.)

Sunday was the day to put the information to good use, Megan and I met up with some people and got a good day in at Deception. Moving from Substation to Write-Off to We Did Rock we got a good variety of climbs. There were 8 of us, including 3 lead climbers. That meant that Matt and I were setting most all the routes (also Carsten led some as well). It was nice to actually get outside, and to find that my winter spent climbing in the gym was not in vain. Some routes that had been very tough for me in the past were much easier. I ended up climbing 7 different routes, including 3 leads, by far my most extensive day of climbing outdoors.

There are no photos yet as Megan and I BOTH forgot our cameras, but as soon as I can get the shots from Nina I’ll post some. For now I’m just grateful the season has begun.

When the self-described chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is making mistakes that even George W. Bush knew to avoid he should probably realize that he’s hurting his candidate more than helping her. Last week Mark Penn met with the Columbian Ambassador to discuss a free-trade pact that his candidate has opposes. This is just the latest in a series of missteps from Mark Penn that are doing significant harm to Hillary Clinton’s chances for the democratic nomination.

I am happy that at least one member of the Clinton campaign is breaking from the democratic party line of ‘Trade BAD! Protectionism GOOD!’ it is tempered by the fact that this is the most blatant conflict of interest imaginable: the top strategist for a presidential campaign lobbying on behalf of a foreign government for a trade pact that his candidate opposes. If Mark Penn does not resign from Hillary’s campaign soon he should be fired. If he manages to stay on with the campaign after this I would view it as yet another failure of judgment on the part of Hillary Clinton. In 2000 Bush insisted that Karl Rove resign his other positions to avoid something just like this. Even after the damage has been done, what happens internally in the Clinton campaign will speak to whether these obvious problems are being taken seriously.

However, her recent turn toward negative campaigning and race-baiting that has seemingly become her primary campaign strategy may actually end up costing her some of her own pledged delegates (not to mention supers). Charles Pluckhahn, who was elected as a Clinton delegate to the Washington State legislative caucuses in April, has written an op-ed in the Seattle Times this morning renouncing his support of Hillary and calling for her to withdraw from the race.

Has Hillary considered that her strategy of insisting that all delegates are in play might actually backfire when some of her own see the depths to which she’s willing to stoop? Considering the incoherent arguments that have been flowing forth from her campaign recently I would bet money that it never crossed their minds.

I’m amused because this is yet another in a string of politicians who rail against the ‘ills’ of society getting caught partaking themselves. While this isn’t exactly the same as the anti-gay Senator Larry Craig getting caught in a public restroom sex sting, it’s pretty high up there. Spitzer has made a name for himself championing the nanny-state when it comes to financial matters, suing banks and financial companies whose customers got screwed because they didn’t read the fine print. Now the nanny-state apparatus has caught itself another one of its proponents. I find the hypocrisy humorous.

Now don’t take this the wrong way: I am in no way condoning the practice of prostitution. I find any institution that forces or otherwise coerces women and underage girls (and some men and boys) into involuntary acts absolutely and unequivocally abhorrent. However, I also find irksome the blanket rule that two consenting parties of legal age cannot exchange money for certain services because some people don’t think it’s proper.

If Spitzer goes down for this it should be because he committed an illegal act when his entire career has been spent focusing on the rigid upholding of the rule of law, not because he violated the puritanical sexual mores of our society.

P.S. I also think Larry Craig’s bust was bogus. While engaging in sexual acts in a public place should be illegal, I am fairly wary of making it illegal to signal one’s interest in engaging sex acts, especially if there is not explicit evidence that the acts will happen in public. Otherwise it should also be illegal for men to hit on women they meet in a bar, or for women to wear very revealing clothes to nightclubs.

These Congressmen need to butt-out. There is a good reason the contract was awarded to EADS. They built a better plane. According to news reports on NPR the EADS entry beat Boeing’s entry in ALL FIVE major requirement areas. Do these people actually think that the Air Force would choose an inferior plane to be its next-generation refueling tanker? It would be ILLEGAL (not to mention monumentally stupid) for them to do so.

Now Congress is trying to play politics with the decision, arguing that the decision ‘hurt’s America’s industrial base’. Although John McCain does not oppose the deal, both Democratic candidates have expressed criticism of the award (article in Time). In my humble opinion, if the Air Force thinks the EADS plane is the best candidate even in an increasingly protectionist environment then they should get the contract. Boeing has been screwing up recently with it’s commercial aircraft, so perhaps the USAF is rightly skeptical about the company’s ability. We need to get the best plane for our Armed Services, regardless of the manufacturer.

Political-Post-Script (can’t help it): While the article in Time only has short snippets Clinton and Obama’s remarks, I think the quotes themselves are a bit telling. Hillary’s is reflexively protectionist, arguing that the plane shouldn’t be ‘outsourced’ (apparently ignoring the quality differential). Obama’s quote is more skeptical, expressing surprise that the Air Force did not think that Boeing did a good job. This may be my political bias, but it seems to express the tones of this political campaign: “My choice no matter what” vs “choose the best one and here’s why I think this one is it…”

While he bemoans the spending rampage the GOP has overseen in the last seven years, he told me: “If you think the republicans are bad, wait until we get another Jimmy Carter type in the White House.”

A decade ago the Republicans supposedly stood for small government and I had a choice to make about which half of my political views were more important (the social liberalism or the economic conservatism). 7 years later that choice no longer matters. The Republicans have shown me that their talk about small, less-intrusive government was all a load of crap, and they are just as bad as the “tax-and-spend liberals”. Now that neither party has shown me that they believe in small government and less intrusion into my life, it’s not a hard choice for me. If the democrats agree with me on half the issues why would I vote republican (with whom I agree on none)?

“Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

Now we’ve still got a ways to go until the Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania contests, and Obama tends to make up significant ground where he is actually campaigning. So he may end up winning those, or at least making it close, but even if he doesn’t, shouldn’t the real quote be:

“Could we possibly have a nominee who won fewer than 1 in 3* contests during the primaries? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Clinton.”

*As of the writing of this post, Obama has won 23 states to Clinton’s 11.

Now imagine you are coming off a weekend during which your opponent, a junior senator from Illinois whom no one had ever heard of before 2004, has just swept 4 contests: a west coast state, a midwestern state, a southern state, and a New England state.

How could this happen? How did this newcomer take pledged delegate lead over the most powerful woman in the Democratic party? How could she let this happen?

The answer is clear and simple: Obama has run a better campaign than Clinton. He is reaching more people, he is getting people more excited, and he is presenting himself successfully as the person who can really change the way things are done in Washington. HE IS BETTER AT THIS THAN SHE IS. What does this do to her argument that she is more competent and ready to go than he is?