|
GeorgeWill
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: George
Country: United States
State: Ohio
Metro: Cleveland
Gender: Male
Interests: Reading Science Fiction, Fantasy, Biographies, History and various other works on Philosophy, Theology, and Spirituality. Hiking through the various trails in Cuyahoga County is one of my favorite things to do now.
Mainly I just like to spend time with friends and have a good discussion over a cup of coffee or freshly brewed tea.
Expertise: Questioning everything, not explaining myself well enough, and always making life more interesting but difficult.
Occupation: Administrative
Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me
AIM:  GeorgeWil7
Member Since:
9/7/2004
|
|
| I am going to do an experiment and copy my Facebook blogs and post them here. I am curious to see if different people respond (since this is a private community), people decided to respond on Facebook instead of here, or if no one responds at all. Let's see what happens!
As you can see from the title, I have decided to take a different
direction this time. Unlike the other posts, this one is not
particularly about why I support Barack Obama. Instead, it is the
beginning of a long conversation about health care in general. I spent
a lot of time trying to figure out how to best address the topic of
Obama's health care plan and wrestling with where to begin discussing
this intricate and complex matter. I finally came to the conclusion
that it made no sense to talk about why I favor Obama over McCain
without taking a hard look at our current situation. Thus, I chose to
segment this one conversation into three parts: 1) Looking at the
current situation of health care in America, 2) Investigating health
care systems of capitalist nations with strong economies, and 3)
Investigating the health care plans of Barack Obama and John McCain and
explaining which one I favor and why. I believe that if we do not know
where we are at, then we cannot figure out where we need to go.
Hopefully, you agree and find this worthwhile.
Before I begin, I want let everyone know that all the information
provided below comes from the 2008 report from the World Health
Organization. You can find the report here: http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/2008/en/index.html.
There are many ways that one could attempt to assess the current state
of the American Health Care system: measuring life expectancy, quality
of services, infant mortality, private and public annual expenditures,
technological advancements, and overall public availability. Due to
time constraints, I have chosen to look at the following factors: life
expectancy, child mortality, expenditure on health related to the GDP,
private expenditure on health, public expenditure on health, and
percentage of health coverage for Americans. Unless stated otherwise,
all information is from 2006, which seems to be the most recent data
available.
When comparing the life expectancy of men and women in the United
States to other nations throughout the world, the U.S. ranks 31st out
of 193 countries assessed. The average American lives to 78 years old
with men living until 75 and women until 80. This places the U.S. in a
tied position with Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Kuwait, Slovenia, and the
United Arab Emirates.
There are three countries right below the U.S. (Brunei Darussalam,
Czech Republic, and Qatar) with a life expectancy of 77. And seven
countries above the U.S. (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Malta, Portugal,
Republic of Korea, and the United Kingdom) with a life expectancy of
78. The country with the highest life expectancy is Japan at 83 (79 for
men and 86 for women) followed by Andorra, Australia, Austria, Monaco,
San Marino, and Switzerland at 82.
Looking at infant mortality, the United States ranks 39th (7 deaths per
1000) and is tied with Lithuania, Thailand, Serbia, and Slovakia. There
are three counties right above the U.S.: Belarus, Hungary, and Poland
(6 deaths per 1000). And four countries below: Latvia, Brunei
Darussalam, Chile, and United Arab Emirates (8 deaths per 1000).
Comparing the deaths of children before they reach 5 years old, the
United States only fares slightly better by coming in at 38th (8 deaths
per 1000) and tied with Belarus, Thailand, Serbia, Slovakia, and the
United Arab Emirates. Cuba, Hungary, and Poland ranked better (7 deaths
per 1000), whereas Lithuania, Latvia, Brunei Darussalam, and Chile
ranked just below (9 deaths per 1000).
If you look at how much the U.S. spends on health and compare it to
countries that have a greater life expectancy and better mortality
rates for infants & children under 5, it becomes clear that the
U.S. spends more than any other country. The United States spends
approximately $2,862 per capita, which is 21.8% of the entire budget
and 15.2% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Japan only spends $2,412
per capita, or 17.8% of their entire budget and 8.2% of their GDP.
Additionally, the total expenditure per capita in the United States is
$6,350. This number represents the to total amount of money spent on
health in America (public and private sources). There are only five
other countries that come close to spending the same amount:
Luxembourg, Norway, Iceland, Monaco, and Switzerland. The other
countries spend about $4,000 or less, with the government covering the
majority of the expense.
Based upon this information and these factors, it is clear that
Americans and paying more for health and receiving less care and many
other comparable nations. It also seems clear that the United States
government spends more money on health than anyone else with lower
results. All in all, I think that it is clear that the current system
we have is inefficient and not as effective as it should be and needs
to be. If a country like San Marino can spend less of its total budget
and GDP, and have better results I would think that we could figure out
a way to do the same.
I look forward to reading your thoughts and comments. | | |
| So, the Lenten season is upon us (us meaning Eastern Orthodox Christians) and tomorrow is forgiveness vespers (6:00pm EST). As I am reading my spiritual book written by Thomas Hopko, I came across a passage he quotes Matthew 6:14-15:
For if you forgive men their trespasses,
your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
but if you do not forgive men their trespasses
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
As I was reading this and thinking about the commentary Fr. Hopko gives expanding on the verses, I began to wonder why it is so important for us to forgive others in order to obtain forgiveness. I understand that it would be hypocritical to expect forgiveness from God without being willing to extend forgiveness to others. I am also aware that God calls us to be holy as He is holy and a part of holiness is forgiving those who have wronged us without hope or desire for retribution. However, I wonder if God literally means that if we do not forgive everything that has been done to us by others, then the forgiveness we receive from God will in some measure be incomplete, or perhaps better put, prevented from total fulfillment.
If this passage is to be taken literally, then I think we are all in trouble. I cannot imagine that it is possible for us to remember and forgive all the minor and terrible sins that were directed against us. I am sure that there are things in my past that still effect me today (small things, insignificant in the grand scheme of my life) and have negative bearing on how I interact with others. This must be more true for individuals who have undergone life altering tragedies. And what if someone struggles with the difficulty of forgiving another person but no matter how much they try a piece of bitterness, resentment, anger or pain remains with them? Will they be forgiven and allowed into heaven? Or must they (and we for that matter) reach a state of perfection--being able to forgive all things--before death?
As I think about this more, I begin to come to the conclusion that this passage is to be taken literally but not for the reasons that we typically associate with the message. What if the reason God will not forgive our sins (if we do not forgive others) has more to do with us than it does Him?
(It's late...I need to go to bed...I'll finish this later.)
GW
| | |
| I'm not sure how many actually knew this but today is Nora's first birthday. She doesn't turn 1 until 5:04pm this evening, however, who ever truly waits to celebrate someone's birthday until the actual minute.
So, thanks to all of you who remembered and thanks to all of you who forgot but still care. 
GW
| | |
| For the past few days, Maura and I have been able to sleep through the night without any interruptions. Tom and Sandy (my in-laws) offered to take Nora for a few days since this week is our Spring Break. Although, I miss Nora and we missed her taking her first steps, it has been wonderful being able to just relax and rest and go out without trying to find a babysitter.
They come back today. So, Maura and I are going to a movie this afternoon before it is too late.
GW
| | |
| I know that this post is a little late for this typically snappy reply but I still feel entitled to use it. Some of you may remember a little post I did back in September 2006 about the death of HD-DVD and the rise of Blu-Ray technology as the dominant next-gen force for high definition home entertainment. (http://www.xanga.com/GeorgeWill?nextdate=10%2f2%2f2006+17%3a28%3a44.400&direction=n)
Well it seems that Toshiba (leader of the HD-DVD consortium) has admitted defeat after Warner Bros. ended their neutral stance between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray by deciding to favor Blu-Ray exclusively. Warner Bros. was a huge player in the future of which technology would end up on top and large supporter of HD-DVD (originally they only produced HD-DVD disks). However, with moving all of their support to Blu-Ray technology, HD-DVD was left with a very small amount of popular titles to continue their battle. Additionally, it did not help that Blockbuster and Netflix made public statements supporting Blu-Ray over HD-DVD and tailoring their selection to reflect their new position.
So, where did Toshiba and the rest of HD-DVD supporters go wrong? Well, I have some ideas to share.
The number one reason that HD-DVD did not take over as the successor to DVD was the lack of distribution to the masses. Consumers for the most part do not care how much memory a disk can hold. All they want to know is that the technology that they purchase will do what they want it to do and last as long as the previous technology to which they were accustomed. This means producing a product that has the greatest chance to attract customers and making it inexpensive/convenient enough to purchase.
There was a very simple solution that Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, Memory Tech, and other could have implemented that not only would have saved the format but would have made it the uncontested winner before the end of Christmas 2005. The consortium should have worked together with Microsoft (who backed HD-DVD over Blu-Ray) to incorporate HD-DVD players into the Xbox 360. My guess is that this was not done initially because Microsoft did not want to increase the price of the Xbox 360 (they had to worry about competing with the PS3). However, the consortium could have decided to eat the cost and write it off as promotional spending. This would have cost the consortium around 500 million to 1 billion dollars depending on how much it would cost to produce and install the technology. Had this happened HD-DVD would have had about 3 million players in circulation before the first Blu-Ray player became available and close to 5 million players when the PS3 finally came out.
5 million units would have put HD-DVD far ahead of their competition and probably reversed the decisions by Blockbuster, Netflix, and an assortment of others to abandon the technology (why would stop supporting something that is so popular and has an automatic life expectancy of 7-8 years since it is incorporated into the Xbox 360?).
Now some of you are thinking, "Why didn't they do that?" and others are thinking, "Sounds good but there is no way that the companies could afford to eat the costs." I'll answer second question first. Sure they could have. It is no secret that Toshiba itself spent hundreds of millions of dollars "in promotional consideration" to get Paramount and Dreamworks to exclusively back HD-DVD. Additionally, one of the reasons Toshiba decided to stop producing HD-DVD technology is that it would save the company around 400 million dollars a year. If you add those hundreds of millions of dollars together the cost is almost completely paid for by Toshiba itself. There is no reason that an agreement could not have been made between the HD-DVD consortium and Microsoft. The fact that an agreement was not made brings us to my answer of question number one.
I think the main reason HD-DVD technology was not built into the Xbox 360 was foolishness. Toshiba and its partners were so confident that their technology was the better choice and had a lower price that consumers were bound to support it. In their mind it would be crazy not to. However, they forgot a few things: 1) the bitterness that still exists due to the fallout from Beta vs. VHS, 2) Lack of HD TVs by the majority of Americans, 3) how much buyers hate being forced to purchase the same movie again and again, especially when the one they have works fine, and 4) the influence of the PS2 in saturating the market with DVD technology back in 2002. Toshiba overestimated their product in a economy where very few people wanted to spend their money on something they don't need and might be ultimately discontinued. The only way to ensure success is to make the technology an integral part of the market place, hence, building it into the Xbox 360. There was no doubt that consumers were going to buy the Xbox 360, especially since it came out a year before the PS3 and Nintendo Wii. But there should have been doubt that purchasers of the Xbox 360 would choose to buy an add-on HD-DVD player at the cost of $179.00 (more than half the cost of the console itself). Parents are not going to spend that kind of money on their children when they already have DVDs and a DVD player to watch them on. Additionally, why spend almost $200 when you could buy about 4-6 games for the same price. In the end, it was a bad move and it eventually cost Toshiba and the consortium to abandon the technology all together.
The only way to save face and continue HD-DVD technology until the next successor is to support and produce hyrbid HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players. There are a lot of great features incorporated into HD-DVD that does not exist in Blu-Ray (interactive menus and incredible options for bonus features) which will inspire buyers to purchase a HD-DVD over a Blu-Ray DVD if they have their player can display either one. I'm not sure why sort of profit margin would be attainable but it would be better than nothing.
Send me your thoughts and comments. And maybe next time when I make a prediction people will listen. 
GW
| | |
|
