Hi Humans,
I think that, all things being equal, the Public Option in Health Care Reform is a good thing because it would give the government something to do. Of course, there are problems that require government intervention, but if you don't keep them busy, they will start looking for things to do that are politically expedient but not really necessary. So, if you keep the government busy with its own health plan, it will be less inclined to meddle more than is necessary in all the others.
But, as usually is the case, all things are not equal. The Public Option has become a very divisive issue. The extreme Right hates it because they say it is an opening to a single payer system (or socialized medicine or whatever you want to call it). The extreme Left loves it for the same reason. The fact is, it is not necessarily an opening to anything. It would be just another health plan which might be better, worse, or the same as all the others, depending on how it is run and luck. Although I like it for the reasons I have stated above, it is really not a necessary ingredient in reaching the goals of Health Care Reform, namely cost control and making reasonably good health care available to all Americans.
That's what I think, but of course what do I know? I'm just a dog.
Chloe
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Weight on Airlines
Hi Humans,
Did you see on the news today that an obese movie director made a fuss because an airline would not allow him to fly in one seat because of his weight? All I can say is that if I want to fly in the cabin, my carrier case and I together can not exceed 20 pounds. Now from his appearance on the television, my guess is that you could fly a dozen Chloes in his place and still have some pounds to spare.
Chloe
Did you see on the news today that an obese movie director made a fuss because an airline would not allow him to fly in one seat because of his weight? All I can say is that if I want to fly in the cabin, my carrier case and I together can not exceed 20 pounds. Now from his appearance on the television, my guess is that you could fly a dozen Chloes in his place and still have some pounds to spare.
Chloe
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Jury Duty
Hi Humans,
I'm glad we dogs don't have to participate in jury duty, but if we did we would certainly organize it better than you guys do. You are so technically advanced. Why don't you use your technology? You disrupt a juror's work schedules by expecting him or her to hang around for a week waiting for your call. The juror then has to sit through the endless jury selection process. Then the juror might be chosen to be on a trial of any duration. It's as though the juror's time is of no value. No wonder people try to get out of it. Even we dogs consider our time of some value.
Let me make some suggestions even if it is presumptuous for a dog to do so.
1. Only the judge should be able to disqualify a juror and only for a good reason. This would result in a jury that actually represents a fair cross section of the population, not just those who were unable to get out of it. It would also eliminate jury selection gamesmanship by the lawyers.
2. The jurors should not be physically present at the trial. The trial should be recorded visually and auditorily. The jurors should brought to a session during which the judge would screen them to elminate any that the judge finds to be inappropriate. Then immediately after that, the 12 jurors would watch the video and then deliberate. The time in which the jurors are physically present should be no more than 2 days.
3. The result would be a more cost effective and timely trial system. This would also allow the juror to plan his or her time. By respecting the juror's time, you are more likely get a juror who is motivated to do a good job.
Anyway, that's what I think. but what do I know. I'm just a dog.
Chloe
I'm glad we dogs don't have to participate in jury duty, but if we did we would certainly organize it better than you guys do. You are so technically advanced. Why don't you use your technology? You disrupt a juror's work schedules by expecting him or her to hang around for a week waiting for your call. The juror then has to sit through the endless jury selection process. Then the juror might be chosen to be on a trial of any duration. It's as though the juror's time is of no value. No wonder people try to get out of it. Even we dogs consider our time of some value.
Let me make some suggestions even if it is presumptuous for a dog to do so.
1. Only the judge should be able to disqualify a juror and only for a good reason. This would result in a jury that actually represents a fair cross section of the population, not just those who were unable to get out of it. It would also eliminate jury selection gamesmanship by the lawyers.
2. The jurors should not be physically present at the trial. The trial should be recorded visually and auditorily. The jurors should brought to a session during which the judge would screen them to elminate any that the judge finds to be inappropriate. Then immediately after that, the 12 jurors would watch the video and then deliberate. The time in which the jurors are physically present should be no more than 2 days.
3. The result would be a more cost effective and timely trial system. This would also allow the juror to plan his or her time. By respecting the juror's time, you are more likely get a juror who is motivated to do a good job.
Anyway, that's what I think. but what do I know. I'm just a dog.
Chloe
Friday, February 12, 2010
Advertising Prescription Drugs
Hi Humans,
Let me give you my opinion about one piece of the Health Care puzzle. I understand that one of the biggest costs ( maybe the biggest) in Health Care is prescription medication. One keeps seeing advertisements on television for prescription drugs.
First of all, the cost of advertising goes into the cost and therefore the price of the medication. And, of course, if one company advertises, their competitors need to do the same in retaliation in order to compete.
Secondly, these advertisements are intended to cause patients to pester their doctors to prescribe the drugs they see on television whether they are really indicated or not and whether they are the most cost effective or not (and they are often the least cost effective). This defeats the purpose of making certain drugs prescription only. The reason the government decided to make those drugs only by prescription is that it felt that those medicines are important enough that their management should be directed by a knowledgeable professional person (a physician). Of course the patient will make the ultimate decision about whether he or she will take the physician's advice. But it would be best if the drug company advertisers (who have the ulterior motive of pushing their products) were not part of that decision making process.
So, I would suggest that the law should not allow the advertising of prescription drugs (for humans or pets).
Chloe
Let me give you my opinion about one piece of the Health Care puzzle. I understand that one of the biggest costs ( maybe the biggest) in Health Care is prescription medication. One keeps seeing advertisements on television for prescription drugs.
First of all, the cost of advertising goes into the cost and therefore the price of the medication. And, of course, if one company advertises, their competitors need to do the same in retaliation in order to compete.
Secondly, these advertisements are intended to cause patients to pester their doctors to prescribe the drugs they see on television whether they are really indicated or not and whether they are the most cost effective or not (and they are often the least cost effective). This defeats the purpose of making certain drugs prescription only. The reason the government decided to make those drugs only by prescription is that it felt that those medicines are important enough that their management should be directed by a knowledgeable professional person (a physician). Of course the patient will make the ultimate decision about whether he or she will take the physician's advice. But it would be best if the drug company advertisers (who have the ulterior motive of pushing their products) were not part of that decision making process.
So, I would suggest that the law should not allow the advertising of prescription drugs (for humans or pets).
Chloe
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Smoking
Hi Humans,
Some of you humans smoke cigarettes. We dogs do not smoke! And you think you are smarter than dogs?
Chloe
Some of you humans smoke cigarettes. We dogs do not smoke! And you think you are smarter than dogs?
Chloe
Friday, February 5, 2010
Tucson
Hi Humans,
Here we are in Tucson, Arizona. It was a long drive from L.A., but I love traveling and staying in a hotel. We have a free day today, so I will spend it with Mommy and Daddy. Whatever we do will be fun because we will be together. Mommy, the Beadshaper , will be selling her lampwork glass beads and wirewrap jewelry for 3 days at booth G170 in the Tucson Bead Show at the Doubletree Reid Hotel starting tomorrow, Saturday-Monday, February 6-8. I'll have to entertain myself here in the hotel room. I can't go to the show. After all, I'm a dog.
Here we are in Tucson, Arizona. It was a long drive from L.A., but I love traveling and staying in a hotel. We have a free day today, so I will spend it with Mommy and Daddy. Whatever we do will be fun because we will be together. Mommy, the Beadshaper , will be selling her lampwork glass beads and wirewrap jewelry for 3 days at booth G170 in the Tucson Bead Show at the Doubletree Reid Hotel starting tomorrow, Saturday-Monday, February 6-8. I'll have to entertain myself here in the hotel room. I can't go to the show. After all, I'm a dog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
