The Real Problem With the Current Health Care Reform Bill

Insurance companies aren't a necessary part of health care reform. If our governmental leaders were interested in the most efficient and least expensive methods of paying everyone's health care bills, they would pay the health care providers directly.

Here is why;

I first realized this when I was trying to waid through the morass of incomprehensible insurobabble that covers the hundreds of pages in these bills. I thought to myself "is this really a viable solution?". After all, I can remember my law professors constantly admonishing me for not being succinct and concise and yet here, lawyers and congresspeople where churning out a mountainous pile of tedious legal jargon.

To try and bring it all together, I concentrated on the core principles and simplified things a bit.

The plan would use federal money in conjunction with citizens' money to pay insurance companies. These insurance companies would then insure all Americans and pay for their health care costs. The wrinkle is that the insurers will not be able to turn anyone away for pre-existing conditions.

I'm not an insurance expert, but, my limited understanding of the business is that insurance is a form of gamble that determines how much you have to pay, based on how much risk you pose to the company. I.e. if I am a 99 year old smoker who likes to sky dive, my risk to the insurance company is quite high and my premium would be high. If I decide to inject myself with a poison that will definitely kill me in 10 years I will pose a definite risk to the insurance company and they will not likely want to insure me because they know that they will lose the gamble.

Now, if insurance companies are prevented from turning away people who have problems that will definitely require health treatment, it seems to me that insurance stops being insurance. This is because the treatment will be required and there is no gamble. If the insurance co. has to take on sick people then the premiums that those insurance co.s will need to charge to make any money will have to jump drastically.

After all, insurance companies aren't charities, they are out to make money (which is fine). They don't have a magical money exchange that makes your $5,000 annual premium turn into $500,000.00 when you need treatment. They have a group of other customers who they also gamble on. When someone needs treatment, that money comes from the insurance company's profits. If no customer needed treatment the insurance company's would have increased profits. Likewise, if every customer needed care, the company's profits would dry up.

In other words, if you definitely need care an insurance company would lose money if it charged you any less than what it would cost to render the care and cover its overhead.

So, if this happens, then the government and the taxpayer are effectively footing the entire bill for the collective health care. Its not just the government helping to pay your current health care premiums as they stand now, when the insurance companies' risk is relatively low.(Compared to the proposed plan).

When I realized that we are footing the bill one way or the other, it occurred to me that the cost of health care under the proposed reform legilsations could be viewed using this equation:

Total Government Liability = Health Care Cost + Insurance Companies Profit



So if we are ultimately paying the whole thing, why not just cut out the middle man and send payments directly to the doctors?


Then the cost of health care would look like this:

Total Government Liability = Health Care Cost

Chrome Gestures Alternative

Firefox was pissing me off (freezing) and I decided to give Google Chrome another try. Since I hadn't fiddled with Google Chrome since it was in the beta phase, I figured there had been some much needed improvements since my previous encounter.

I was right, Google Chrome has gotten better in the last year, but one thing I sorely missed was the ability to press down a mouse button, flick to the left and "go back" just like in Firefox via "Firegestures".

A quick keyword search yielded a few possible options including "Rocker" designed by "Autohotkey" which allows the most common functions of "back" and "forward" to be accomplished by pressing the mouse buttons in the proper order.

Example: To go backwards, first press and hold the right mouse button while simultaneously tapping the left mouse button. Back you go without even having to move the mouse!

For me this is great as what was little or no work before has just become even less. My wrist will undoubtedly start to fatten up now that it isn't required to do so much laborious flicking.

So theres that issue...but notwithstanding the chubby wrist syndrome, I'm down with this incredibly simple and low impact (resource wise) solution.

[Via Domainrange]

[Original story posted on Lifehacker]

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

Ok, so I pre-ordered COD MW2 an eternity ago and tonight all of my nerd juices are percolating and I am practically itching to burn rubber to my local Game Stop.

Not for nothing, but I'll be posting my thoughts about the game as well as hopefully answering some key questions that I've had regarding the single console, online multiplayer. (Seriously, why this isn't standard on EVERY GAME is beyond me).

Not to rant too much, but seeing as COD3 had this feature and of course Halo 3 I feel that the game developers are either not getting how much players like to be able to get together and blast away as a group online OR.....

The game devs enjoy sticking you with the fact that the only way to play their game while being in the same physical location as your friends is to buy multiple systems/games.

In the immortal words of Eric Cartman..."LAAAAMMMME!".

From what I've heard , single console, multi user online play is NOT, a feature of COD MW2, but I will hold out hope till I verify this myself. At least the rest of the game promises to be freakin sweet.

Zune HD 4.3 Update Fix

As many of you know Microsoft recently released a well received update for the Zune HD. Unfortunately, if you had a 16Gb Zune HD, odds were good that you wouldn't be able to easily get the update by simply opening the Zune software on your computer going to Settings>Devce>Player Update.

For most people, including myself, the software showed that the player was up to date with the old 4.1 software. A bit of searching yielded this very helpful fix from a forum poster on the Zune Forums.

To get the update for the Zune HD 16Gb model, hold down the side mounted media button and the power button for about 20 seconds. The screen will at first pull up the usual volume buttons, then it will power off and if you keep holding the buttons after the power off, it will come back on and you'll see the screen requesting you connect your Zune HD to a computer. (Just like when you did the first time you got it).

After this, you've got to close your Zune PC software and restart it. Reconnect the Zune HD and you should see the prompt that you need to upgrade to the 4.3 software before continuing the sync.

Thanks to "Charm55" for the instructions!

Multitouch Sphere

I found this while trolling on Gizmodo and thought it was too doggone cool.

In Progress... Interactive MultiTouch Sphere. from seeper on Vimeo.

I'm not sure of how the spherical interface is superior to a flat screen, but its undeniably cool!

Palm Pixi on sale November 15 exclusively at Sprint for $100 on contract

Palm Pixie Coming to Sprint [Sprint's Press Release]
Via: Engadget

Article Highlights:

1. Out of pocket cost: $250.00 w/ instant $50.00 rebate and a $100.00 mail-in rebate.
2. Release date: Nov. 15, 2009
3. $79.99 Touchstone wireless charger
4. $19.99 Touchstone back cover
   

Device Highlights [Source: Palminfocenter.com]

1. MSM7627 Dual ARM Processors (600Mhz and 400 Mhz "modem processor")
2. 200 Mhz Graphics card
3. CDMA2000 Evdo Rev A support

Analysis:

Engadget seems to think that the Pre price point of $150.00 makes the $99.99 eventual cost of the Pixie irrelevant and I disagree.

While it does seem a bit odd to price these two phones so close to each other, I think the Pixie may provide the form factor that many are looking for. That is, lacking the flimsly feeling slider functionas well as the sharp edges of the Pre.

Further, the Pre price point is one which quickly dropped from a significantly higher sale price. I think it would be logical to infer that the Pixie will be dropping in price as well soon.

Further, the Pixie specs are certainly not "low end" and that means that in the end Sprint now has an attractive candy bar styled phone that sports a nice operating system with good specs.

I think it will be a winner.

Hulu Might Start Charging

Chase Carey: Hulu to Charge in 2010 - ADverse: Atkinson on Advertising | Blog on Broadcasting & Cable

Article highlights:
News Corp's C.O.O. Chase Carey announces his belief that Hulu needs to start charging for content.

Important facts:
Hulu is a joint venture by NBC Universal and News Corp. [Link]

Analysis:
Hulu has always struck me as too good to be true and there are ways of thwarting the embedded adds. I discovered this accidentally when I started using Playon from Mediamall to stream Hulu to my PS3 Slim. In short, you can simply fast forward through the commercials.

Considering that the embedded commercials are what make Hulu free, being able to fast forward effectively nullifies Hulu's income.

Further, while I am always a proponent of good stuff that I don't have to pay for, I am curious to see how Hulu will make paying for stuff seem attractive. Could this be similar to Comcast's "Fancast" (on demand, online tv)? I.e. providing instant online access to the shows without a delay?

After all, Hulu will have a tough time making a sale to a growing public who have come to love and depend on a free Hulu. In fact, many Hulu users utilize it as a free cable substitute. In other words, Hulu users don't like paying for stuff and Hulu knows this; thats why they created Hulu in the first place.

Even though charging for stuff is going to be initially off putting, Mr. Carey's statements that the model of choice would allow users to "appreciate the value" suggest to me that the paid Hulu subscription could provide a premium service that makes it worth the money.

I know its too early to know for sure, but this could be how "a la cart" cable becomes a reality. To date Hulu has provided a great service, but for me its not been quite good enough to totally ditch the cable. If my suspicions are right and Hulu becomes a virtual cable company, it might provide a very compelling alternative, especially if they offer an a la carte option.

We'll see!

- Konrad