Being a good law abiding citizen, I opened up the second letter today regarding the 2010 census. The first letter was just informing me the census would be taken. Ok. Was this a huge waste of money in a tight (or any) economy?
So, I opened up the census and looked at it. It's the short form, which means they are only asking for your name, rank, age and race. How will this information be used?
According to the insert, the information can not be used by law enforcement or by tax collection folks. Hmmm. Really? It's only to decide how much money your neighborhood gets for children and the elderly? It's only to identify how many Representatives are to be in Congress from your state?
The census bureau has in the past given information found on the census to the federal government for purposes other than law enforcement or tax collection. What? It has been claimed the census bureau gave info on residents to the government during World War I so they could look for draft dodgers. Hmmm. It has been claimed the census bureau gave info on Japanese American citizens for the infamous detention camps on American soil during World War II. Is this true? Did the phone ring over at the big boss's house saying, "Hey, I've got some people you may want to round up?" Did the big boss decide the information was needed to secure America?
I don't know if the claims are accurate or not, but it certainly gives me chills just imaging how the information could be used by those who may be in a position to abuse power given them. After all, we are in a time of war against terrorism. Hmmmm.
Another fun little tidbit I've heard is there is no long form this time around. So, genealogy types who delve into the census years of old will be mightily disappointed come 2082.
Guess I'll get out my blue or black pen so I can fill in the blanks. Just too bad there won't be anyone coming around to fill out all the blanks in previous census years with a completely illegible writing skill or with guesses on how old the residents are since the neighbors were supposed to know!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
End of Life Care Rationing?
What do you envision when your time comes to get ready for the exit from the breathing tax paying world to that of the pushing up daisy world? No matter whether you are a firm believer in "quality vs quantity" or in the "I want to go peacefully" mode, you will no doubt find this debate of interest. Why should the government decide who lives and who dies? Why should the government be involved in such a personal private decision?
Does this subject give you chills? It certainly gives them to me as we wait and see if the government is successful in taking over health care by the reform bill on the table.
Thought you'd want to follow this debate of the analyists for the government potentially using Medicare patients as a way to ration, and therefore, "contain" medical costs.
Does the U.S. Need to Ration Costly End-of-Life Care?
/PRNewswire/ -- With skyrocketing Medicare costs contributing to record-setting budget deficits, does the United States need to ration costly end-of-life care? This compelling topic will be the focus of an upcoming debate produced by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in partnership with MacNeil/Lehrer Productions and The National Press Club.
The debate will take place at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, March 24 at 7:00 pm ET. It will be webcast live at www.millercenter.org and air later on PBS stations across the country.
Debaters include:
-- Ken Connor, Chairman, Center for a Just Society, Gov. Jeb Bush's
Attorney in Terri Schiavo case
-- Marie Hilliard, Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, National
Catholic Bioethics Center
-- Dr. Ira Byock, Director of Palliative Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock
Medical Center, Author, "Dying Well"
-- Arthur Caplan, Director, Center for Bioethics, University of
Pennsylvania
Susan Dentzer, Editor-in-Chief of "Health Affairs" and a "PBS NewsHour" analyst, will moderate the debate.
With more than one-fourth of Medicare expenses going to medical treatment in patients' last year of life, debaters will argue what, if anything, the government should do to contain costs. Should the government spend less on costly end-of-life procedures and instead use these resources to care for more patients? Would it be better to ration by choice and let patients and their doctors decide on end-of-life care, such as living wills and pain management? What would be the social implications of a rationing policy? Would the government be deciding who is worth saving and who is not?
This debate will be followed later this spring by debates on the cost of college moderated by Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for "PBS NewsHour" and on the impact of the Internet on democracy moderated by Robin MacNeil of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs is a leading nonpartisan public policy institution aimed at bringing together engaged citizens, scholars, members of the media and government officials to focus on issues of national importance to the governance of the United States, with a special interest in the American presidency.
Does this subject give you chills? It certainly gives them to me as we wait and see if the government is successful in taking over health care by the reform bill on the table.
Thought you'd want to follow this debate of the analyists for the government potentially using Medicare patients as a way to ration, and therefore, "contain" medical costs.
Does the U.S. Need to Ration Costly End-of-Life Care?
/PRNewswire/ -- With skyrocketing Medicare costs contributing to record-setting budget deficits, does the United States need to ration costly end-of-life care? This compelling topic will be the focus of an upcoming debate produced by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in partnership with MacNeil/Lehrer Productions and The National Press Club.
The debate will take place at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, March 24 at 7:00 pm ET. It will be webcast live at www.millercenter.org and air later on PBS stations across the country.
Debaters include:
-- Ken Connor, Chairman, Center for a Just Society, Gov. Jeb Bush's
Attorney in Terri Schiavo case
-- Marie Hilliard, Director of Bioethics and Public Policy, National
Catholic Bioethics Center
-- Dr. Ira Byock, Director of Palliative Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock
Medical Center, Author, "Dying Well"
-- Arthur Caplan, Director, Center for Bioethics, University of
Pennsylvania
Susan Dentzer, Editor-in-Chief of "Health Affairs" and a "PBS NewsHour" analyst, will moderate the debate.
With more than one-fourth of Medicare expenses going to medical treatment in patients' last year of life, debaters will argue what, if anything, the government should do to contain costs. Should the government spend less on costly end-of-life procedures and instead use these resources to care for more patients? Would it be better to ration by choice and let patients and their doctors decide on end-of-life care, such as living wills and pain management? What would be the social implications of a rationing policy? Would the government be deciding who is worth saving and who is not?
This debate will be followed later this spring by debates on the cost of college moderated by Ray Suarez, senior correspondent for "PBS NewsHour" and on the impact of the Internet on democracy moderated by Robin MacNeil of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs is a leading nonpartisan public policy institution aimed at bringing together engaged citizens, scholars, members of the media and government officials to focus on issues of national importance to the governance of the United States, with a special interest in the American presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
