After one NHS Trust kills some 1,200 Patients the British are Rewriting the NHS Constitution

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

The NHS apparently has not been making patients a priority in their hospitals.  To correct that the British are rewriting the NHS constitution to put patients first.  Which will hopefully prevent the killing of thousands of patients in their hospitals (see Jeremy Hunt orders fresh consultation on rewriting NHS constitution by Peter Dominiczak, and Robert Winnett posted 4/3/2013 on The Telegraph).

Mr Hunt, the Health Secretary, has confirmed that he will begin consultations later this year on changing the constitution following the scandal at Mid Staffordshire NHS trust, where up to 1,200 patients died needlessly.

Robert Francis, the chairman of the inquiry, said that one of his top priorities was for the NHS constitution to be rewritten, making it explicit that “patients are put first” and “everything done by the NHS should be informed by this ethos”.

The Mid Staffordshire NHS trust manages two hospitals.  One at Stafford.  And one at Cannock.  These two hospitals serve a local population of 276,500 people.  Of which they needlessly killed off some 1,200.

So this is national health care.  This is what the supporters of Obamacare want it to evolve into.  Where the poor quality of health care calls for a rewriting of the health care constitution.  Because only then will they put patients first.

We will be moving away from putting patients first under Obamacare.  As they put more cost-cutting bureaucrats between patients and their health care providers.  Who must answer to the new state bureaucracy when administering health care.  And they will be held accountable for the inefficient use of limited health care resources.  Such as using them on sick people who consume too many of these limited resources.  For there is no other way to cut cuts when the state is paying for health care.  You just have to start saying ‘no’ at some point.  And tell a patient’s family that it is just not cost-efficient to treat your loved one.  Which is putting the state first.  Not the patient.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

New Paper shows Inverse Relationship between Global Warming and Coal-Fired Power Plants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

In the Seventies they were scaring kids about a coming ice age.  And about air pollution so bad that we would one day have to wear gas masks when going outside.  The planet is a lot cleaner now.  And there is no talk about Americans one day having to wear a gas mask when going outside.  And that coming ice age?  Well, they were just wrong about that.  For what they thought was global cooling was actually global warming.  An easy mistake to make.  Because they’re both about temperature.  One just moves in one direction.  While the other moves in the other.  And unless you do something like record temperatures periodically how are you going to know which direction those temperatures are moving?

Then again, perhaps there was cooling then.  Before that cooling turned into warming.  For it now appears the reverse is happening.  A move from warming back to cooling.  Thanks to the Chinese and the Indians (see Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain posted on IOP Science).

Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000 (figure 3) during a period without any large volcanic eruptions… The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions (Gloor et al 2010). However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).

A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade (Harris et al 2012) could contribute to the decreasing airborne fraction in figure 3, although Malhi (2010) presents evidence that tropical forest deforestation and regrowth are approximately in balance, within uncertainties. Land use change can be only a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction; something more than land use change seems to be occurring.

We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1). Increased coal use occurred primarily in China and India… Associated gaseous and particulate emissions increased rapidly after 2000 in China and India (Lu et al 2011, Tian et al 2010). Some decrease of the sulfur component of emissions occurred in China after 2006 as wide application of flue-gas desulfurization began to be initiated (Lu et al 2010), but this was largely offset by continuing emission increases from India (Lu et al 2011).

We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks… Sulfate aerosols from coal burning also might increase carbon uptake by increasing the proportion of diffuse insolation, as noted above for Pinatubo aerosols, even though the total solar radiation reaching the surface is reduced…

Reduction of the net human-made climate forcing by aerosols has been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Hansen and Lacis 1990, Hansen 2009), because the aerosols constitute deleterious particulate air pollution. Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts.

Let’s review.  The airborne fraction carbon dioxide has fallen since 2000.  And, as a result, global temperatures did not rise as projected.  Even though there were no large volcanic eruptions.  Which cause global cooling.  Tropical forest deforestation and re-growth are balancing each other out.  So that’s not a factor in this decline of airborne carbon dioxide.  Which leaves the sole remaining answer for the decline in airborne carbon dioxide levels as China’s and India’s explosion in new coal-fired power plants.  Yes, the wonderful air pollution from burning coal apparently cools the planet.  Like a volcanic eruption does.

Are you seeing the bigger picture here?  For a hundred years or so the Industrial Revolution belched so much ash, soot, smoke, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the air that it left black clouds over cities.  And a layer of soot and ash on everything.  This is why we electrified trains in our cities.  To keep coal-fired locomotives and their great black plumes of smoke out of the cities.  Was there a global warming problem then?  No.  That didn’t come into vogue until Al Gore started talking about it in the Nineties.  When the planet was doomed if we didn’t act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Despite only a few years earlier the climate scientists were warning us of the coming ice age.  Probably because of all that global cooling from our coal-fired power plants, steam engines and locomotives.

As oil, gas and electricity replaced coal-fired boilers everywhere (we even used coal in our home furnaces) all that pollution from coal went away.  And then came the Nineties.  And catastrophic global warming.  Just as China and India began to incorporate some capitalism into their economies.  Which they fed with electricity provided by more and more coal-fired power plants.  And as they belched all that wonderful pollution into the air the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide as well as global temperatures fell.  So I ask again, do you see the bigger picture here?

Yes, global warming is man-made.  At least this is what one can conclude from this paper.  And it is the climate scientists who made it.  By telling us to reduce all of the cooling emissions from our coal-fired power plants.  But, thankfully, the Indians and the Chinese still care enough about Mother Earth to pump those cooling emissions into the air.  And gave us a reprieve from the global warming apocalypse.  But if the climate scientists get their way they’ll bring on that apocalypse.  By pressuring China and India to stop putting those cooling emissions into the air.  And for the sake of the planet we can only hope that they don’t succumb to that pressure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is the Knife Violence in Britain cause for New Sweeping Knife Control Legislation?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Gun control advocates say Britain doesn’t allow anyone to own a gun.  And look how safe it is there (see Hereford stabbings: Two men hurt in attacks posted 4/2/2013 on BBC News Hereford & Worcester).

Two men have been treated in hospital following two “serious attacks” in Hereford.

West Mercia Police said the two victims were believed to have been stabbed in the Hunderton and Westfaling Street areas of the city…

Supt Ivan Powell said: “We would like to reassure local people that we believe that we have now accounted for all suspects connected with the incidents.

“We are in the very early stages of our investigation, but what I can say at this stage is that these appear to have been two separate, unprovoked assaults on members of the public.

“It is not thought that the victims are either known to each other or know their attackers.

Two separate, unprovoked and random knife attacks?  What, people are still assaulted even though there are no guns in Britain?  Is there a knife culture in Britain?  Do they need new knife control legislation?  To put an end to this knife violence?  Do they need to remove all knives from the people?  Including from the responsible knife owners?

Obviously it’s not the knives that are stabbing people.  People are stabbing people.  And I’m guessing that there are a lot of knife owners who never have stabbed anyone.  Just as there are a lot of gun owners in the United States that have never massacred unarmed men, women and children in theaters and schools.  Yet in the United States all we hear is about our gun culture.  And how we need to restrict gun ownership.

Of course the question that begs to be asked is this.  If we successfully prevent even the bad guys from owning a gun would they ever consider picking up another weapon?  Like a knife?  Or if we banned guns would that act simply make bad guys good?  Well, we can look to Britain and see the answer to that question.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

A Princeton Woman should Marry Young before the Best Guys find Someone Else

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Princeton is a very liberal school.  An esteemed member of the Ivy League.  Those graduating are going to have very liberal political views.  They will join approximately 20% of the population that thinks like them.  For this liberal view is a minority view.  As well as a superior view.  At least so think the people who belong to this American aristocracy.  Where privilege and power go hand in hand.  As many Princeton graduates enter the halls of power in Washington.  Just like a nobility should.  And as is common in most nobilities this power elite tends to be male.  So a young woman at Princeton should try to marry one of her fellow classmates.  Before he becomes too rich and powerful and acquires a taste for younger women who are not their intellectual equals (see Princeton Alumna Susan Patton Urges Women to Snag Husband on Campus Before Graduating by ABC News Blogs posted 4/1/2013 on ABC News).

Princeton University alumna Susan Patton, who is a member of the class of 1977, is sharing some wisdom with female students, but not everyone is taking kindly to it…

“It was just intended to suggest to these women who are on campus today, again, keep an open mind. Look around you. These are the best guys,” Patton said…

In the letter, Patton also says although “men regularly marry women who are younger and less intelligent…ultimately it will frustrate you to be with a man who just isn’t as smart as you.”

These guys believe they are the best guys.  And they live life as if they are.  And enjoy the privilege of being in America’s aristocracy.  And most of those in an aristocracy don’t marry for love.  They marry to improve their social and power positions.  The old fashioned way.  And the Princeton girl that snags one of these guys will be lucky.  For if she waits another ten years or so to marry these same guys who are their intellectual equals will probably be looking at younger women.  Because that’s what rich and powerful men do.  Even when they are married.  As even JFK cheated on Jackie.

The liberal elite is a small sector of the population.  Which narrows down the field for a possible husband.  Especially if you’re a smart woman in a man’s aristocracy.  So it’s not bad advice.  Marrying young.  For they are already excluding all the men in that 80% of the population that doesn’t think like them.  Which doesn’t leave many men left for smart, liberal women in their thirties and forties to find someone to marry and raise a family with.  Which is apparently something women still want.  Even if they go to one of the most esteemed and liberal schools in the Ivy League.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

China is Restructuring their Economy to make them less Dependent on their Export Economy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

Those who support more government regulation of business nod approvingly to the way China does business.  The Chinese government manages the economy.  They pick the winners and losers.  They decide where investment capital goes.  And their economy is surging because of it.  Something many in the United States see.  And want to emulate.  Only if the U.S. government had the same power over business the Chinese have they lament.  Then we would see great things in the U.S.  Or so they say.  But would we?

It should be noted that the only booming part of the Chinese economy is their export economy.  That is, it’s not ordinary Chinese enjoying this economic boom.  It’s those in other countries getting those cheap export goods.  And why are they so cheap?  Some will say because of unfair trade practices.  And because of cheap labor.  Which is why the same people who want the U.S. economy to be more like the Chinese economy, more government control, also want to limit the import of those cheap Chinese goods.  For they’re destroying American jobs with their cheap labor and unfair trade practices.  Yet they want the U.S. economy to be more like the Chinese economy.  Even though it is only that cheap labor that makes it all possible (see China issues plan to rejuvenate old industrial base by Aileen Wang and Nick Edwards posted 4/2/2013 on Reuters).

China will expand an urban regeneration plan for ageing industrial cities as part of efforts to restructure the economy and promote more sustainable growth, the National Development and Reform Commission said on Tuesday.

The plan, to run from 2013 to 2020, covers 95 prefecture-level cities and 25 municipalities and capital cities that were once the core of China’s heavy industrial base. A blueprint issued in November 2011 covered 62 cities.

The NDRC said in a statement on its website that investments would be made to help former industrial centres upgrade technology while also providing financing support and encouraging financial innovation – including bond issuance – to raise capital for the program…

Annual personal disposable income for those cities is targeted at 29,900 yuan ($4,822) by 2017 and 13 million new jobs will be created during the same period.

Obviously the Chinese way isn’t working.  If it were there would be no need for such a mammoth restructuring of the national economy.  But they apparently need this restructuring.  As the export economy did make the Chinese government rich.  And those connected to the government rich.  But the ordinary Chinese worker earning those cheap wages sure didn’t get rich.  Which is why they are not helping to sustain the economy.  Making China totally dependent on their export economy.

They are targeting $4,822 in annual disposable income.  This is NOT the disposable income they have now.  It’s what the government hopes they will one day have.  Which really isn’t a lot of money.  For that comes to $401.83 each month.  Or $92.73 each week.  And only $13.21 a day.  So if this was your disposable income in the U.S. you may be able to afford a house or a car payment.  But not both.  Or much else.  Such as that smartphone with those expensive monthly charges.

Of course people will say that it is different in China.  Where the cost of living is less than in America.  So they will be able to buy more with their lower disposable income.  But, again, the reason why their cost of living is less in China is because of their cheap labor.  For that’s how the Chinese system works.  They can underprice the goods of most nations because they don’t pay their people much.  For there are no powerful labor unions negotiating better pay and benefit packages in China.  No.  In China they use the power of their communist government to keep labor cheap.  So they can pick winners and losers.  And get rich in the process.  While the average Chinese worker does not.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,