Everyday Scientist (NotScience)

experts tell us the most effective ways to give to Haiti

After the Haitian earthquake, many of us want to help. Here’s what some experts in charity suggest.

Good Intentions Are Not Enough is a blog that sees itself as a watchdog group, being critical of ineffective charities. They suggest giving to local NGOs that already have a foothold in the area. The burst of funds will help the local workers aid people in need (e.g. rent helicopters and buy supplies). Already having an understanding of the area in need means that the aid workers should be more effective.

Aid Watch and GiveWell, other watchdog groups, also have blog postings about Haiti. GiveWell suggests some groups (that they have deemed effective) who are already working in Haiti:

• Partners in Health has its flagship clinic in Haiti. According to GiveWell  PIH “provides comprehensive health care to individuals in the developing world (mostly rural Haiti and Africa) by creating and managing hospitals, health centers, and a network of community health workers.”
• Population Services International has worked in Haiti for decades, distributing materials, particularly condoms and bednets, to save lives and improve health throughout the developing world.
• The Stop TB Partnership provides tuberculosis drugs in Haiti.

Good luck navigating all the charities. Or ignoring the whole thing.

My favorite is Partners in Health.

Update: Oxfam America and Doctors Without Borders are other good ones!

Tort Reform Foolishness. . .Still Going

It looks like Oklahoma will be the next state to arbitrarily cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits.  This is a foolish way to reform tort law. Here’s why:

• Malpractice suits account for less than 2% of our healthcare spending. They are a relatively tiny problem. (Congressional Budget Office.)

• Because it is so tiny, it is unlikely to cut healthcare costs in any significant way.  (Wash Indep.)

• It violates the separation of powers.  It’s for the court to decide the appropriate level and kind of damages. Legislatures have no business encroaching on the courts’ turf by setting arbitrary caps. Indeed, courts in a number of states (Illinois, Arizona, Maryland, Georgia, to name a few) have shot down or are expected to shoot down their own non-econ damages caps.
  

• It violates equal protection, discriminating with no rational basis against parties with severe injuries versus people with moderate or simply economic injuries. (Wisconsin jurisprudence already holds this reasoning.

• The law already has mechanisms to ward off filing of frivolous lawsuits. A judge can summarily dismiss a suit that fails to state an action upon which relief might be granted. A judge can sanction a lawyer/party for bringing a non-meritorious claim. It is a public misconception that frivolous suits are getting filed all the time; it’s public foolishness to think that these suits would actually prevail in court.

• Noneconomic damages are quality-of-life damages, rather than money-loss damages. Put another way, economic damages are for medical bills, lost wages, and sometimes attorneys fees. Noneconomic damages compensate the admittedly tough to measure loss of quality of life, but which is critical to fairly compensate the victim, especially where the victim isn’t getting much in terms of economic damages. Consider a child who has asthma, but who was initially misdiagnosed and suffered brain damage during a severe asthma attack. The medical bills and lost wages are minimal here, but this kid’s life is screwed by fault of the wrong diagnosis. Oklahoma’s limitation of a $400K cap on noneconomic damages virtually insures that the child will not be fairly compensated.

• This will deter numerous meritorious lawsuits from being filed because lawyers won’t take a case if they won’t get paid enough for it.

There are better ways to keep doctors in your state, and your insurance premiums down, but if we want to pick on tort law, then how about we fix it by capping medical malpractice insurers’ profits, which are significantly higher than the profits of nearly all the Fortune 500 companies. Or maybe we could reduce the medical errors that give rise to all the suits in the first place?

rules for cycling

Here are my cycling rules:

When on a bike, follow traffic rules. That means stop at stop signs, yield to those who have right-of-way, signal turns with your arms, and stay as far to the right as practical and safe.

When breaking rule #1, yield to those people who are following the rules (e.g. if you’re riding on the sidewalk, yield to pedestrians). There are many times that it’s OK to bend the rules: roll through a stop sign if there are no cars approaching,

Do not expect cars to yield to you if you are biking on a cross walk. You do not have right-of-way in a crosswalk if you’re on your bike. So either hop off your bike and walk, or wait till there aren’t cars around.

Wait your turn! Don’t overtake another cyclist who is following the rules and waiting at a stop sign. When you blast through past the law-abiding cyclist, they end up waiting longer (for the confusion among the cars to fade away).

When driving, treat cyclist like other cars, with the rights and the responsibilities that come with that. (Go when it’s your turn at a 4-way stop!) But when driving, remember that cyclists can be killed, and give them the space and respect they deserve.

UPDATE: Lights at night! At minimum, a flashing light in the front and back. If you’re invisible, that’s dangerous to other cyclists (and, of course, yourself).

Any others?

UPDATE: Flyer from SF: biking_give_get_sf

problems with healthcare

I think the following issues should be address with whatever healthcare bill gets passed.

• Transparency: How come I don’t know how much a doctor visit or a specific procedure costs? What other industry doesn’t post prices of their products or services? Why do some customers pay vastly different prices than others getting identical treatment? I should be able to easily find out prices of visits or procedures before I make an appointment, and then pay a straightforward fee (without haggling for the lower price that a big insurance company pays).
• Necessity of Insurance to Pay for all Healthcare: What other insurance is required in order to pay for expected expenses? None. Auto, liablity, homeowner’s insurance are designed to protect individuals against huge, unexpected costs by spreading the burden among many people. This is rational. Paying an insurance company to pay a healthcare provider for annual check-ups and periodic minor illnesses doesn’t make any sense. That’s just paying a middle-man.
• Tax Subsidy for Employer Insurance: Originally designed to get around pay caps during WWII, employer-paid health insurance has become standard in this country. Mostly because the benefit enjoys a giant tax subsidy. This subsidy is not rationally designed, but has encouraged the unhealthy growth of insurance plans that make it more difficult for the uninsured to afford even minimal healthcare. Moreover, it is a tax subsidy to those with the best jobs in America.
• The Uninsured: Being uninsured in America is dangerous. There needs to be a minimum insurance required by law (a la auto insurance) and a cheap policy option for the poor offered by the Federal government or a nonprofit organization.
• The Uninsurable (i.e. Preexisting Conditions): Given the necessity of health insurance, it is not acceptable to deny claims or applications simply to maintain higher profits. The public option may solve this problem, as well.
• Costs: All the above problems contribute to the skyrocking costs of healthcare in America. The high standard of healthcare that we Americans desire is going to be expensive without doubt; nevertheless, there are ways to reduce unnecessary costs.
• Profits: Being a capitalist, I do not condemn profits. However, the profits by the insurance companies are the result of a system that requires health insurance and grants insurance companies freedom to deny claims and charge any rates it wants. That is not a fair combination.

Solving these problems may take many years and many changes to current law. I suggest you read more here.

Alexia Kelley: WTF, Obama?

Obama appointed Alexia Kelley to head the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services. Source. This sucks.  She heads the Catholics Alliance for the Common Good, a needling organization that has resigned itself to the legality of abortion in order to dedicate itself to destroying all access to it.

If this is the “common ground,” then the pro-choice voice is lost.  When  Obama and Clinton waxed on about making abortion safe, legal, and rare, I suppose we should’ve taken a close look at the “rare” part. I figured that was about sex ed and contraceptives, maybe even adoptions counseling and increases in resources for struggling moms. I did not think it would mean cutting off access to abortions. Might as well go to the back alleys at this rate.

And what’s worse is that this all emerges from Obama’s pledge to grow the Executive’s faith-based agencies.  It’s separation, not accomodation, of church from state, Mr President. How does a faith-based agency not establish religion? Double-speak. I don’t know what he’s thinking. Obama is compounding two lousy elements in this move: A faith-based agency with a kniving anti-choice zealot. This is not a good way to go. My suggestion here for Obama? Abort!

New Hampshire Approves Marriage Equality

New Hampshire is the 6th state to approve a marriage equality measure. Source.

Sotomayor – Supreme Court Nominee

Sotomayor is Obama’s nominee to replace Souter on the High Court. You can find some info about her here. I’m intrigued by the nomination, but I can’t say I’m jazzed about it…just yet. Yes, she is female and hispanic and relatively young (54). That’s  politically good, albeit obvious,  for Obama.

But she seems rather lackluster. She doesn’t strike me as an intellectual or a judicial superstar, i.e., her reasoning and authored opinions do not appear to have set heavily relied on precedent.  Her approach to constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence is not clear to me.  And I have to say, on such a divided court, I’d like to know more about her personal views that could bias her one way or other. She’s a dark horse when it comes to nearly every hot button issue: abortion, death with dignity, death penalty, establishment of religion (she’d be the 6th Catholic on the Court, just FYI), gun rights, gay rights.

But she writes clearly and thoughtfully, and that is extremely important. She has a pretty good resume. And she brings a fresh perspective.

It was H.W. Bush who appointed Souter to the Court, and much to Bush’s chagrin, Souter turned out to be a nearly polar opposite of his appointer. I just hope Sotomayor doesn’t turn out to be Obama’s Souter.

2010 Science Funding Looks Good

2010 is lookin’ good for government funding of science endeavors. Check it out.

Add Maine to the List

Maine now the 5th state to recognize marriage equality.   Source. Hopefully, as Maine goes, so goes the nation. Meanwhile,  New Hampshire looks like it’s not far off. Source.  New York seems to be marching full speed ahead. Source.  And New Jersey is…thinking about it. Source.

I should also mention that The District of Columbia now recognizes same sex marriages entered into in other jurisdictions. Source.

So for those keeping score (and I’ll throw in electoral vote numbers for grins here), marriage equality is the law in Connecticut (7), Iowa (7), Massachusetts (12), Vermont (3), and Maine (4).  NH (4), NY (31), and NJ (15) are closing in. CA (55) is uncertain at this point. DC (3) is a marriage equality zone in form if not substance. RI (4) might be, too. Source.

It’s great to see this blowback in light of all the equality bans that came out in 04 and 01. I can’t say I understand why the tide is turning, but there’s gotta be something to the fact that it’s sweeping through New England.

Wow, Iowa!

Iowa is now the third state after Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize same sex marriage. Source. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the state’s statutory ban on same sex marriage violated the Iowa Constitution’s equal protection provisions. If I had to guess which states would be front runners in recognizing same sex marriage, I never would’ve chosen Iowa! And it looks like the marriages will be safe for some time. To overturn the Court’s decision, the Iowa legislature has to vote two sessions in a row to overturn the decision, then it goes to the voters. That’s going to take quite a bit of time.

Meanwhile, Vermont isn’t so lucky. Both houses of the Vermont legislature passed the state’s proposal to recognize gay marriage, but it’s just 5 votes shy of being able to override a veto, and I was surprised to learn that Vermont’s governor is a republican — Jim Douglas. Governor Douglas has vowed to veto the bill. Ah well.

Then there’s New Hampshire and Maine. Both have gay marriage bills floating through their legislatures with some success. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes of it.

I suppose I can take some comfort in these states’ efforts in light of California’s setback.

Vermont is so close, too!

UPDATE 4/7/09: Holy smokes! Vermont just passes its marriage equality bill! They garnered enough votes to override the Governor’s veto.  Source. Congrats, Vermont! Number 4.

New Mexico: Bye Bye Death Penalty

Happily, Governor Bill Richardson signed New Mexico’s repeal of its death penalty law, making New Mexico the 15th state to abolish the death penalty. Source. It’s nice to see his withdrawn nomination of Commerce Secretary has resulted in something smart. Nevermind the philosophical and moral discussions, it makes economic sense. Capital cases cost a ton to litigate (and not just the appeals process), much more than their alternatives. This is sure to keep New Mexico’s costs down. Then there are the pragmatic reasons, which Richardson adopted — the justice systems is imperfect, and he doesn’t want to kill innocent people.

(Aside: This argument doesn’t work for me because we sentence convicts under an imperfect justice system one way or other. Sure the death penalty, after it’s carried out, is a “no backsies” sentence, but so is a 10-year jail term sentence after it’s been served. But what the hey, chalk it up to the severity of the death penalty if you like. . .and the fact that oodles of exonerations keep emerging as our methods of evidence improve.  At least the 10-year servers have a sporting chance of enjoying their exonerations while they are still alive. )

Richardson had to go the “practical reasons” route for political reasons. Most US citizens favor the death penalty. They think it’s just, I guess. So people don’t take kindly to an idea of foregoing justice to save a few dollars. But if you show that the death penalty risks injustice (killing innocents), then people will stomach the savings and put their nooses in the closet.

Kudos, Richardson.

forget about the bonues

OK, now that I’ve had my populist rant, I want to say that complaining about the recent AIG bonuses is a waste of time.

OK, it sucks that $150M of bailout money went to the jerks who had a big hand in causing the finance collapse in the first place. But that’s $150M from $200B, which is a tiny fraction. It’s less than a tenth of one percent. It’s like me giving you a dime from my $1000 purse. Humans think logarithmically when numbers get big, so the difference between a million and a billion doesn’t seem that big, but it’s vast.

Moreover, some fraction of those bonuses have gone to people who are trying to solve the economic problems at AIG, and they should be compensated for fixing things. For the last several years, it’s been a bad idea to pay huge bonuses to the jerks screwing up the economy; now is the time to pay people hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to fix things.

My point is that we shouldn’t waste any more time and money worry about this. Of course, the Obama Administration needs to be more transparent about the bailout management. And the bailed-out companies need to be careful about only paying bonuses to those who help solve the problem. But let’s not ignore real, serious problems in our economy to cry about these bonuses any more than we already have!

who is john galt?

No, seriously. Can you name any John Galts right now?

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand describes a world in which a bumbling, leaching government over-regulates and steals ideas and property from the prime movers of the American economy: the industry leaders. John Galt starts a national boycott … for CEOs. When the Atlases of the economy start disappearing, the government and other leaches have no one to lean on, the economy flounders, and society restarts.

But back to my question: Who is John Galt? When CEOs are running their companies into the ground, demanding huge bailout packages from the government, then continuing to pay themselves millions of dollars in bonuses—it’s hard for me to view these slimeballs as heroes.

Maybe the John Galts have already disappeared. Maybe they witnessed the greed and collusion rampant in the financial industry, and just walked away years ago. But it’s hard for me to view as heroes those who knew what was coming (if anyone did) and act in no way to stop it, saving only themselves.

It seems to me that the industry leaders are not so much Atlases, but the giant weight on the backs of all the real wealth-creators in this world—the entrepreneurs, the engineers, the inventors, the scientists, the crop-harvesters, the trench-diggers, the coal-miners … the taxpayers.

Anyway, read The Fountainhead, instead.

Pope is advocating AIDS in Cameroon

The Pope is visiting Cameroon, and on the way there, he proclaimed that condoms won’t resolve the spread of AIDS; “on the contrary, [distribution of condoms] increases the problem.” Source. There’s no point in rehashing the science here. The results are in; condoms are effective ad reducing the risk of AIDS. (Here’s a very brief over from Salon.com if you want the highlights.)

At this point, the Pope can’t claim ignorance, nor can he reasonably dispute the results, nor can he hide behind his rhetoric that he didn’t mean the way it sounded. He knows, or at least should know, that condoms are effective, and that his message to Cameroon will be taken as “don’t use ‘em.” However unCathologic condoms are, it’s entirely dishonest of the Pope to deny their efficacy and even more dishonest to contradict that!

It might be eyebrow-raising to say that the Pope is advocating AIDS, but that is effectively what he’s doing. When someone advocates Event X (don’t use condoms) knowing that Event Y (increase of AIDS in population) will occur, then that person is culpable for both Events. It’s just like wanting to blow up a building that you know has people in it, even though you genuinely don’t want those people to blow up with the building, too. It’s not just destruction of property; it’s mass murder.

Shame on you, Mr. Ratzinger.

Prop 8 case not looking good for Gays

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning on three issues surrounding Proposition 8. I blogged about this a little while back here. I stand behind my prediction I made back then:

The Court will probably not interpret Prop 8 as a revision just because that is seldom done. I think the pre Prop 8 marriages will be upheld because Prop 8 is not retroactive.

Here’s why, given the oral arguments. The marriage equality advocates did a very bad job. First, flat-out they are bad speakers. They looked down. They assembled sentences in obtuse ways. They avoided answering questions directly, which is a huge no-no when arguing before the Court.  Second, some of their arguments, I hate to say it, were downright lousy. For instance, one argument (more of a suggestion really) was that the Court should just this once toss aside a constitutional amendment by ballot initiative. Sorry, that’s not how a system based on precedent works. Third, they just picked the wrong folks to argue. Two of them were overtly gay, one lesbian and one gay guy. I think it’s great that gay advocates want to argue on their own behalf, but the old saying, even generalized, holds true: he who represents himself has a fool for a client. Their best bet would’ve been to find some rockstar advocate, not gay (!), preferably with some crazy right-wing leanings, who would’ve been just as zealous as the alternatives. Fourth, the justices did not sound impressed. At one point the Chief pointed out that the California Constitution gives Californians the right to fish and asked whether that could be taken away by ballot measure. Oy! Not good.

In contrast, the Prop 8 proponents did quite well. Ken Starr lead the battalion, and I have to hand it to that guy. Schmuck that he is, he is a very good advocate. He has a pleasant and respectful demeanor. His sentences were short, clear, and direct. He established eye contact with the justices. He is a rockstar advocate. Sure, he is a poster child for the Christian Right, but you’d never know from hearing him. But more telling were the questions justices asked of him. They barely talked to him about whether Prop 8 was a “revision” versus an “amendment” to the California Constitution. They barely talked to him about whether Prop 8 screws up the separation of powers. They really focused on the question of whether Prop 8 applies retroactively to same sex marriages that took place between their first ruling overturning the statutory marriage ban and the passing of Prop 8. This is the issue, you might recall, the justices brought up on their own without prompting from the parties to the case. This is the “throw the gays a bone” issue, and I fear it’s the only one the marriage equality advocates will win.

Perhaps there is one tiny hope that the separation of powers issue will survive, but I doubt it. I offer this possibility simply because it wasn’t addressed too much. Really, the justices harangued the marriage equality advocates with questions about amendments and revisions (and tangential stuff like what counts as “inalienable” and “fundamental”) and bothered the Prop 8 proponents with questions on retroactivity. but the issue of separation of powers was humming, untouched, quietly in the background.

Oh, I should also mention that the justices discussed the “nuclear option,” the prospective proposition that would jettison “marriage” from California law altogether and replace it instead with civil union or domestic partnership or something. The justices wanted to know how that option would play out based on how they might rule. I really like that option, I have to say, and I’m sort of irritated that they called it the “nuclear option.” That was the same phrase used by the Dems when the GOP wanted to get around a possible Dem filibuster in the Senate. The phrase was used pejoratively. I think kicking marriage out of the law, at this point, would be splendid. As I see it, that would actually defuse a bomb. Right now, I feel like we’re in the nuke zone. So I’d prefer to think of that prospective proposition as the “non-nuclear proliferation” option. But that has such a lousy ring to it.