Hat tip to Lil Treva. I thought this was worth posting here. So often I read conservatives nitpicking health care in countries with Universal Health Care. I wonder what they have to say about this example of "the best health care system in the world".

I have a confession to make. We don't have a dishwasher. We did have one thirty years ago but decided not to replace it when it entered dishwasher heaven. We figured that by the time we filled it we could have the dishes washed and dried, anyway. So, every night Mrs Snowy and I go through the daily dish washing ritual. She washes, I wipe. It seems that I can't be trusted with the technical side of things. Besides, after thirty-three years of marriage, Mrs Snowy is smart enough to know that the World's Greatest Procrastinator would be washing dishes at midnight if it was left to him. Or next day, more likely, just as in his bachelor days. Or next week. Whatever...

So, I like to give her a little peck just to show her my appreciation for being rescued from a lifetime of dishwasher procrastination. She doesn't even notice it now. Or maybe she does, and just puts it down to another of my little oddities. She's gathering quite a collection.

So why is FNP about something as frivolous as this? Have you looked at the world lately? That's why. So I thought it would be a nice change to talk about love.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/productivity-soars-as-us-on-the-mend/story-e6frg926-1225794888461

Meantime, the number of US workers filing new claims for jobless benefits fell by more than expected last week to its lowest level since the start of the year, data from the Labour Department showed.

Non-farm business labour productivity rose by an annual rate of 9.5 per cent in the July-to-September period as the economy recovered and employers saved money by slashing staff. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had predicted a 7.0 per cent increase in third-quarter productivity.

A rise in productivity is ultimately good for companies, workers and the economy. More productive companies have greater profits, which allow them to pay higher wages. That also allows the economy to grow faster without generating inflation.

But during a difficult time for the economy, a short-term productivity rise can be a sign that companies slash workers faster that they cut output. In other words, stretching existing workers means hiring fewer new ones.

Still, economic recoveries have in the past generally followed a consistent pattern: first productivity grows, then employment rises, and finally wages increase.

Over the past few weeks, economic data have continued to show that the worst recession since the Great Depression appears to be winding down, with clear improvements in manufacturing and the housing sector.

Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic activity, rose by an annualised 3.5 per cent in the third quarter as the US government's massive stimulus plan boosted consumer spending.

"Message to the Fed: subdued inflation trends it is," said Jonathan Basile, economist at Credit Suisse, in comments on the two latest economic reports.

In its declaration that interest rates would remain near zero for "an extended period," the Federal Reserve yesterday included new qualifiers explaining the conditions that would justify keeping rates low: "low rates of resource utilisation, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations."

The Fed voted to maintain the target federal-funds rate for interbank lending at a record-low range of zero to 0.25 per cent to bolster the fragile economic recovery.

Productivity is defined as output per hours worked. It rose 6.9 per cent in the second quarter of the year, revised up from a previously estimated increase of 6.6 per cent.

A key gauge of inflationary pressures within the productivity report plunged. Unit labour costs fell 5.2 per cent last quarter at an annual rate. Economists had expected a 4.5 per cent decline.

"Modest unit labour costs indicate that there are few short-term worries about inflation," said Steven Wood, chief economist at Insight Economics.

Big productivity gains are common at the end of a recession or beginning of a recovery. But the increases come at the expense of jobs.

The US employment report for October, out tomorrow (AEDT), is expected to show that the jobless rate stayed close to a 26-year high of 9.8 per cent in September.

In a separate report, the Labour Department said new claims for jobless benefits decreased by 20,000 to 512,000 in the week ended October 31. That is the lowest level since January 3. The previous week's level was revised to 532,000.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected a decrease of only 5000 claims.

The four-week moving average of new claims, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, fell by 3000 to 523,750 from the previous week's revised figure of 526,750. That is the lowest level since January 10.

Initial claims still remain at a fairly high level, suggesting the job market has a long recovery ahead.

But some economists still see positive signs in the recent decreases in the four-week-moving average, and the latest 20,000 decrease in initial claims also may suggest an improvement in labour conditions.

My neighbour DoctorD recently had a thoughtful post on where conservatism was heading in the U.S. He also linked to the following article on the Becker-Posner blog on the same theme, which I thought said it all very well.

May 10, 2009

Is the Conservative Movement Losing Steam? Posner

I sense intellectual deterioration of the once-vital conservative movement in the United States. As I shall explain, this may be a testament to its success.

Until the late 1960s (when I was in my late twenties), I was barely conscious of the existence of a conservative movement. It was obscure and marginal, symbolized by figures like Barry Goldwater (slaughtered by Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential election), Ayn Rand, Russell Kirk, and William Buckley--figures who had no appeal for me. More powerful conservative thinkers, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, and other distinguished conservative economists, such as George Stigler, were on the scene, but were not well known outside the economics profession.

The domestic disorder of the late 1960s, the excesses of Johnson's "Great Society," significant advances in the economics of antitrust and regulation, the "stagflation" of the 1970s, and the belief (which turned out to be mistaken) that the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War--all these developments stimulated the growth of a varied and vibrant conservative movement, which finally achieved electoral success with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1981. The movement included the free-market economics associated with the "Chicago School" (and therefore deregulation, privatization, monetarism, low taxes, and a rejection of Keynesian macroeconomics), "neoconservatism" in the sense of a strong military and a rejection of liberal internationalism, and cultural conservatism, involving respect for traditional values, resistance to feminism and affirmative action, and a tough line on crime.

The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the surge of prosperity worldwide that marked the global triumph of capitalism, the essentially conservative policies, especially in economics, of the Clinton administration, and finally the election and early years of the Bush Administration, marked the apogee of the conservative movement. But there were signs that it had not only already peaked, but was beginning to decline. Leading conservative intellectual figures grew old and died (Friedman, Hayek, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Buckley, etc.) and others as they aged became silent or less active (such as Robert Bork, Irving Kristol, and Gertrude Himmelfarb), and their successors lacked equivalent public prominence, as conservatism grew strident and populist.

By the end of the Clinton administration, I was content to celebrate the triumph of conservatism as I understood it, and had no desire for other than incremental changes in the economic and social structure of the United States. I saw no need for the estate tax to be abolished, marginal personal-income tax rates further reduced, the government shrunk, pragmatism in constitutional law jettisoned in favor of "originalism," the rights of gun owners enlarged, our military posture strengthened, the rise of homosexual rights resisted, or the role of religion in the public sphere expanded. All these became causes embraced by the new conservatism that crested with the reelection of Bush in 2004.

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

By the fall of 2008, the face of the Republican Party had become Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Conservative intellectuals had no party.

And then came the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression. These unanticipated and shocking events have exposed significant analytical weaknesses in core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally. Friedmanite monetarism and the efficient-market theory of finance have taken some sharp hits, and there is renewed respect for the macroeconomic thought of John Maynard Kenyes, a conservatives' bête noire.

There are signs and portents of liberal excess in the policies and plans of the new administration. There will thus be plenty of targets for informed conservative critique. At this writing, however, the conservative movement is at its lowest ebb since 1964. But with this cardinal difference: the movement has so far succeeded in shifting the center of American politics and social thought that it can rest, for at least a little while, on its laurels.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead-after-60-years-in-iron-lung-20091101-hqyy.html

Every now and then you read sad little articles in newspapers that have the effect of making you give yourself an uppercut, and stop complaining about your lot in life. I was ten years old when this poor woman was struck down with polio. Her observation "...it's what you gotta do, make the most of it, get over the obstacles on the way,'' is a lesson to us all. Vale June Middleton. The world has lost one fine and gutsy lady.

Dead after 60 years in iron lung

FILE PHOTOS: June Middleton photographed in 2004 in her iron lung and last year with her dog, Angel. Photo: Mario Borg and Jason South

A WOMAN who spent more than 60 years in an iron lung to treat polio has died, aged 83.

June Middleton, who died at a Melbourne nursing home on Friday, was struck down with polio at 22 and marked 60 years in the iron lung on April 5.

She celebrated the milestone with friends and her dog, Angel, by her side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year's interview: The dance of life goes on
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At the time, she described life spent in an iron lung for 16 hours a day in matter-of-fact terms.

''It's hard to explain but it's what you gotta do, make the most of it, get over the obstacles on the way,'' she said.

''It doesn't pay to be miserable,'' she said.

Ms Middleton's passion for dancing was one of the biggest blows dealt by the disease.

But it was no match for letting go of Noel, the love of her life whom she was set to marry the same year she was diagnosed with polio.

He stood by her for five years, before eventually marrying and having children.

But she reportedly kept a faded photograph of herself in her wedding gown in her room for the rest of her life.

Ms Middleton entered the Guinness World Records in 2006 as the person who had spent the longest time in an iron lung.

It has been noted that the richest 1% of the American population owns as much as the combined wealth of the bottom 90%.

 

So let’s think about that. The U.S. is a democracy, right? So everyone is equal. Wrong. If you’re one of the 90% you are not equal to those in the 1%. You just don’t have the power that they do; power to impose your wishes on others through manipulation of the mass media; power to manipulate legislators; and power to manipulate the justice system. Like it or not, little guy, that’s the way it is.

 

It is an inconvenient truth that when it comes to matters that threaten your physical survival, such as ability to afford health insurance, you’re right behind the eight ball. You don’t have the ability to influence Fox News and other “news” outlets. You don’t have the ability to pay big bucks to lobby (bribe) the legislators. And you don’t have the money to take on health insurance companies when they drop you from their plan because you are costing them money.

So what to make of all those little guys who defend such an unequal system? I mean those so-called conservatives in the 90% who speak for those true conservatives who make up the 1%.  I’ve been observing them here on Vox. No, this isn’t another anti conservative rant. It’s an attempt to understand just why someone would defend a system that clearly doesn’t work in their interests. A typical conservative here on Vox would believe the following. Note I say typical. I know that not all conservatives hold to all of these views. I'd still venture to say that these views are typical of the millions who are avid viewers of Glenn Beck:

 

1. Liberals are all stupid.
2. Climate change is a fallacy.
3. Evolution is another such fallacy. 
4. Christianity is the one true religion.
5. Unions are bad.
6. The Health Care system in the U.S. is the best in the world, and needs no change.
7. The U.S. is entitled to enforce its will on every other country in the world.
8. Barack Obama is a Communist/ socialist/ fascist.
9. Fox News is the only true and informed news source.
10. Government cannot be entrusted with anything except the security of the country. (Yes, I know…)

 

 

Notice anything about that list? Yes, that’s right. Those listed items all benefit the top 1% at the expense of the bottom 90%. Not true you say? Let’s look at the list again.

 

1. If liberals are all stupid, then that implies that all conservatives are smart. And who are the real conservatives? Why, those 1%. They don’t want anything to change. They’re doing very well thank you. A lot better than those in the 90% who do their bidding and call themselves conservatives.
2. Climate change? Say that another way. Profit change. And anything that threatens profits must be resisted. That is conservative holy writ. Profits are sacrosanct, even if survival of life on the planet isn't.
   
3. A belief in evolution must not be allowed to flourish. Why? Because a belief in evolution threatens the very foundations of religion, a religion that has served a useful purpose for centuries in keeping the masses in line by threatening eternal damnation if they step out of line.
   
4. Christianity is seen as just another tool to enslave the minds of the masses. That is why the Republicans encourage conservative political propaganda by Pentecostal church pastors. And which political party is the favourite of the 1%?
   
5. Organised labour represents a threat to profits, and as such must be resisted, preferably destroyed..
6. As health insurance is tied to employment, this is an additional weapon to use to keep employees in line. The combined threat of loss of income together with loss of health insurance is a double whammy that will make an employee even more beholden.
   
7. American imperialism? More profits. This was illustrated by Rupert Murdoch’s outrageous (Oil will be $20 a barrel) reason for the Iraq invasion. You see, little guys, you’re not a person to the 1%. You’re a number. You’re a means to increasing the wealth of the 1%. That’s all. And if your life is lost in pursuing that wealth then that is of no consequence. The 1% still get to live out their lives in comfort. They don't fight wars. That's for you.
   
8. The election of Barack Obama frightened the living daylights out of the 1%. That a black man from the wrong side of the tracks could become the most powerful man in the world represents a clear threat to their power. So, it is imperative to them that his presidency is a failure, no matter the risks entailed in following such a self destructive course. The 90% must be "educated" that all power, both political and economic, must reside in the 1%. That the authority of the President of the United States is trashed in the process, and may bring the whole house tumbling down, is either a risk they are prepared to take, or they are so consumed by their hatred that they are blinded to it.
9. Fox News follows the conservative think tank agenda faithfully, together with the likes of Freedom Works. Rush Limbaugh and other well paid conservative mouthpieces spread the message on radio. And that message? What is good for the 1% is good for the 90%. And so the 40,000 who die each year because of lack of access to health care continue to die. No matter, some conservative Social Darwinist will have an answer for that too. They have an answer for anything that they perceive as a threat to their interests.
10. So, little guy, if you don’t have the power to stand up to that 1%, who does? A Government attuned to your interests, that’s who. So that is why the conservative narrative is so shrill about “getting government out of my life”. The 1% want to maintain their privileged position. That is why they finance conservative think tanks, Freedom Works, and Fox News. So they can continue to screw you, including the mindless zombies who cheer them on.
    

 

So, where to from here? The way I see it is that your only chance is to make government a true representative of the people. I think Michael Moore has something with his 15 things that you can do now. I think it is a call to arms that you have had enough. You’ve had enough of conservatives distorting the public debate through their diversionary tactics designed to stifle debate on the real issues. You've had enough of mindless stooges, incapable of thinking for themselves, parroting the latest Beck inanity. You have had enough of politicians who pretend to speak for the people, and yet truly speak for the 1%. If they don’t speak for you, then boot them out regardless of party, race or creed. It’s time for you to adopt the conservative catch cry of “taking back your country”. Only this time it will be a country for the 90%, and not the 1% the conservatives speak for.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/politics/143527/harry_reid_announces_senate_health_bill_with_public_option

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, long a target for the ire of progressives given his reluctance to express support for including a public health-insurance plan in the Senate's health-care reform bill, today surprised reporters with his announcement that the final Senate bill will contain a public option.

States will be permitted to opt out of the plan via their state's legislative process -- an escape clause, if you will, for a handful of Democratic senators who are less than keen on the notion of a public plan.

"I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system," Reid said, "will protect consumers, keep insurers honest, and ensure competition. And that's why we intend to include it in the bill will be submitted to the Senate."

Reid has been under relentless pressure from progressives to craft a bill containing a public insurance plan just as he gears up for what is expected to be a tough re-election campaign for 2010. Just last week, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee launched a television ad targeting Reid that asked, "Is Harry Reid strong enough?"

Most striking is that Reid's decision to include the public option assures the lack of a single Republican vote for health-care reform in the Senate, despite months of wrangling to get at least one -- that of Maine's Olympia Snowe.  So desirous was the president of having a bipartisan bill, the White House seemed ready to cave to Snowe's proposal for a "trigger" -- a sort of imaginary public option, one that would only go into effect after private insurers had a few years to reduce costs on their own. Had the insurers failed to meet a benchmark for cost reduction, then a public plan would be designed, built and implemented -- a scheme that critics, such as Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V., see at best as a delaying tactic.

Just hours before Reid's press conference, the White House signaled weakness on the public option in a speech by Christina Romer, chair of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, who expressed a personal belief in the public option as a means of cost containment, but used qualified language to say so.

In her prepared remarks to journalists and policymakers at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., Romer cited a public option as a "potentially important source of cost containment." Romer was more definite about the benefits of two other measures for holding down costs: Medicare cost reform, and an excise tax, such as that proposed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on high-cost private plans -- a concept opposed by the AFL-CIO.

Asked by AlterNet why her enthusiasm for the cost-savings offered by a public option was limited to a maybe, Romer replied, "I was certainly planning to present all three of these [proposals] as important." But the broader agreement among economists, she said, was for "something like the Kerry proposal."

Up until today, the White House had signaled a willingness to accept Snowe's trigger plan. But when Sam Stein of The Huffington Post asked about any potential cost containment offered by a trigger plan, Romer said she had no evidence of such -- a harbinger, perhaps, of the announcement later in the day that the Democrats would move forward without the Maine Republican.

After days of meetings, Reid explained, he and the two senators who produced the legislation from their respective committees -- Chris Dodd, D-Conn., of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee -- met with White House staff to hammer out a final proposal that Reid described as a "melding" of the two committees' bills. Though tight-lipped about the result, Reid did let on that the final bill would retain the provision for a health-care co-op system contained in the Finance Committee bill.

Next up, the "melded" bill will go to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis of its various provisions.  Any final tweaks will come after the CBO has scored the proposed legislation. The bill will then enter the legislative process, at which point Republicans will likely try to launch a filibuster stop the bill from coming to the Senate floor for a vote.

Reid expressed confidence that he had the 60 votes he would need to stop a promised GOP filibuster of the bill -- a legislative maneuver that, if successful, would keep health-care reform legislation for moving to the Senate floor for a vote by the full body. That likely means that Reid has exacted promises out of conservative Democrats who oppose the public option, such as Mary Landrieu, La.; Blanche Lincoln, Ark.; Ben Nelson, Neb., and the independent Joe Lieberman, Conn., that although they're unlikely to vote for the final bill because of Reid's opt-out plan, they won't side with Republicans in preventing the bill from coming to the floor.

One reporter asked if the Senate Majority Leader had asked the White House to call any of the senators in question. "I haven't asked them to make any calls," Reid said. "It hasn't been necessary at this point."

Looks like we just may get health-care reform, after all.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26265639-601,00.html

Drop meat for vegetarian diet to fight climate warming: Lord Stern

PEOPLE will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

Lord Stern said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.

He predicted that people's attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable.

"I think it's important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating," he said. "I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food."

Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about pounds 3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.

He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was "desperately needed" to secure a deal.

He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18.

"I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary," he added.

Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2C. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.

UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.

Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.

Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: "Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It's not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don't have a methane-free cow or pig available to us."

On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day - the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.

Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern's remarks. "What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment," she said. "Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet."

The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.