New York State Senate Called Back for Special Session!
Please Contact Your State Senator!
At the urging of Senate Democratic leadership, the New York State Senate will return to Albany for a one-day session on Thursday, August 6.
While Senators are expected to take up the controversial issue of control over the New York City schools, there is the potential for other pending legislation to be acted upon as long as they are in session.
Contact your State Senator and ask him or her to oppose the following list of anti-gun bills should any come up for consideration while the Senators are in Albany.
Senate Bill 4397A and Senate Bill 6005, both micro-stamping bills, would ban the sale of all semi-automatic handguns not equipped with micro-stamping technology.
Senate Bill 4753 would prohibit the possession of concealed firearms in any park or recreational area.
Senate Bill 1598 would require five-year renewals on pistol licenses.
Senate Bill 1715 would impose new restrictions on licensed dealers and require retailers to obtain liability insurance against the possibility of a crime being committed with a firearm any time after it is legally sold.
Senate Bill 5228 would outlaw handguns ”capable” of being fired by anyone five years of age or younger, this legislation would outlaw virtually all handguns in New York.
Senate Bill 2379 would ban frangible ammunition.
Senate Bill 5489 would institute a training requirement for issuance of a pistol license.
Senate Bill 4752 would outlaw .50 caliber firearms.
Senate Bill 3098 would require the mandatory storage of firearms.
Contact information for your State Senator can be found by clicking here.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Declining Integrity Hurts Small Business
Alexandra, my wife's friend from Woodstock, just mentioned that many of the small businesses in the Hudson Valley/Catskills region are dishonest. In fact, it took me ten years to rehab my house in West Shokan in the Town of Olive, and almost as long to find honest craftsmen--an honest, competent plumber who knows how to design a heating system; a responsible electrician; a sober landscaper who does the work efficiently and intelligently; a mason who shows up and does a competent job quickly; a carpenter who finishes the job; a roofer who does not allow tar to spill over the side of the roof and knows that the problems are in the corners and details; and a snow plow guy who shows up punctually when it snows. Along the way I met a builder who took almost two years to re-work my bathroom (including an extension) and disappeared when I objected to the cost's becoming four times his original estimate; a landscaper who went way over budget and called me dishonest for objecting; another landscaper who left a new septic tank sitting on my front yard for almost a year; and a mason who never finished the job.
Without going into details excessively, I learned that requesting references chases away the worst perpetrators (several of them simply disappeared when I requested references) and to get all estimates in writing.
Although construction may be the worst venue, dishonesty seems to be common now. I have seen this in northern New York (Potsdam) as well, and I do not believe it to be a regional pattern. Rather, I suspect that ethics are on the decline.
That is unfortunate. Small business can offer a lot that big business cannot: good relationships, superior service, and understanding local needs. But the lure of the quick buck blinds too many of us from the traditional path of building a reputation through fair dealing. Unfortunately, big business has contributed to this moral climate. I do not believe that a business can become big by being dishonest. But once big, businesses too often utilize their market power in questionable ways. This should open up competitive avenues for small business. But instead of seeing the opportunity in quality, too many entrepreneurs see the opportunity in emulating corporate managers in seeking the quick buck.
The Catskills never seems to develop (which incidentally is fine with me now that my house is built and I have a good list of contractors). I think one reason is the failed moral attitude whereby money and short term gain are put before integrity. Show me an honest culture and I will show you a successful one.
Without going into details excessively, I learned that requesting references chases away the worst perpetrators (several of them simply disappeared when I requested references) and to get all estimates in writing.
Although construction may be the worst venue, dishonesty seems to be common now. I have seen this in northern New York (Potsdam) as well, and I do not believe it to be a regional pattern. Rather, I suspect that ethics are on the decline.
That is unfortunate. Small business can offer a lot that big business cannot: good relationships, superior service, and understanding local needs. But the lure of the quick buck blinds too many of us from the traditional path of building a reputation through fair dealing. Unfortunately, big business has contributed to this moral climate. I do not believe that a business can become big by being dishonest. But once big, businesses too often utilize their market power in questionable ways. This should open up competitive avenues for small business. But instead of seeing the opportunity in quality, too many entrepreneurs see the opportunity in emulating corporate managers in seeking the quick buck.
The Catskills never seems to develop (which incidentally is fine with me now that my house is built and I have a good list of contractors). I think one reason is the failed moral attitude whereby money and short term gain are put before integrity. Show me an honest culture and I will show you a successful one.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Why Not Socialized Medicine?
Anonymous said...
Dear Dr. Langbert:
Why should we be afraid of "socialized medicine"? The government runs health care for our service men and service women. The health care for our military is first rate. You get health care from CUNY. Under their plan you are covered even for dental care. The Senators and Congressmen get their health care from the government. They, too, have excellent coverage.
So the military, the Congress, and you are part of the "socialized" medicine system in this country. I have not heard you complain about the quality of care that you receive.
Mitchell Langbert said...
We should not be afraid of socialized medicine. We should recognize it as another potentially mismanaged government program that will reduce standards and intensify the 30-year decline in the real hourly wage. Take a trip on the New York City subway. The service irregularities, filth, often rats scurrying around. Now, project the same incompetence to health care. A few years ago there was a major scandal about the Veterans Administration hospitals, where the veterans were being kept in filth. Do you wish to treated in a hospital run by the same people? Have you visited a DMV office lately?
Now, you mention CUNY. CUNY does not provide me with care. They pay for the care I receive. The care is provided by an independent hospital that makes its own decisions and has to compete with other hospitals. That is not what is being proposed now. That is to be eliminated.
As far as the CUNY dental insurance, the benefits were repeatedly reduced between 2000 and now to virtually nothing. We no longer have meaningful dental insurance. What is to stop Washington from similarly reducing health benefits?
That is their plan. I do not deny that the current system has resulted in waste. The reasons are complex and many of them would be resolved by a single payer system. But that system would result in government controlled rationing and an elimination of medical innovation.
The problem with socialized health care (which is NOT the current proposal) is that it causes stagnation. There is one country that has been responsible for the majority of pharmaceutical and health care advance: the United States. There is also one country with a non-state-dominated financing system: the United States. Proponents of national health insurance aim to manage the cost of health care by REDUCING TREATMENT (and eliminating innovation). The reason that national health insurance is cheaper in Canada is that the Canadians limit treatment. Much of this is for unnecessary care, which is an advantage. But also, they will reduce innovative or new treatment.
Thus, a national system will enjoy economies of scale and possibly better management in some ways, but it would eliminate innovation. It would enable government officials to pull the plug on treatments that they deem inappropriate. Obama proposes this by requiring counseling to the elderly not to receive treatment but to die on narcotics. That is the crux of the reason why costs are lower in Canada and in Europe. Is that what you want, to be told to die when you are old?
Since the bureaucratic approach to government management has been an abject failure elsewhere in our society, why do you believe it to be an effective method when applied to health care? Veterans DO NOT receive "first rate" care. The standards at the veterans hospitals have been an ongoing scandal. Like everything else government touches, the veterans hospitals have been turned into sh*tholes.
The potential for break through cures that significantly extend life will be staunched by national health insurance. A decentralized system can support innovation much better and will facilitate the application of new and different treatments.
National health insurance is failure of the American dream. The Declaration of Independence states that all of us are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Socialized medicine attacks liberty; it circumscribes and attacks the right to life; and it limits the pursuit of happiness.
Dear Dr. Langbert:
Why should we be afraid of "socialized medicine"? The government runs health care for our service men and service women. The health care for our military is first rate. You get health care from CUNY. Under their plan you are covered even for dental care. The Senators and Congressmen get their health care from the government. They, too, have excellent coverage.
So the military, the Congress, and you are part of the "socialized" medicine system in this country. I have not heard you complain about the quality of care that you receive.
Mitchell Langbert said...
We should not be afraid of socialized medicine. We should recognize it as another potentially mismanaged government program that will reduce standards and intensify the 30-year decline in the real hourly wage. Take a trip on the New York City subway. The service irregularities, filth, often rats scurrying around. Now, project the same incompetence to health care. A few years ago there was a major scandal about the Veterans Administration hospitals, where the veterans were being kept in filth. Do you wish to treated in a hospital run by the same people? Have you visited a DMV office lately?
Now, you mention CUNY. CUNY does not provide me with care. They pay for the care I receive. The care is provided by an independent hospital that makes its own decisions and has to compete with other hospitals. That is not what is being proposed now. That is to be eliminated.
As far as the CUNY dental insurance, the benefits were repeatedly reduced between 2000 and now to virtually nothing. We no longer have meaningful dental insurance. What is to stop Washington from similarly reducing health benefits?
That is their plan. I do not deny that the current system has resulted in waste. The reasons are complex and many of them would be resolved by a single payer system. But that system would result in government controlled rationing and an elimination of medical innovation.
The problem with socialized health care (which is NOT the current proposal) is that it causes stagnation. There is one country that has been responsible for the majority of pharmaceutical and health care advance: the United States. There is also one country with a non-state-dominated financing system: the United States. Proponents of national health insurance aim to manage the cost of health care by REDUCING TREATMENT (and eliminating innovation). The reason that national health insurance is cheaper in Canada is that the Canadians limit treatment. Much of this is for unnecessary care, which is an advantage. But also, they will reduce innovative or new treatment.
Thus, a national system will enjoy economies of scale and possibly better management in some ways, but it would eliminate innovation. It would enable government officials to pull the plug on treatments that they deem inappropriate. Obama proposes this by requiring counseling to the elderly not to receive treatment but to die on narcotics. That is the crux of the reason why costs are lower in Canada and in Europe. Is that what you want, to be told to die when you are old?
Since the bureaucratic approach to government management has been an abject failure elsewhere in our society, why do you believe it to be an effective method when applied to health care? Veterans DO NOT receive "first rate" care. The standards at the veterans hospitals have been an ongoing scandal. Like everything else government touches, the veterans hospitals have been turned into sh*tholes.
The potential for break through cures that significantly extend life will be staunched by national health insurance. A decentralized system can support innovation much better and will facilitate the application of new and different treatments.
National health insurance is failure of the American dream. The Declaration of Independence states that all of us are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Socialized medicine attacks liberty; it circumscribes and attacks the right to life; and it limits the pursuit of happiness.
Does Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D, NY-22) Support the Obama Plan to Murder Your Grandma?
I have sent the following secure e-mail to the Honorable Maurice Hinchey, Congressman of the Gerrymandered 22nd Congressional district.
Dear Congressman Hinchey:
I oppose the current health care bill. However, this inquiry concerns three related questions: (1) whether Congressman Hinchey has read the Obama health care proposal; (2) whether he believes that voting for a potentially incompetently drafted bill that he has not read fulfills his duties as an elected official; and (3) whether Congressman Hinchey supports the provision in the bill, noted by Dr. Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, that encourages health policy makers to prevent the elderly from receiving care, i.e., that encourages murder or the elderly to die without care?
I am posting a copy of this e-mail on my blog, http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.
There is a rumor flying around the Internet that few if any Congressmen have read the Obama health care proposal. This is because of a recorded statement on Youtube by Congressman Conyers to that effect. I would like to clear the air on this question:
Has Congressman Hinchey read the current health care proposal? I would appreciate your direct written response to this question.
According to the Youtube video of Congressman Conyers, no Congressman has read the bill because it is impossible to do so. Yet, the Democrats aim to pass the law anyway.
If that is the case, do you believe that you would be acting competently in voting for a complex bill of supreme importance that you have not read?
Again, I would appreciate your direct written response to this question. Do you believe that you are acting competently in voting for a complex bill that you have never read?
Third, Betsy McCaughey recently wrote in the New York Post that the Obama proposal includes a provision that would require health policy makers to ask doctors to counsel elderly patients that they are better off dying than receiving care. President Obama's "murder grandma" proposal is obviously essential to his claim that the proposal will reduce health costs. While there may be gains from providing coverage to the uninsured because they can obtain earlier treatment, the expansion of coverage will also stimulate demand in the absence of rationing provisions. I have not read the bill, but there is no doubt in my mind that rationing is essential to cost reduction claims( if indeed costs are reduced, which will be a surprise to me given the widespread incompetence in Washington with respect to even the most elementary managerial problems).
I repeat. Would you please send me a clearly written letter (another concept that is generally alien to the inept Washington culture) outlining your answers to these three questions:
1. Has Congressman Maurice Hinchey read the Obama health care bill?
2. If not, does Congressman Hinchey believe that in voting for a bill that he has not read and does not understand that he is fulfilling his duties as a Congressman to his constituents?
3. What is Congressman Hinchey's position on rationing provisions in the bill, including the "murder-your-grandma" provision?
Sincerely,
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
