Quotulatiousness

July 18, 2009

Healthcare costs

Filed under: Economics, Health — Tags: — Nicholas @ 17:43

Several years back, Elizabeth worked as an office manager at a vet clinic. She enjoyed the work, although it didn’t pay well. One of the most frequent complaints from the customers was the high cost of vet care. This graph from The Enterprise Blog shows that the rates of increase in healthcare costs are intriguingly similar between pets and their owners (note the different scales on the left and right side of the chart):

Health care costs: pets versus people

The chart [. . .] shows spending on veterinary care, which I pulled from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, and national health expenditures (for people) from the National Income and Product Accounts. Two things are interesting here: first, the rate of growth of spending from 1984 to 2006 wasn’t all that different — and in both cases, spending grew faster than the rate of economic growth. As new technologies are developed for humans, we adopt them for Bowser and Fifi — because we can afford to and we think it’s worth it.

Here in Canada, where we almost never know the actual costs of the healthcare services we receive, the stark reality that healthcare costs money is a nasty surprise. We don’t spend anything like the same real dollars on our dogs, cats, and other pets as on ourselves or our family, and the fact that we don’t have a clue how expensive it is fuels the constant political demand that we provide more “free” healthcare.

On the other hand, in much of Canada, it’s possible to get X-rays, MRI, CT scans, and other diagnostic tests done in hours or days . . . for your pet. For you, weeks or months before you’ll get your appointment. If only there were some obvious conclusion we could draw from these data points . . .

I wrote about the pet health/human health disconnect all the way back in 2004.

Photos from Lunar orbit show Apollo 14 landing site

Filed under: Space, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:20

BBC News has an article today on some recent photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), showing the site of the Apollo 14 landing:

Science instruments (circled left) and the lunar module lower stage (circled right) are connected by a footprint trail

Science instruments (circled left) and the lunar module lower stage (circled right) are connected by a footprint trail

A US spacecraft has captured images of Apollo landing sites on the Moon, revealing hardware and a trail of footprints left on the lunar surface.

The release of the images coincides with the 40th anniversary of the first manned mission to land on the Moon.

The descent stages from the lunar modules which carried astronauts to and from the Moon can clearly be seen.

The image of the Apollo 14 landing site shows scientific instruments and an astronaut footpath in the lunar dust.

It is the first time hardware left on the Moon by the Apollo missions has been seen from lunar orbit.

They’re publishing a magazine just for me!

Filed under: Humour, Science — Tags: — Nicholas @ 11:45

Radley Balko sent this link through Twitter:

VagueScientist

This is a magazine directed at my precise demographic!

July 15, 2009

It’s been 40 years . . . why haven’t we gone back?

Filed under: History, Space, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:55

On July 20th, it will have been 40 years since many of us clustered around our tiny black-and-white televisions, watching the first moon landing (or for those of you of conspiracist leanings, a really convincing sound stage in Area 51). Why, after all this time, haven’t we gone further? Why, for that matter, have we not been back to the moon for over a generation? Ronald Bailey explains the real reason:

The Apollo moon landings have often been compared to the explorations of Christopher Columbus and the Lewis and Clark expedition to Oregon. For example, on the 20th anniversary of the first moon landing, President George H.W. Bush declared, “From the voyages of Columbus to the Oregon Trail to the journey to the Moon itself: history proves that we have never lost by pressing the limits of our frontiers.”

But what boosters of the moon expeditions overlook is that the motive for pressing the limits of our frontiers in those cases was chiefly profit. In his report from his first voyage, Columbus predicted that his explorations would result in “vast commerce and great profit.” The extension of commerce was also the chief justification that President Thomas Jefferson gave in his secret message to Congress requesting $2,500 to fund what would become the Lewis and Clark expedition.

Forty years later, as we bask in the waning prestige that the Apollo missions earned our country, we must keep in mind that humanity will some day colonize the moon and other parts of the solar system, but only when it becomes profitable to do so.

Back in 1969, my friend Alan Fairfield and I sat in fascination (at least in the golden memory, they do . . . we were nine: I doubt that we paid as much attention to the broadcast as his mother thought we should). Mrs. Fairfield told us that we’d be able to go to the moon ourselves by the time we were grown up. It didn’t turn out that way, and at the current rate of progress, it may not turn out that way for my grandkids.

But I still hope, one day . . .

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005583.html.)

July 14, 2009

Random links of possible interest

Filed under: Randomness, Space — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:26

Just a few links to provide you with click-therapy:

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005579.html.)

July 13, 2009

When the data doesn’t support your claims, obscure it!

Filed under: Food, Science — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:31

Ronald Bailey looks at the too-good-to-be-true claims made for caloric reduction as a life-extending tool:

Last week, two research teams reported to great fanfare that restricting the calories consumed by rhesus monkeys had extended their lifespans. Calorie restriction is thought to increase longevity by boosting DNA repair. The idea is that the mechanism evolved so that creatures on the verge of starvarion could live long enough to reproduce when food becomes plentiful again. But did the experiments really show the CR works?

In my earlier blogpost on the research results, I noted that some experts quoted in the New York Times were not convinced. Why? Because the difference in actual death rates between the dieting monkeys and the free feeding monkeys was not statistically significant.

This doesn’t necessarily derail the notion that calorie restriction may be associated with increased lifespan, but the way this study was performed does not appear to prove anything due to rigging of the data.

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005577.html.)

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress