Blog

As has become all too characteristic of arguments from liberal skeptics of the Democrats’ health care plan, analyses of the recent increase in share prices of major publicly-traded health care stocks have been misleading.

As we and other analysts have documented, share prices have reacted strongly and unambiguously to news that a public option might or might not be part of the Democrats’ health care reform plans. This is in line with a report issued in November from Goldman Sachs, which estimated that a health care plan passed with a robust public option — their so called “bear” case — should result in a 36 percent drop in the prices of publicly-traded health insurance stocks:

Read complete analysis at FiveThirtyEight –>

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• 7 Reasons Why A Christmas Eve Vote On Health Care Would Be The Worst Gift Ever
• Why The Supreme Court Should Strike Down Health Care Reform’s Individual Mandate
• Democratic Senators Say They Have 60 Votes For Health Care Reform

I’m a UW employee too, sort of

Editor, The Times:

It was with great interest I read Nicole Brodeur’s column in The Seattle Times on Dec. 18 [“Crocodile tears from the UW,” NWFriday]. The column noted UW President Mark Emmert’s compensation of $905,000 per year, plus generous perks — free mansion, club memberships, etc.

The article also mentioned UW Provost Phyllis Wise ($535,000 per year) and her recent appointment to the Nike corporate board.

As a nurse at Harborview — the only Level I trauma center serving the four-state region of Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana — I’m a UW employee too, but the similarity stops there. The average full-time Harborview RN makes about 1/13 of Emmert’s salary, with none of the perks, unless one considers working nights, weekends, all major holidays and generally through a 30-minute lunch break (for which we are not paid) to be a bonus.

A corporate lawyer stated in the article that “if you don’t pay your best people, they’ll walk across the street and work somewhere else.” I guess nurses, or police officers, firefighters and teachers don’t count as “best people.” Hey, maybe I could go across the street and get a job with Nike; I actually wear their shoes while running all night during those 12-hour shifts.

— Gayle Hawney Krona, Seattle

The corporate gravy train

Full marks to columnist Nicole Brodeur for taking on top UW administrators Mark Emmert and Phyllis Wise for padding their already plump salaries by joining corporate boards.

This greedy grab by two of the highest-paid employees in state government is an affront to every taxpayer in the state. We pay Emmert nearly $1 million a year to do his job and Wise more than $500,000 a year to do hers. They may be worth it, but for that kind of money we have the right to insist that they apply 100 percent of their efforts to their state jobs.

The UW regents are supposed to guard taxpayers’ interest at this public university, but in this instance have clearly abdicated their responsibility. Rather than insisting that UW administrators earn their money by devoting full attention to their jobs, the regents reportedly agreed to Emmert’s demand that he be allowed to serve on as many as three corporate boards. They then left it up to him to decide whether his underlings could join him on the corporate gravy train.

Since Emmert now serves on only two boards, we can all look forward to him joining another, just as soon as he finds one that pays better than the one he let Wise join. And please, don’t tell me that these two can fulfill their corporate responsibilities in their spare time. That’s not possible — at least if they intend to earn their money. It is time for the UW regents to man up and insist that Emmert and Wise earn their UW salaries by applying themselves full time to their jobs.

— Michael Sweeney, Seattle

Worth every penny

UW President Mark Emmert is a good man who takes time to listen to everybody. He gives up tens of millions of dollars that he could make in the private sector to give to our community.

He runs the largest organization in the state, and is an expert at helping acquire the 90 percent of UW funding not coming from the state.

— Thomas Finnelly, Seattle

No, you can’t write off your Starbucks tab as a medical expense

If you absolutely must, must, MUST have that slab of coffee cake, or slice of pecan pie, or bear claw the size of, well, a bear claw, at least wash it down with a good strong cup of coffee. Or two. Or three. Researchers at the University of Sydney have pored over a raft of studies involving almost a half million people, and found that for every cup of java you consume, your risk of developing type 2 diabetes falls by 7 percent.

Knock back three to four cups a day, and you’re fully 25 percent less likely to be hit with type 2 than non- or one-cup drinkers.

Given that diabetes is a fearfully common result of way too many cakes, pies and the like, a coffee-with-all-baked-goods rule is worth considering. Incidentally, it’s not the caffeine. People who drank more than three cups of decaf daily were one-third less likely to suffer type 2, while those who drank more than three cups of tea cut their risk by 20 percent. Say, how about a refill?

Come to think of it, Willie Nelson could probably eat more Doritos than any human alive

We’ve been pretty vocal here in the past about our poor opinion of eating contests, and how counterproductive they are in a society besieged by excess weight problems. So we are amused whenever the eating competition concept makes a fool of itself, and it seems to have done so again.

In this case, the annual World Pie Eating Championships held in Greater Manchester, England, will this year feature random drug tests

It seems that, according to the president of the competition, contenders have been using “questionable concoctions” in order to have a “lubricative advantage” in getting the pies to slide down the hatch. Think of it as greasing the chute, so to speak. It also seems that one fluid in particular, Bisto cough syrup, can cut the time it takes to down a regulation championship pie by two full seconds. Really, they ran tests. So they’ll be frisking all the participants for cough medicine.

From the RSS feed of CalorieLab News (REF3076322B7)

Coffee cuts diabetes risk, plus pie eating cheating

Filed under: Concept Cars, Detroit Auto Show, Convertible, Coupe, Hatchback, Chrysler, Maserati, Ferrari, Fiat, Rumormill, Electric, Lancia

Just because Chrysler won’t be holding a press conference at next month’s Detroit Auto Show doesn’t mean that America’s third-largest automaker is coming to the party empty-handed. Far from it, in fact, assuming there’s truth to the rumors that the Pentastar will be showing off both an electric version of the soon-to-be-US-bound Fiat 500 along with a Chrysler-ized version of the Lancia Delta hatchback.

While the Chrysler-branded concept is said to be nothing more than a standard-fare Delta emblazoned with Chrysler’s trademark chrome fascia, the electric Fiat 500 is a bit more interesting. We’ve heard that the automaker’s erstwhile ENVI group was disbanded and assimilated into the rest of the company’s product development workforce, so we’re curious to see the integration of a battery-powered drivetrain into the little urban runabout. Will it be a fully-functional vehicle or just a mock-up of what could potentially be possible?

Not surprisingly, we’ll also be treated to the rest of the Fiat 500 lineup, including the 500C Cabriolet (no word on bikini-clad models) and the sporty 500 Abarth. Finally, tucked into a corner of the Chrysler booth in Detroit will also reportedly be such premium Italian machinery as the Ferrari 458 Italia and the Maserati GranCabrio. Hey… if you’ve got it, why not flaunt it, right?

[Source: Automotive News – Sub. Req’d]

REPORT: Chrysler to bring electric Fiat 500, hatchback concept to Detroit originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:28:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Jingle Bell Bash rang with adult humor

I attended the Jingle Bell Bash sponsored by KISS-FM (106.1) with my daughter over the weekend [“Jingle Bell Bash is ready to ring, with All-American Rejects and more,” NWTicket, Dec. 18]. It was a great concept and a great value — so many bands together for one performance. The music was enjoyable even at my age.

Yet I was shocked at the show’s content.

The show was promoted as being for all ages and the majority of the attendees were of middle-school age. The show began with the disc jockey referencing being drunk. There were continued references to excessive drinking.

There was pervasive use of inappropriate language, which ironically would not be permitted on air. Yet, this language was used by both the bands, DJs, and guests throughout a show that was promoted for all ages.

There were inappropriate sexual innuendos and comments and references to recreational drug use.

I consider myself to be open minded. In the right context, with the right warning, and appropriate audience, much of what would have been presented would have been OK. But, it most certainly was not a show for all ages.

— Steven Simao, Snohomish

Let it go, let it go, let it go

I was dismayed to see that we still haven’t gotten over last year’s snow [“911 callers waited desperately for help,” page one, Dec. 20].

When did all the whiners move to Seattle?

Please, get over it already.

— Patty Johnson, Seattle

Pterosaurs could fly 40 up to miles an hour but were unable to launch themselves like modern birds. So how did these prehistoric giants get off the ground?

Pinching nickels and dimes

I am more than disappointed to read that The Times thinks now is not the time for health-care reform because the economy is faltering [“Put health care aside and fix the economy,” Opinion, editorial, Dec. 20].

Saving money on health-care reform now is as misguided as failing to dispatch the fire engines when the city is on fire because the price of gas is too high.

The most powerful nation on Earth simply cannot afford not to insure all its citizens, regardless of the timing.

— Catherine L. Gaylord, Seattle

Only hope local leaders are listening

I applaud The Seattle Times for speaking out on the shortfalls of the health-care-reform legislation, and for suggesting that Washington state’s congressional delegation stop supporting it — now.

I only hope Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, along with representatives like Jim McDermott, are listening and heed this message. The Times is correct in calling for a unified proposal and an economy on the mend before passing national health-care legislation.

There is a time and a place for everything, and passing a massive spending bill, just to pass something, should get someone fired. The voters of Washington state need to hold our elected officials accountable and should be inundating their offices with demands to vote no on this ill-conceived legislation.

The midterm election is only 11 months away and Washington voters will not forget what our elected officials have done if they help pass this legislation. The unfettered spending in Washington, D.C., needs to stop here and now.

Health care should be carefully debated by the 112th Congress during 2010.

— Thomas M. Lindberg, Seattle

The Video review of the new and now available Verizon Wireless Omnia2. The device is very nice and as you can see in the video it is pack with software and the hardware is not lacking either. The video I demoed(Hitch) was playing at a not too fast 448Kbits/sec and at 800 X 336 resolution, but I have plaid videos at 500Kbits/sec+ and it is still very smooth.

Human sexuality: not a reliable topic for the church

The Most Rev. Alex J. Brunett uses the sugarcoated — but devious and deceptive — language of the church in an attempt to show the church’s centuries-old tradition of caring for the poor [“Catholic principles for health-care reform,” Opinion, guest commentary, Dec. 17].

But he ignores the church’s centuries-old tradition of torturing and killing during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the decimation of the indigenous people of South, Central and North America, and the church’s discriminatory practices against women and gays.

He credits Catholic hospitals with accepting the uninsured into their emergency rooms without mentioning the fact that since the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 every emergency room in every hospital in the U.S. has been required by law to offer such care.

He speaks of the church’s position on abortion as if it were neutral when almost everyone knows the church has consistently tried to weaken, eliminate and even criminalize a woman’s right to choose. Why is it that the church seldom talks about contraception, which it also considers a sin?

The church lacks creditability and sincerity on any issue having to do with human sexuality.

— Jim Grenfell, Sedro-Woolley

DOA in Congress

I give Catholic archbishop Alex Brunett credit for candidly admitting that the church is not trying to change U.S. laws that give women a legal right to abortion because such an attempt would be dead on arrival in Congress.

But if the church didn’t believe that efforts to make abortion laws stricter would be dead on arrival in Congress, would it be holding back on such efforts? I doubt it.

I hope to see a future Seattle Times article in which the archbishop explains why the Catholic Church has repeatedly tried to torpedo international conferences on population control, forbade married couples from using so-called artificial birth control, forbade homosexuals from using condoms to decrease their exposure to the AIDS virus, and apparently been practically oblivious to unsustainable population growth as a critical factor in problems such as hunger, disease and global warming.

Perhaps such an explanation would improve my understanding of the reasoning of the church on those issues too.

— Ted Yellman, Bellevue

What about the 9 million living children?

It boggles the mind that senators and other political leaders are fighting over the abortion issue while the 9 million uninsured children already living among us are denied health care.

— Frances Campbell, Seattle

What if waiting for treatment in the emergency room was like waiting for your toaster to ding, and you knew exactly how long you were going to wait? Many healthcare providers are hopeful that by banding together to coordinate information about how congested their waiting rooms are they can help people make the best decision about where to seek medical attention, according to the Los Angeles Times:

In part to ease the minds of those seeking emergency care — or at least disclose how bad the wait will be — a growing number of suburban emergency rooms around the country are advertising wait times.

Some post the times on their websites. Others tweet, send text messages or display the times on huge highway billboards. A few are testing a service by a start-up company, InQuickER, that allows patients to register online, pay a small fee and hold their place in line while they wait at home.

But what seems like a good bit of pubic service has some doctors concerned that the posted wait times will be misleading. For example, a patient suffering ominous chest pains might be persuaded to drive to a hospital further away for a shorter wait even though he may have been bumped to the front of a longer line closer to home.

So while it may be useful for someone with a minor condition to seek out a shorter wait time, doctors in the article say that people with serious injuries should get to the closest help possible — and fast.

Related Content:
Discoblog: The Creepy World Of Old-School Medicine
Discoblog: New Especially Bad Heroin Can Give You an Overdose—or Anthrax
Discoblog: So Long, Colostomy Bag: British Man Gets Remote-Controlled Sphincter

Another example of how the patent system is being used to hinder, rather than help, innovation. While we’re no fans of Microsoft’s view on patents these days, that doesn’t mean we approve of ridiculous lawsuits against the company either. The one that got all the attention this year was a tiny Canadian startup, i4i, that claimed a patent (5,787,449) on editing an XML document, and then sued Microsoft and won (in Texas, of course). Not only did the company win, but the court ruled that Microsoft owed $98 per copy of Microsoft Word for this minor feature. On top of that, the court issued an injunction saying Microsoft could no longer sell Microsoft Word with this feature. Given the MercExchange ruling that said that injunctions don’t always make sense in patent cases, it was hard to defend such an injunction as being necessary.

But… never let common sense get in the way of how the judicial system works when it comes to patents. The appeals court (CAFC) has now upheld the lower court ruling, requiring Microsoft to pay the $290 million and bars further sales of any copy of Microsoft Word with this feature as of January 11th. Microsoft’s response is that it will simply remove this “little-used” feature. So this feature is rarely used, and yet it’s worth $98 per copy of Word sold? How does that make sense?

Meanwhile, the tiny Canadian company is thrilled. It just made hundreds of millions of dollars for stating the obvious. And, rather than encouraging innovation, it’s forcing a company to remove features. How is that innovative? How does that do anything at all to “promote the progress”? While some Canadian law professors might like to make up facts as to why these types of rulings make sense, I’m still at a loss as to how progress has been promoted here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Steak and Shake has truly become an outside-the-box corporation.

They’re diversifying from sandwiches and shakes to, well, insurance thanks to the vision of their chairman.

Fremont Michigan InsuraCorp (FMMH.OB) execs must have been pretty surprised when they heard that Steak and Shake was making an unsolicited bid for their company.

AP: [Steak and Shake] said it would pay $24.50 per share, half in cash and half in Steak n Shake stock. Steak n Shake said the offer represents an 11.3 percent premium to Fremont’s Monday closing price. Fremont’s shares trade over the counter.

A spokesman for Fremont, an insurance company, said Tuesday that its board would meet to discuss the unsolicited bid and to prepare a response.

Ridiculous? The market doesn’t think so, SNS shares popped 10% today and have done very well over the last few weeks.

What are they rallying on? Here’s the vision of Steak and Shake’s chairman, Sardar Bilgari:

Steak and Shake 2009 Report: Simply because profits are generated in the restaurant business doesn’t mean the money must be reinvested there. The Steak n Shake restaurant chain has been resuscitated and now enjoys prodigious cash flows. The parent firm has been reorganized as a holding company and thus is now in the business of acquiring other businesses

…

You should be aware that we have no investment committee intruding on capital and investment decisions. Any mistakes that would occur, and I assure you there will be errors, are only mine to make.

…

We acknowledge that this change in corporate direction will disappoint those who favor a “pure-play,” i.e., a company in which resources are reinvested only in one line of business. Of course, you will need to form your own views on whether you are comfortable with our idiosyncrasies. Otherwise, this is not a stock for you.

Thus an investment in Steak and Shake has become a huge bet on the investment acumen of Mr. Bilgari alone, who can invest in anything, without a prior investment mandate, and without an investment committee. Which makes him essentially like a hedge fund manager and SNS a hedge fund, or perhaps more precisely a listed private equity vehicle under the control of a single opaque decision maker. Yet Investors are loving it so far.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• Hedge Fund BlueGold: The So-Called Sovereign Debt Crisis Is A Distraction
• Former SAC Capital Trader: Stevie Cohen Runs The Cleanest Hedge Fund In The World
• Gold Crashes Through $1100, Investors Left Wondering How To Hedge Against US Mayhem

This may be the last chapter of my Copenhagen Climate reports. It has been difficult to write, and not just because conference-induced sleep deprivation meant taking some welcome time off on Saturday afternoon. It was not due to the fact I was in England on Sunday night to see my son Baba Brinkman’s performance at the Hammersmith Apollo – a 3500 seat Art Deco theatre in central London. Baba performed a scene from his new show “The Rap Guide to Evolution” as part of a sold-out Science-Entertainment Christmas show with a 6 night run, filmed by the BBC. Congratulations Baba! And it also was not due to Monday being the long commute back with a 9 hours time change.

It’s been difficult because I have had to digest and accept Copenhagen’s outcome. The optimist, rationalist side of me says “COP15 was a qualified success.” The USA, China and India are now publically committed to working towards a new agreement. Given the prospect of a deadlocked conference with some countries on board and some offside, along with the prospect of an outright failure of the UN-led process to tackle this critical global challenge effectively, the Copenhagen Accord is at least minor forward movement. It would be a herculean task to get 190 national leaders to agree on the best route from the Copenhagen airport to the conference centre, never mind the roadmap to a deal as complex as addressing climate change. At Copenhagen this past week, world leaders representing the major emitting nations (present and future) were at least seized with the issue. But the pessimist, activist side of me, convinced of the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by my global warming research (published in 1992), strongly reinforced by climate science since then, is appalled.

The “Group of Two” major emitting nations (USA and China) clung to their original positions to the end and guaranteed the conference’s failure to achieve its objective of the binding agreement negotiators have worked toward since the UN’s Bali climate conference two years ago. Those positions virtually guarantee a +3 C tipping point to run-away climate warming. European nations, which came prepared to increase their commitment from 20% to 30% reductions from the 1990 baseline year (conditional on a deal), took their offer off the table. Important sub-agreements were sidelined – protecting rainforests from destruction, fostering clean technology transfer to developing countries, reducing emissions from agriculture – taking a backseat to a hastily prepared general statement of concern and principle. And the reality remains that reducing GHG emissions will only become more urgent, and more costly, the longer we wait. Oh, and last but not least, Canada was assessed by international environment groups to be the country that most obstructed progress – congratulations Stephen Harper.

The main product of President Obama’s 11th hour intervention at COP15 is The Copenhagen Accord. The Accord lays out the principles for a future agreement to include the US and developing nations that did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, and sets up a voluntary register of commitments: developed countries register their targets, and developing countries register their national mitigation actions.

Its stated purpose is to contain global warming below 2C by cutting global GHG emissions. It commits developed countries to $10 Billion a year in initial support to poor countries, rising by 2020 to $100 Billion. Inclusion of international oversight of emissions reductions, and the use of market-based approaches reflect key US requirements. The COP15 attending nations agreed to “take note” of The Copenhagen Accord, attach it to their conference proceedings, and continue working toward a binding legal agreement at COP16 a year from now.

Poorer and low-lying countries were extremely critical of this “back room deal”. They bemoaned its regression to relying on voluntary measures, and its absence of inclusiveness and transparency, hallmarks of the process laid out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But United Nations Director-General Ban Ki-moon called the Copenhagen Accord significant, an unprecedented commitment by world leaders who went to the brink and pulled back. The gentleman representing Exxon/Mobile Oil in a business sector debriefing was remarkably cheerful, as the possibility of a COP15 breakthrough evaporated…

So Friday’s disappointing Plenary speeches by China and USA leaders described in my previous blog were not the end of the story. President Obama personally rallied the heads of state from China, Brazil, South Africa and India, and with the assistance of two dozen other leaders (not including Canada) produced the Copenhagen Accord.

Throughout Friday afternoon and evening delegates in meeting rooms, lounges, cafes, hallways, computer zones throughout the Convention Centre chatted, worked, napped and watched the omni-present television monitors waiting for the Plenary session to be recalled. Finally at 11:30 PM, screens large and small came alive with the sight of President Obama holding a press conference.

The excitement was palpable as Obama clearly and eloquently laid out the conflicting interests and agendas at stake in the process, the responsibilities of the developed world, the clarity of the science, the stakes for those countries already in peril. Everyone gathered around the monitor felt the same hope and relief: “finally, a US leader who gets it!” When Obama’s summary of the Copenhagen Accord was complete, it took a few minutes for the implications to sink in. We were still far from a solution; the Accord was only the barest agreement in principle, falling desperately short of even our lowest expectations in terms of binding targets and a legal framework. Obama remains “the great communicator”, but the horizon of a global climate change solution seems to have receded rather than drawn closer after Copenhagen.

The climate activist in me recognizes this as a failure on a massive scale, with vast implications for the quality of life for millions. But the political rationalist in me recognizes the significance of the major powers drafting an Accord, even a toothless one, and in the case of the earth’s atmosphere all parties must move in the same direction or none will. A small step united may end up being a greater achievement than a bold step divided.

So much for horizons from Copenhagen’s lens on the world, now back to the nitty gritty, the ideas and actions by committed individuals and communities. Those may have to be the source of the real solutions after all.

Joyce in Vancouver