“Where do you live?
“What were you doing in the States?
“What are you bringing with you?
“Any alcohol, tobacco, or controlled substances?
“Any weapons or firearms?”

Meanwhile, the guy is processing my passport in a reader. The whole interaction was under 20 seconds. Efficient enough, it seems.

When I entered the US on F-1 status, on the other hand, baggage had to go through an X-ray machine, questions were asked about fresh produce (why does that even matter), officers grilled other people for a long time, and the overall trip time gained about two hours from the border.

I don’t think there’s any difference in effective border safety/security on the two sides of this bridge.

My alternative is Student Health Service, on another edge of campus, where there is a comfortable environment, shorter waiting times, and probably better trained personnel.

Instead of taking advantage of the benefits afforded to me by my student health insurance plan, a consequence of my attendance at the University of Pennsylvania, I chose this clinic because I could get the test done on an earlier date. I imagined it wouldn’t be as great of a place as SHS, or the expansive, top-tier hospitals of Penn Medicine, but what I am experiencing has convinced me, even more so than I thought before, of the epic failures of the American health care system.

* This post has since been revised and reformatted, although it was initiated during my time in the clinic.

A comparison

Those who are fortunate enough to have employer- or school-sponsored health insurance may have access to HMO hospitals, clinics, and doctors.

Those who attend a comprehensive university like mine may have access to the combined resources of a student health clinic and a set of university hospitals merely a block away.

Those who are in the lower strata of income and status, or whose recent unemployment leaves them uninsured, are relegated to public institutions such as these health centers, left to understaffed clinics, long wait times, and expensive, unaffordable medications. Some of these people are also caught outside the eligibility criteria of governmental programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

I’m from Canada

If timing weren’t an issue, I would just do this skin test back at home in Ontario, Canada. Sure, the skin test itself might not be covered by the provincial OHIP program, but at least every resident (after a certain number of months of residence) has access to physicians and walk in clinics at no basic charge beyond their taxes; those who are below the low-income cutoff might even pay $0 in federal and/or provincial taxes.

There is no such thing as a general practitioner who will turn you away because you “belong” to another unaffiliated insurance company. Low income citizens do not have to go to a crowded government “health center” for basic medical care; any privately-operated walk-in clinic, or a family doctor who is accepting new patients, will do. The UK also demonstrates how access to prescription medicine can be broadened.

Even those who are insured in the US are shocked when they find the cost of health care to be much higher than budgeted.

• Students on our private university-organized insurance plan still must pay a $100 co-pay to go to the emergency room, although the co-pay is waived under restrictive conditions
• There’s a co-pay of $35 for an X-ray diagnostic test. I had a chest X-ray done as a matter of an annual physical examination over the summer in Canada, and it was covered by OHIP.
• Flu vaccinations are $24 (at least) in the vicinity of this university. While private health insurance may cover the cost, it’s surprising that this basic tool of public health isn’t free; municipal governments in Ontario almost universally administer them at no charge, and they are available through doctors’ offices, public health clinics, walk-in clinics, and even some pharmacies.

Even if we forget entirely about how much this sucks compared to medical care in Canada—which admittedly has its own issues—the disparities in access to, and quality of, health care between classes here in the United States should be appalling.

Dr. David Himmelstein of The Cambridge Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and his colleagues, authored a paper in the International Journal of Health Services in 2004 on the inefficiencies in the American health care system. One of the most potent conclusions is summarized in the abstract:

The United States wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all its uninsured … Only a single-payer national health insurance system could garner these massive administrative savings, allowing universal coverage without any increase in total health spending.

He also concludes that, in the US in 1999, “administrative spending consumed at least 31.0 percent of health spending… [i]n contrast, administrative costs in Canada… are about 16.7 percent of health spending.” I imagine some people are profiting from this spending.

Closing

I am a student, who, as a matter of circumstance (i.e. parents’ hard work) and fortune, have access to one of the top hospital systems in America. Not everyone is as fortunate. And it takes a bit of altruism to be able to stand up in a position like this and advocate on behalf of those who can’t.

Experience has shown that a weak populace is easier to rule over. One wonders if the goal of weakening the populace, especially the poor, is the reason that America continues to fail at reforming health care.

Rick Perry’s worst marks

Trigonometry (D), organic chemistry I (D), organic chemistry II (F!), organic chem lab (D), Shakespeare (D), economics (D), Keats (D), “writing for professional men” (D)…

How did he ever get a Bachelor’s degree in animal science?

Drawing connections

It’s no surprise Governor Perry denies evolution (“a theory that’s out there”) and global warming (“a contrived phony mess”). The lack of training in economics might also explain his ridiculous stance towards the role of an independent Federal Reserve and its chairman.

Given his educational record, one might speculate that his lacklustre efforts in university translate to his cost-cutting approaches to public/higher education in the state of Texas. 61.3% of high school students graduate? That’s terrible! One shudders to think of what might occur if he were president.

Organic chem must have been a requirement for his program of study. One wonders why he didn’t switch to a program a little more appropriate for his aptitudes.

Dawkins’s rebuttal

Elegantly and poignantly written:

There is nothing unusual about Governor Rick Perry. Uneducated fools can be found in every country and every period of history, and they are not unknown in high office. (Richard Dawkins, emphasis mine)

Dawkins is the author of several titles, such as The Greatest Show on Earth and The Selfish Gene. Part of his rebuttal to Perry’s mis-characterization of evolution as “just a theory” is an observation that is unfortunately true: while the United States is home to millions of intelligent beings, some of whom are undoubtedly the geniuses of today, some voters inexplicably seem to prefer unqualified, anti-intelligent candidates!

New York Times editorial

Krugman of the New York Times points out in “Republicans Against Science” that “the G.O.P. [...] is becoming the ‘anti-science party.’” I highly recommend reading this article, if only for the brilliant realization at the end: (recall that The Wall Street Journal is a conservative media outlet operated by Murdoch’s News Corp, which is also responsible for Fox News)

Lately, for example, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page has gone beyond its long-term preference for the economic ideas of “charlatans and cranks” — as one of former President George W. Bush’s chief economic advisers famously put it — to a general denigration of hard thinking about matters economic. Pay no attention to “fancy theories” that conflict with “common sense,” the Journal tells us. Because why should anyone imagine that you need more than gut feelings to analyze things like financial crises and recessions?

Now, we don’t know who will win next year’s presidential election. But the odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge. And, in a time of severe challenges — environmental, economic, and more — that’s a terrifying prospect. (emphasis mine)

The 29-year-old did exceptionally well in high school. He was at the top of his class at Osgoode Hall Law School. He won summer jobs at Canada’s top legal firms.

But in September, Manilla’s application to become a lawyer was rejected by the Law Society of Upper Canada when he failed to meet its “good character” requirement because of his aggressive and bizarre conduct as a member of his condo’s board.

Imagine studying for 10+ years to enter the profession, and being denied entry! This is a lesson to all would-be lawyers: act morally, no matter what.

Easing of standards proposed

Earlier, Angus told reporters the public has just three days to comment on a proposed regulatory change at the CRTC that would ease standards for radio and TV networks in terms of broadcasting false or misleading news.

A motion by Angus to have the Commons committee on Canadian heritage call witnesses and study the proposed changes passed late Monday. Witnesses may be called as early as next week.

Under the proposed changes, licence-holders would have more latitude in their reporting as long as comments do not directly put human life in danger.

Broadcasters would face penalties if it could be proved the licence-holder had prior knowledge that information was inaccurate.

Angus said the proposed changes directly contradict section 3.1 of the Broadcast Act obligating Canadian media to maintain high standards of objectivity.

“It seems astounding that the CRTC would consider such a move at a time when we see the growing backlash in the United States to the poisoned levels of political discord in the American media,” he said, referring to the debate over what might have influenced someone to shoot U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others in Tucson last month.

“In the wake of the Arizona shootings, it seems especially insensitive to suggest that we should lower the bar on media obligations as long as no one is directly threatened or killed.”

Read more of this article at cbc.ca

Pretty much, they’re changing

5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any false or misleading news.

to

5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast
(d) any news that the licensee knows is false or misleading and that endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.

Posted via email from Frederick’s posterous

Posted via email from Frederick’s posterous

I’m gonna focus on one thing in particular (and hopefully destroy them on it): biased polls and a horrifying abuse of statistics.

If there’s anything that you learn in a basic data management or statistics course, it’s that surveys can be easily engineered to be biased; to produce intentionally skewed results.

That’s what FOX does.

Anger poll

Questions

Take the following poll question as an example:

Does the ‘Reconciliation’ Gambit Make You Angry?

What does that question do, in terms of data collection?

• Sampling bias. The question is clearly targeted at those who feel strongly about the issue, because those are the vocal minorities interested in persuading others of their view. Now, since FOXNews.com is a clearly conservative news source, the visitors to the site will, logically, not include many liberals who would have voted negative to this poll question. As a result, the sample is not representative of the population, producing skewed results.

Choices

What did that question look like on their site?

How biased are the choices?

“You decide”: are the choices biased?

• Yes, yes of course.
• Unsure, but if you’re asking, doesn’t that mean it’s biased?
• No, but maybe it’s biased.

Obviously I’m satirizing their choices. If you read the wording of each option, TWO of the options support the data that FOX wants to collect.

Since when did unsure agree with yes?

Moreover, since when did no contradict no?! “No, it doesn’t make me angry, but they’re still using a loophole.” That’s definitely a biased choice.

The “Other” Choice

All right, so this is probably the choice that someone would pick if they, like me, disagree with all the options and their wording. What if I think “it doesn’t make me angry because it’s not a loophole, it’s a procedure?”

The problem with that is, other is substantially underrepresented when FOX airs results or makes a big deal of them. Right now, 94% say it makes them angry, and that’s the only data they care about when they’re publicizing the results.

Who cares that some extremist decided to write a lengthy explanation of their choice under “other”? That’s not a statistic that matters.

So the “other” choice is just there to give the poll a guise of fairness.

The Extraneous Text

Everything they’ve posted in front of the poll question is designed to steer voters towards one option. For the question above, they asked:

President Obama unveiled his revised health care reform plan on Wednesday. The buzz word is “reconciliation,’ a rarely used legislative maneuver designed to resolve budget differences but one that could also be used to push through the Democrats’ health agenda by a simple majority vote. Are you angry that Obama and the Dems are resorting to using “reconciliation”?

I added emphasis to the key manipulating words above.

I think it’s plainly obvious that words like “maneuver”, “resorting to”, “agenda” (as in hidden agenda) have subtle connotations that the voter’s subconscious mind picks up on.

UPDATE: How could I have forgotten to analyze the word “gambit”? The concise Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “an action or remark calculated to gain an advantage.” You tell me that isn’t a loaded question.

In Short…

That particular poll was biased. Let’s briefly critique another one.

Victory poll

Statisticians would shoot them for this one. Well, not as much as for the previous one.

The question is fine here (except for the ambiguous definition of the term victory), but the choices are terrible. Again, there’s the issue with the “Other (post a comment)” choice because it is far easier for someone to pick another option than to take the effort to write a comment — that choice basically means nothing.

Irresponsible or is it just me?

The “No” option is an exaggeration. 2700 pages, apparently, is a lie (or a gross exaggeration). The official H.R. 4872 (reconciliation) bill is 2310 pages, and the Senate bill previously passed by the Senate weighed in at around 2400.

Sampling bias

Again, this poll will not yield accurate results for three reasons (I’ll admit that they overlap):

1. The visitor demographic of FOXNews.com is largely conservative. This may not be the same proportion as in all of the United States.
2. Furthermore, through the efforts of liberals who are attempting to get their voice heard, young Twitter users are flocking to this poll to vote “Yes”. THESE votes will, again, fail to reflect the population, which is perhaps why this is labelled “not a scientific poll” by their own admission.
3. Lastly, the unsure option is quite unimportant in this poll because those who are unsure, generally, are not the vocal participants in these kinds of forums. A lot of Americans are unsure because they don’t know all of the facts, and this poll simply cannot deal with that part of the population that is underrepresented.

How to spin the results

Currently, “Yes” and “No” are nearly tied at 47% and 49% respectably. What would happen if “Yes” had the majority vote?

Given the wording of the choice, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to claim that “over 95% of respondents believe that the bill is flawed”.

After all, even the “Yes” voters have to concede that it’s “not perfect”.

What is this. Yes, I’ll readily concede that it’s not perfect, but that’s because I like the Canadian system better. There might only be one way to be perfect but infinite ways to be wrong or imperfect, and putting that there doesn’t help anyone determine how to get better health care reform. Moreover, it deprives voters of the chance to vote “Yes, it’s awesome.”

What can we do about this?

Nothing. If “freedom of the press” and “freedom of expression” are interpreted in such an unlimited way, any of these ugly tactics can be defended as their view on things.

Freedoms come with responsibilities, of course, and it is irresponsible for this kind of polling and the kind of news reports that FOX News airs to claim to be “fair and balanced”. Boycotting FOX News doesn’t really work, because one would be leaving FOXNews.com with all the conservatives who would love to dominate their polls.

“Fair and balanced” might well be a joke; it would be a perfect sarcastic tagline for FOX.

Liked this post?

Subscribe to my RSS feed, via e-mail using this form, or share this post with the world.

Remember when I was talking about how Western media distorts everything? (To refresh your mind, read another post about the conflict.)

What took so long?

Hey, are you following me on Twitter?

If you were, you would have known minutes ago.

Another excellent video from TED!

That having been said, enjoy this video of the American Vice Presidential debate yesterday evening, in case you missed it.

Let’s start with something about the environment:

Andy the Engineer: “China’s success has been built on the back of the environment – they have ruined beautiful rivers, strip mined scenic mountains and poured every type of vile and disgusting exhaust you can imagine into the air – and the Olympic Games will broadcast this to the world.”

Let’s word this more accurately and less xenophobically, shall we? It is the success of the WESTERN WORLD (including Canada — we have our fair share of this blame) that has been built on the back of China’s environment. And India’s. And Taiwan’s. And Japan’s. And … well, basically every early-industrial nation with cheap labour.

I’m fed up with people whose entire wealth is based on the use and abuse of people and resources in other countries who then turn around and act as if they are morally superior to those same exploited people. Grow up.

- MichaelWH

See what they have to say after the jump.

More on the environment:

Beijing reminded me of LA a few years ago. People are having joyful picnic because it was a brighter day than any other normal days. When I went to the top of Griffin Park and saw the whole LA sky filled with dark smog. Welcome to the real world of pollution. Beijing is not the only one. Toronto is getting there too.

- Opinioner (Dartmouth, NS)

Another comment on the same article:

China is still fighting to get out of poverty.

Globally, the share of people living on a dollar (US) a day or less plummeted from 40% in 1981 to 18% in 2004. China’s growth alone has lifted more than 400 million people out of poverty. These numbers are from Freed Zakaria’s recent book “The Post-American World”.

No other nation in the world in the entire human history has done so much good in such short a period.

- flu888 (Mississauga, ON)

I think I’m starting to show my bias. So let’s read some comments from those who do nothing other than criticize.

The smog in Beijing is the tip of the iceberg. Although still not the polluters of the United States, they are on an accelerated path to capture the crown as the world’s worst polluters. Remember, at 1.3 billion people, once technology and wealth spread around the country, they will have 4 times as many people polluting as the US. And because they are still in many ways a developing nation, environmental controls will be the least of their concerns, they are still just trying to catch up. They all want what every american [sic] has, and will take the short cuts [sic] to get there. Green actions are only taken in the countries that can afford them and are now self conscious of their own pollution. China is neither[.]

- Klaatu (Windsor, ON)

And how about the topic of censorship?

I don’t understand why the Chinese government block Fa Lun Gong’s webiste. We Chinese living overseas have access to their information, but who believes what they say? Nobody. I think the government should be more self-confident.

- JackCBC (Toronto, ON)

Okay. Some people have strange things to say, too.

Is it just me or does the PEW survey from last week says [sic] more than these journalists? If you don’t remember, the survey concluded Chinese are the most confident in their government’s job than any other country in the world, with the second being Australia. Who are some of the least confident? Britain, France and US.

Put yourself in Chinese shoes, you are confident in your goverment [sic] and optimstic [sic] about the future, but those people from overseas who are extremly [sic] unhappy with their own country’s direction and goverment [sic] are trying to tell you your goverment [sic] should be more like them. Will you think “hey, good idea” or “what a bunch of hypocritical self-centered bigots”?

- iewgnem (Toronto, ON)

All comments are used under the Fair Dealing doctrine.

After reading all of these comments, it’s only right for you to contribute your thoughts. Navigate to the CBC articles (following the links at the beginning of this post) to comment there or send us your thoughts by commenting on this post.

I am not in support of any efforts to politicize the Games, and am especially opposed to groups such as Reporters sans frontières (Reporters Without Borders) (how could they call themselves reporters?!?!) who are funded and operated in order to specifically destabilize foreign governments.

It has sparked outrage and has also made some feel that this “terrorist” is being treated fairly.

You should know, though, that Pentagon papers accidentally released in February of this year showed that even though Khadr was present during the firefight in which a grenade killed a U.S. soldier, there was no evidence they had which proved that he threw the grenade.

Watch and vote.

EDIT: apparently YouTube removed the interrogation video. Hmm…

It seems like Bush’s popularity is ever decreasing. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the denial of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantánamo Bay is unconstitutional and that those prisoners have a right to challenge their imprisonment in the civilian courts, it’s no longer necessarily true that “the law doesn’t extend to Cuba”.

Though the rulings did not outlaw the prison outright, the rulings do somewhat approach the human rights issues that the U.S. is responsible for. And how has “Reporters Without Borders” reacted to this news? As of June 13, 2008, they haven’t, but still have half of their web site dedicated to attacking China and supporting the boycott of the Olympic games. Look at (click) this screenshot; do they even mention Guantánamo Bay?

Now, back on topic. This sort of decision is truly what the judicial branch of government is supposed to do: discuss the constitutional issues and re-think the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Unfortunately, Bush wants to bypass this ruling through an act of Congress.

And how does that make you feel?

Find more about this on Google News, subscribe to our feed, or write a comment.

What would products cost if the US banned trade with China as part of “sanctions”? What would be the economic impact? How would consumers respond, or more importantly, how would 2+ billion Chinese people react?

Consider these questions, and get back to me (using the comments feature).