Dictionary.com gives the logical explanation that this expression had its origin from two dogs fighting over a single bone. “In a slightly different guise, bone of dissension, it was used figuratively in the 16th century and took its present form in the early 1700s.” It is used to describe an “…issue of disagreement; something to quarrel about.”
Unintended Consequences of Obamacare
This posting only focuses on one unintended consequence, but it is certainly important to the budgets of state governments. According to an article by Carala K. Johnson of the Associated Press, “A tax on health insurers is helping pay for President Barrack Obama’s health care law, but it’s proving costly to state governments—as much as $13 billion in less than a decade.” The Health Insurance Provider’s Fee was supposed be covered by insurance companies because they would earn a windfall from Obamacare. Those who wrote the law believed those companies should pay for the expansion of coverage, but they apparently didn’t know how business works. The insurance companies raised prices to cover the costs of the new tax instead of just absorbing the cost. Businesses tend to continue to stay in business by making profits from their activities. Expecting the insurance companies to simply absorb additional costs was, to be kind, both naïve and silly.
The price increases passed on by the insurers affected state Medicaid programs, and they have had a huge impact. “State governments pay insurers for the tax; the insurers then pay the tax to the federal government. The federal government then reimburses part of the costs to the state. It might sound absurd, but it’s not amusing to state governments, which lose 54 cents for each dollar of insurance tax.” Another strange and detrimental impact of the law is that the health care tax is not deductible for insurance companies, so state governments must provide additional funds to cover that additional cost.
I find the false economics isn’t the saddest part of the story. One of my doctors made the comment that insurance provided by Medicaid “is a myth.” He explained that people think they have Medicaid insurance, but find that a limited and shrinking number of medical practices accept Medicaid patients. The result is that a person with Medicaid coverage must wait many weeks or even months for an appointment. Not a good thing if you have a medical need. The outcome is that people who have Medicaid aren’t getting health care and the States are paying penalties. Maybe we should be thinking about a better way of solving the problem. Maybe businesses that have a reputation for finding competitive solutions to problems could be lured in by the promise of profits.
As an aside, I’ve heard one of the best parts of Obamacare is the allowing children to remain on their parent’s plans until age 26. If that’s such a great idea, why not 36, 56, or until the parents are no longer around? (Just kidding, maybe?)
America’s Plans for War Against the Soviet Union, 1945-1950, Vol. 13, Evaluating the Air Offensive
This book 1, edited by Stephen R. Ross and David Alan Rosenberg, is an unusual book to be reviewed this web site. The book is listed as unavailable and out of print on Amazon. I obtained a copy on interlibrary loan from the “Center for Naval Analysis” in Arlington, VA. For those who might wonder why I would be interested in such an obscure book, I worked at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado, and have been researching why the nation believed we needed such a facility to be built in the early 1950s. I had motivation to obtain the book, but I’ll warn others that the book is very large. It has in excess of 400 8 ½ X 11 pages, even though it only contains the declassified information from the original top secret report. A quick summary is that the report describes an evaluation of “War Plan OFFTACKLE,” which called for a strike with atomic bombs on 220 Soviet industrial site followed by massive conventional bombing.
I’ve read much about the negative effects on military planning created by the competition between the military services in the late 1940s. There was also a lack of cooperation between the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the military planners. The AEC felt they were prevented by the Atomic Energy Act from revealing physical characteristics of the atomic bombs (which was crucial to determining how the weapons could be carried and delivered) or even the number of weapons in the stockpile. This report discusses the stark fact that the military didn’t have the capability to carry out the full war plan and also clearly emphasizes the even more depressing reality of the nearly complete lack of effective intelligence about the Soviet Union, its military capabilities, and its intentions. The only thing that seemed a certainty to the planners was that a World War with the Soviet Union was inevitable. Continue reading
Pardon my French
Phrase Finder has an article on “Pardon my French” or “Excuse my French.”
“A coy phrase used when someone who has used a swear-word attempts to pass it off as French. The coyness comes from the fact the both the speaker and listener are of course both well aware the swear-word is indeed English… This usage is mid 20th century English in origin. A version of it is found in Michael Harrison’s All Trees were Green, 1936.
“The source of the phrase is earlier and derives from a literal usage of the exclamation. In the 19th century, when English people used French expressions in conversation…For example, in The Lady’s Magazine, 1830: When a speaker says something rude about her compatriot’s appearance, then apologized for doing so in French, but not for the rudeness itself.”
Today I Found Out presents a lengthy list of conflicts between France and England that might lead to English speakers ascribing curse words to French.
Jefferson Parkway Legal Ruling
I’m a bit late with this posting, since the ruling was made in mid-April. The article describing the ruling was written by John Aguilar in the Denver Post. He begins the article, “The controversial Jefferson Parkway, long entangled in a series of courtroom challenges, won a major legal battle Friday when the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a complex land swap that enables construction of the Broomfield-to-Golden highway to move ahead. The land transfer involved a 617-acre parcel on the southwestern corner of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge for a 300 –foot wide transportation right of way parallel to Indian Avenue. “A federal judge ruled in favor of the swap in 2012.The 10th circuit judges unanimously affirmed the ruling…”
Plaintiffs in the case had contended that backers of the Parkway “…think the future of the Front Range lies in building more roads, more strip malls, and more housing tracts.” They had claimed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lacked the authority to make the transfer and violated environmental laws including consideration for the Pebble’s meadow jumping mouse, which has become a consistent component of opposition to any Front Range development project. There is, of course, the charge that construction would “…disturb plutonium buried in the soil of the defunct Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant.”
The future of the Parkway is far from certain because opponents are unlikely give up their legal challenges. They have legitimate concerns that the Parkway will increase the amount of development in their area. It is common for people who are happy with their current situation to not want more people to come in to enjoy their area.
I wonder whether there could have been any development in the State of Colorado if the current rules had been in effect in the 1940s and 1950s. Could I-70 been approved to traverse Colorado with current rules? How could it possibly have been approved with the disruption to wildlife migration routes and other significant environmental impacts? Could the series of irrigation canals in the Denver metropolitan area that provide a wonderful system of hiking and biking trails have ever been built? Those are probably are unanswerable questions.
The Road to Trinity
This book, which had the subtitle, “A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear Policies Were Made, was written by Major General Kenneth D. Nichols, (Retired). Nichols was a Lieutenant Colonel when he began an assignment as deputy district engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District. He was deputy to Leslie Groves. There have been many books written on the subject, but I would recommend this and the Groves account “Now it Can be Told,” as the best two to read if you are just beginning to want to understand what happened in the Manhattan Project and beyond. I was shocked that there hasn’t been a single review of the Nichols book on Amazon. You can buy a used copy of the book for about a dollar plus shipping. It would be worth your investment, although interlibrary loan was even less expensive.
The book begins in November 1952 when Nichols is directed to write his “…personal views on the political and military implications of the hydrogen bomb and given three hours to write it.” He wrote that the hydrogen bomb “…has equal or greater political than strictly military implications.” He warned that to achieve deterrence the U.S. must convince the Soviet Union we will utilize nuclear weapons ruthlessly. He believed we should have used tactical nuclear weapons in Korea “…proving to the world we really mean to use every potential weapon available to us to preserve peace and thereby deter war. He recognized that might or probably would have precipitated a major war “…at a time when we have the greatest potential for winning it with minimum damage to the U.S.A.”
People who are “anti-nuclear” and favor disarmament will gasp at some of the things Nichols writes. I was comfortable with his advice and opinions, and judge that he had, because of the roles he filled, an informed understanding of the real world situation that should be carefully and respectfully considered despite which side of the argument you might stand on. Continue reading