When you make a world tolerable for yourself,
you make a world tolerable for others.
Anais Nin
Olympic Notes
- Serena Williams. Arguably the most dominant female tennis player over the past decade (with an incredible 14 Grand Slam singles championships), Serena Williams yesterday had what has to be the most dominant performance ever in a major international championship, losing only one game in the match to runner-up 6'2" blond beauty Russian Maria Sharapova, a 4-time Grand Slam winner herself (whom beat Williams in the 2004 Wimbledon finals for her first Grand Slam). Serena is getting some negative press for her post-victory crip dance (my response to the critics: GET A LIFE!), but what I saw was a rare moment of pure joy in attaining the one remaining international championship that she has always secretly wanted, and I found myself caught up in her enthusiasm. Older sister Venus Williams is a former Olympic singles gold medal winner as well with 7 Wimbledon and US Open championships: congratulations, Williams sisters, on winning your third Olympic doubles championship today.
- Michael Phelps. What can you say about finishing his Olympic career with a run of 4 gold medals and 2 silvers in his last six performances? He's been pretty firm about retiring from competition and vague about his future plans. Look, I understand that the guy has been training since he was 11 years old and at 27, he's probably weary of the grueling schedules. He himself has admitted that he hadn't prepared enough over the past 4 years, he lost some key races between the Olympics, he dropped certain events and didn't want to put his body through the necessary training, and there were technical problems with his performances; I see it more as burnout.
What does he do now? He's probably set for life with Forbes estimating his net worth at $40M and no doubt tons of endorsements will come his way as the greatest Olympian of all time. He's got a sports foundation, could do some expert sports commentary, do high school or college coaching, make money on the motivational speaker circuit (this is a LOCK: I mean if President Zipper last year earned $13M and $89M since leaving White House, what would you pay to see and hear a REAL sports legend in person?), write books and do some instructional DVD's, serve on some corporate boards, head a fitness chain or set up the aquatic equivalent of Béla Károlyi's gymnastics center. Of course, I could also see Phelps doing a reality series, although as a private person he might balk at that. (This is all off the top of my head; I've never met the man and have never been an athlete.) It's a no-brainer for a President to select Phelps as a national spokesman for children's physical fitness; from all accounts, the man has a winning way with kids.
There's a lot to be said about retiring in your prime. Sandy Koufax, the brilliant LA Dodger southpaw, retired at 30 (although arthritis in his pitching arm was a factor). We have the sad cases of players hanging on after their peak (Kareem Abdul Jabbar comes to mind; maybe Mohammad Ali and Michael Jordan). Perhaps Phelps has lost a stroke or two off his best times; maybe he worries that 4 years from now he won't make the podium or, even worse, won't even reach the finals. But remember, all the greats sooner or later seem to try a comeback. Bjorn Borg, the repeat Wimbledon champ, did; even the great Mark Spitz, whom retired from swimming after 7 gold metals in 1972, tried to come back in 1992 in his early forties. I can see Michael Phelps doing expert commentary at the 2016 games analyzing the swimming competition and thinking to himself, I know I could have won that race. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think it's wired into any great competitor.
Final note: I want to pay tribute to a classy lady, Phelps' predecessor all-time leading medalist, Russian gymnast Larisa Latynina. Not only has Ms. Latynina had nothing but nice things to say about Phelps, she wanted to be the one whom awarded Phelps his record-breaking medal, but Olympics "rules-are-rules" bureaucrats refused to let it happen. (For God's sake, what's wrong with those pencil-pushers?) Bless her heart; what a sweet lady!
- Miscellaneous Notes. I think the last time I played badminton was back in OLL (I was reasonably good at the game and enjoyed playing it). Okay, if the reader is not familiar with the format of these tournaments, quite often there's a preliminary round of contests; outcomes determine slots in the single-elimination brackets to the championship. In essence, 8 Asian female athletes were caught deliberately trying to lose in order to arrange more favorable matchups in the single-elimination round. Obviously this is unsportsmanlike and unethical behavior but seemingly a not that uncommon practice in Asian play. Thumbs UP for disqualifying the athletes...
I was not happy with the American men's indoor volleyball match yesterday against Russia; the US was up 2-0 sets and got to match point--only to end up losing the same set and then all but crumbling during the final 2 sets to give the talented Russian team an improbable come-from-behind victory. NOT GOOD, guys!
With all due respect, how did Roger Federer, who beat British player Andy Murray at Wimbledon less than a month ago in straight sets after losing the initial set by 2 games, end up getting blown out by Murray in 3 sets, only winning 3 games in the first 2 sets? It was painful to watch; Federer's play looked flat and error-prone. I can't explain it; like Serena Williams, Federer (with 17 Grand Slam wins) did not hold an Olympic singles gold medal going into this tournament, and he had never lost to Murray before; on paper, it seemed like a lock for Federer.
McKayla Maroney is the best gymnast on the vault in the world, period. NBC did a comparative graphic showing how McKayla attains a height far higher than some of the best male gymnasts. But she did something that she hadn't done in recent memory: she failed to stick the landing on her second vault attempt and the relevant penalty cost her the gold. The penalty gave the last competitor (following McKayla) Sandra Raluca Izbasa of Romania the win with inferior vaults (but no landing miscue). Kudos to McKayla whom told reporters after the competition: "I didn't deserve to to win gold if I landed on my butt." (She is adorable; I would have had such a crush on her when I was in high school.) As a fellow perfectionist and someone whom also takes responsibility for his mistakes, I admire her sportsmanship and her integrity: what a fine role model for young girls everywhere!
What has happened to the American boxing program? I think I saw a email notification that 8 of 9 Americans have already been eliminated from medal competition...
Not sure how the American men's team in 2016 will regroup without Phelps (but it seems the American men have always been in contention for medals), but the young American women in particular seem ready to dominate over the coming decade. I was particularly impressed with 15-year-old Katie Ledecky's dominating win in the 800M freestyle going away, breaking the American women's record and within a second of establishing a new world record, and of course, 17-year-old Missy Franklin tied Michael Phelps with 4 gold medals each; and 22-year-old Allison Schmitt had 3 gold metals
This is going to be a contrarian opinion, one that defies political correctness, but I don't think that a double amputee should be racing in the same race with able-bodied competitors. I'm referring, of course, to South Africa's Oscar Pistorius. I think that runners have to deal with all sorts of issues, e.g., twisted ankles, Achilles tendinitis, plantar fasciitis, stress fractures, etc. I'm not sure whether prostheses are fair, but I find it odd that despite the Olympics tests for doping, drugs, steroids, whatever--to ensure "natural performance", the same doesn't hold true regarding the most critical body parts involved in the sports of running. I suspect that the decision process (of whether to include Pistorius in the competition) was highly subjective and heavily influenced by political factors (e.g., alleged discrimination against the disabled, etc.)Sunday Talk Soup: MTP Nancy Pelosi (7/1/12)
Part 1
Sometimes when I write an opinion, the piece takes on a life of its own. I initially intended to write an extended commentary on Nancy Pelosi's MTP interview in my Aug. 2 post; I initially picked the passage where she's trying to co-opt Romney's talking points on personal responsibility in defending RomneyCare. Heritage Foundation argues that its mandate was with respect to major medical (i.e., catastrophic), not the comprehensive health insurance of RomneyCare or ObamaCare. If you recall, this is one of the points I argued most strenuously against during the ObamaCare SCOTUS review process: I didn't want a blank check mandate. Pelosi's outrageous discrimination against people whom pay their own expenses out of pocket--at a fraction of the costs of health insurance--is contemptible. I expanded on the topic and Pelosi's original quote is used as an example of a progressive talking point.
Moderator Gregory asks Pelosi whether the 5-4 SCOTUS decision has settled the issue.
NANCY PELOSI: Oh, as far as we're concerned, the victory is there for the American people. If you're a person who has a child with diabetes, no longer will they be discriminated against because of a preexisting condition. If you're a woman, no longer will you have to pay more; no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing medical condition. If you're a senior, you pay less for your prescription drugs and nothing for a preventative check - wellness checkup. So again, and for everybody, no more lifetime limits on the coverage you receive. This and for other reasons -- if you're a young person you can be on your person, your parent's policy if you both agree to that. And so for the American people yes, the fight is over. Others will try to challenge, but –First, prescription drugs and checkups are NOT insurable (e.g., low-risk/rare/high cost) expenses, but ordinary expenses. EVERYBODY has ordinary expenses. This is a point I have recently made in terms of tax-advantaged employer-provided health insurance: if others have to pay with after-tax dollars, that's discriminatory. But, more to the point, if everyone gets a tax break, then effectively no one gets a tax break, because government revenue must be found elsewhere. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
Blase and Hederman of Heritage have 10 reasons why ObamaCare will increase costs. Keep in mind the demagogues behind ObamaCare have been swearing up and down that the same government, which reimburses providers 80% or less of market costs for health services to the point many physicians are refusing new Medicaid/Medicare patients, has accumulated over $20T in unfunded Medicare liabilities, constantly has to restore automatic cuts to doctors and provider, and can't even balance its own budget, can micromanage the health care sector:
- on preventive care: "A recent article in the journal Health Affairs notes that 80 percent of preventative care services increase costs instead of saving costs."
- on no lifetime limits and adult dependents up to 26: "Regence Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon [in 2010] is attributing 3.4 percent of its 17.1 percent rate increase to [available now features of Obamacare], while Celtic Insurance Company in Wisconsin and North Carolina is attributing 9 percent of its 18 percent rate increase to Obamacare."
- on preexisting conditions/guaranteed issue: "According to an analysis by Wellpoint, a health benefits company, the guarantee issue provisions in Obamacare will be mostly responsible for the rise in premiums. Furthermore, a recent academic paper found that the existence of guarantee issue regulations more than doubled premiums for individual policies and nearly doubled premiums for family policies."
- on "free care" or reduced drug costs: "The CBO concludes that a 10 percent decrease in cost-sharing typically increases health care spending by 1–2 percent."
NANCY PELOSI: It's being the mouthpiece of the health insurance industry. And we're saying let's not have them be in charge anymore. Let the people be in charge of how they receive coverage and health care. It's -- they'll bring it up, and when they bring it up they will ask for repeal, repeal of all the things I said that help children, help young adults, help seniors, help men or women who may have prostate cancer, breast cancer, whatever it is, any precondition. And everybody will have lower rates, better quality care and better access. So that's what they want to repeal, we're happy to have that debate.No. The GOP is saying health care insurance has traditionally been regulated at the state level, and there are state solutions for guaranteed issue problems, i.e., subsidized high risk pools. (Even a more federal solution of cost-sharing state/regional high-risk pools not unlike Medicaid or providing reinsurance for catastrophic care would have been preferable and less costly and obtrusive than centralization and reinventing the wheel of health care sector regulation.)
"Better quality care and better access"? Over the past three decades, growth in the number of physicians is flat, and ObamaCare threatens to come between doctors and patient. But consider the fact that the system is already inflation-bound, and previously self-insured individuals, with less skin in the game, now make more use of available services and benefits: "CBO predicts that a major coverage expansion would cause total demand for health care services to increase by 2–5 percent. Oliver Wyman estimates that the average uninsured will use about 20 percent more in health care services than the average individual, which will raise premiums in the individual market."
As for lower premiums: "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the benefit mandates in Obamacare—in combination with the limited cost-sharing—will increase premiums 27–30 percent in the individual market and up to 3 percent in the small group market."
[Note that the real solution to the health care cost bubble is restoring the free market. The government has unsustainable entitlement programs, has been the primary cause of instability in the health care sector through price-fixing (which has dysfunctional consequences, e.g., providing an incentive for unnecessary care when the reimbursements are higher than market or more limited cost sharing (e.g., "free" or token care) or (in most cases) reimbursing below cost, which requires doctors or providers to redistribute those costs to the private sector (either insurance or people paying out of pocket)), massive subsidies by making employer/employee health care benefits tax-free, and various other inefficiencies (e.g., barriers of entry to the medical profession (licensing), constraints against grouping risks beyond state lines, etc. Over the past week I cited Milton Friedman's spot-on approach to restoring the free market in health care.]
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, "Stay". Of course, several years later, Jackson Browne made a brilliant remake of this classic hit with more of a country-rock feel that works.
