One would think that electricity is something that could be reliably delivered, at least from the consumer point of view. There may be disruptions in the larger network, but interconnectivity at those higher levels should be opaque to someone who just wants some light to read by. This should be especially true in this nation’s large cities and urban areas in general, and the nation’s capital should have impeccable service. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

I’ve been without power since late last night, around 11pm or midnight for sure. I understand that DC is currently experiencing a heat wave, but this brownout occurred at a time that should have the least demand and strain on the power grid. Temperature-wise I was fine because I’m in a basement apartment, but it’s now near 10am, the power is now totally out, and I’m pretty sure my refrigerator is losing temperature quite quickly. I wouldn’t normally be so irritated by this except that this is at least the sixth time this has happened since I moved in seven months ago, and only the first time this summer.

Power, water, and sewage. These are the three basic necessities of modern life. Electricity, as one of these fundamental utilities, should only be interrupted by natural disasters or adverse weather events; not a lapse in maintenance, inadequate capacity, and I would hope not a lack of supply.

UPDATE: To be entirely fair, Pepco, the local utility, is very responsive. There are currently three service trucks on my street.

A simple post by a friend of mine upon the passage of the Healthcare Reform bill triggered a rather lengthy discussion. The original post noted the bill’s passage, and also expressed wonder as to why some of his friends in medical school were upset that it had passed.

To be clear, I had long considered applying to medical school, but ultimately decided against it for a number of reasons, among which was the fact that I didn’t think that my heart was in it, along with the fact I could not handle the financial burden. I still view it as an honorable profession, and as far as I am concerned, dedicated to the service of society and not only the maintenance, but also the improvement of the quality of life of every individual, regardless of financial resources. It is clear, however, that my view is not universally held. A couple of our mutual friends and acquaintances now in medical school commented on the post, writing, for example:

[Med Student A]

it’s because we actually understand what this bill means…

1.doctors on average have 10s/patient. increase the number of patients without increasing residency positions = doctors can’t give anyone adequate care 2. doctors/hospitals will no longer be able to give the level of care americans are used to because we won’t get reimbursed from the government for all the new medicare pts…that means no expensive procedures thus decreasing the level of care that americans are used to 3. doctors will earn less money, no we’re not greedy we goddamn deserve it, plus we have to pay off hundreds of thousand dollars of debt…this will worsen that whole doctor shortage thing 4. every universal healthcare system that is going now is leaking money, our national debt is too big for that…. i could go on but i feel that’s adequate

At the very least, these comments by “Med Student A” (MS-A) fail to identify systemic problems in the way in which medical care is delivered in the United States, related to the completely inadequate number of medical doctors and other support professionals trained annually in this country. Furthermore, these comments also expose MS-A’s complete disregard for the idea that one should become a doctor to help patients, and not for one’s self-serving and shallow interests.

And from another med student:

[Med Student B]

It also screws over doctors pretty well, so we’re not too happy about our future

[Med Student A] put it pretty well – the other points that are big negatives for us are increased taxes on our bracket as well as decreased Medicare reimbursement (and small business health insurance costs, though I’m still unsure of how that effects groups the size of private practices). What that does is not only will we have 32 million new patients flooding the system with no one to take them up, but physicians will not want to take on many more from that type of plan. As it is, Medicare reimbursement is so low compared to private insurance, that most PCPs can only take a certain percentage of Medicare/Medicaid patients or they start losing money.

Training surgical assistants and PAs is all well and good, but the problem isn’t in specialties (well, it is, but to a lesser extent) – it’s in the primary care field. While a PA might be qualified to perform some tasks, patients are still going to want to see a doctor, their doctor. Even with the help, we’ll still have decreased time with patients, for no real benefit to them, and we’d have to offset the cost of hiring that PA.

Oh, addendum: I’m also unconvinced that by insuring more people, we’ll significantly change the American mentality. What I mean is that currently, the people who are uninsured go to the ER for care, costing the hospitals and system tons of money. As I mentioned above, with so many patients and no room for them, I don’t believe that this practice is going to significantly change. People are too used to getting their care through the ER, and with finding a PCP so hard, many will just delay getting one, still going to the ER. While them actually being insured will help, it’s still a large loss of cash, and won’t fit in the “preventative care” model that’s supposed to save money in the long term.

However, with all this in mind, there are a few steps int he right direction, especially with regards to insurance company regulation. Personally though, I’d like to see all insurance companies turned into non-profits.

These comments by “Med Student B” (MS-B) are an improvement on those by MS-A. However, in failing to criticize the earlier comments and instead offering unqualified acceptance and implied approval and concurrence, are disappointing at best.

Doctors are widely considered and held to be not only leaders, but also among the most educated and intelligent members of any community and our society as a whole. They are expected to act in the best interest of their patients, to critically analyze the symptoms of disease and deliver relief and comfort in the form of care and knowledge in understanding the ailment. In exchange for these tall demands, our society supports the doctors who serve us by offering financial support for their education through public educational and healthcare institutions through which these individuals receive their training, protection from illegitimate competition, and most importantly, our complete and unconditional trust.

The American healthcare system is not perfect. We demand much from our medical professionals, but ultimately, provide them with an insufficient amount of support. It is unreasonable to ask anyone to take on over a quarter-million dollars’  worth of debt and invest at least six years of their lives to become fully trained, and then pretend that this is an acceptable arrangement in light of the expectations placed upon them. Many practitioners are inadequately compensated, and some are even unable to repay the loans they withdrew in order to become medical doctors in the first place. We don’t train enough doctors to provide quality care for every individual, and the system as a whole has been wholly inadequate for decades. This places an even greater burden on the few medical professionals we do manage to train each year. This is unfair to our medical providers. Consider, however, the injustice done to those members of our society who have done nothing but happen to fall ill without the financial means to carry themselves through treatment.

It is sickening to hear of aspiring medical professionals approach the healthcare debate with only their own interests at heart. It is disappointing to see them fail to step back from their own narrow points of view and consider the system as a whole, to identify any problems other than those which will directly affect their paychecks and their workloads. It is agonizing to know that there are more altruistic individuals who would love to become doctors, but are unable to do so. I have only the utmost respect for the medical profession, but if we as a society are training students who are only interested in medicine for the title, the salary, and their own self-preservation, then these two medical students are right: the system will decay and we will all fail. I am deeply disappointed in these two, my friends, no less, for failing to step back from their own self-interest, and recognize that while imperfect, the reforms signed into law today represent an improvement for every individual in this country, and that any healthcare is better than access to none at all.

I just found my copy of the U.S. News & World Report Graduate School Rankings. Skimming through the admission statistics they have for each engineering school, I am only more sure that I should be doing this. I am qualified to gain admission; I just need to prove it to the admissions committees and the departments to which I am applying.

Two rejections have already been sent to me, and in better economic conditions, it would be pretty obvious what they meant. However, knowing that the applicant pool is much larger now, it’s not quite as clear.

The factors that could negatively impact my application are my undergraduate GPA, my lack of experience in biomedical engineering-specific research, the strength of my recommendation letters, and the strength of my own statement of purpose. The first and third items in that list are not things I can change, and the second would be difficult, though not impossible to improve.

This whole situation is frustrating, sure, but I’ve had a lot of support. Some people have been more helpful than others, however. Telling me that I’m definitely qualified and that I should apply again later is great; telling me that you don’t think I should go to graduate school now because it’ll be competitive, or that I won’t be as wealthy as quickly is not. At best, this line of thinking is a transparent cover and distraction for one’s own selfish interests.

I am increasingly grateful for the existence of Post 84, the outdoor education program, at my high school; not only for the skills I learned as a participant and then later as staff of the program, but also for the investment I made in the clothing and equipment at the time.  I’m still using most of that today, and it really is invaluable during inclement weather of the sort that Washington, DC has been experiencing over the past week or so, with more on the way later this afternoon and into tomorrow evening.

No, it’s not.

I like Ikea.  It provides me with reasonably good-quality furniture and other home-related items at a reasonable price, and allows me to satisfy my inner builder impulse with small, instant-gratification projects.

The quote in the title of this post suggests understandable frustration with the Swedish furniture company for entering the American furniture market and seizing a large portion of the customer base from more traditional furniture stores and manufacturers.  However, quoted statement comes from someone who has an interest in a more traditional furniture store, and also believes in free-market economics.  For these reasons, the statement, “Ikea is evil,” is, at best, misguided, and most likely, uninformed.

I prefer to think of Ikea as entry-level furniture.  Not everyone needs, or even necessarily wants, craftsman-grade furniture made to exacting standards and of solid hardwoods and the like.  College graduates and low-income individuals also need furniture, and Ikea provides it at a price within reach for this demographic.  It’s also appropriate for people who are in a transitional period within their lives, whether that is college, a first limited-term position just out of school, or just switching careers.  The furniture is inexpensive enough to replace, durable enough to move frequently, and also of a high enough quality to be re-sold and readily reused.

Not everyone is in a place in their lives or careers where it is reasonable to invest thousands of dollars on extremely nice, heirloom-quality furniture.  Such an investment requires not only economic stability, but also maintaining a single residence for a an extended period of time.  Moving involves significant up-front costs, and moving expensive furniture carries its own premium.

Ikea satisfies a niche in the furniture market that is difficult for traditional furniture stores to court, mostly due to the cost of doing so.  I would argue that a majority of the people who buy furniture from Ikea would likely not have bought furniture from traditional furniture stores if it didn’t exist; instead, they would rely on classified ads, garage sales, and listings such as craigslist, or even go without.

Ikea isn’t evil; it is just a company that does a very good job of providing goods and services to a particular market.  It doesn’t sell name-brand furniture at discount prices; it sells its own designs and its own reproductions of more high-end designer pieces.  The reproductions may be an issue, but for the most part, it exists in a totally different market than traditional furniture stores.