So the dominos are falling…
My mom is a staunch conservative and the discussion after tonight's speech was my usual argument of common sense versus pre-conceived notions. She also brought up some good points, though, so let's examine them. Mainly, she's concerned that the country cannot afford this radical idea and that her Medicare benefits will be affected. She also pays for additional insurance, an additional Medicare supplemental insurance police as well as a long-term care policy.
So from tonight's speech:
That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. &
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies – subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. & Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. & I will protect Medicare.
So in that language there is an obvious direct cut to Medicare, but not the amount (number) or quality of benefits paid out. I assume the President is referring to overhauling the Medicare prescription drug program, the one that pays full-retail prices for drugs and is administered not really by Medicare, but by the individual insurance companies on behalf of Medicare. Does this extend to anything more or anything else?
Medicare payment processors run on a fairly thin budget, and the reimbursement rates for tests and procedures are pretty low. So I'm trying to figure out where $80B annualized dollars of waste and graft are. The plan is supposed to cost $900B over 10 years, and a majority of that money is supposed to come from savings in Medicare and Medicaid. So I'm rounding down to $80B/yr.
One concept I've come up with is that Obama is proposing taking the payment and processing in-house for the government, and getting rid of the regional MACs. Alternately cutting the number of MACs from 15 to a much lower number, potentially to match the number of Jurisdictions that handle DMERC and Hospice claims would reduce overhead and increase standardization (therefore reducing the number of appeals.)
Logically, this is the continuation of steps that were put in place with the George W. Bush's Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 which cut the number of Medicare processing centers in half, ridding the process of the associated waste that comes with 15-20 centers.
I could see $1-$2B per year coming from changing the MACs to match the larger Jurisdictions, but even the overhead in administering the modifications could eat through the initial savings.
I think another small battle for savings would come from taking 1-800-MEDICARE from a 24/7 call center to one that was 8-8 7 days per week. Given that they may only receive 6 phone calls between 7PM Sunday and 8AM Monday it is fairly wasteful to have all that infrastructure in place (including 20 call center reps at $8/hr), but that is savings in the thousands, not billions.
So we're down to $78B/yr in savings we need to "find." Can that simply come from overhauls in the prescription drug program? It's quite possible.
The prescription drug program for Medicare costs about $120B/yr ($1.2T 10 year cost as estimated in 2005.) Say that 25% of that 120B is eaten in administrative costs (that's a REALLY high number. It is likely closer to 5%.) So we're paying $90B/yr for drugs. If the gov't was able to negotiate a lower cost for those drugs, say a 30% savings, 30% of the annual $90B cost is $51B.
Now we're at a $51B/yr annual cost. Comparatively we pay $200M/day to clean-up Iraq. That's 255 days in Iraq, less than what we pay per year for the war to take care of our own.
I haven't even touched Medicaid yet, and that's a subject I know very little about. We can randomly say that reforms in Medicare can yield a 20% "chip" against the $51B/yr cost, taking it to $41B/yr.
If there are additional overhauls in tort reform and less "defensive medicine" is practice, medical costs could stabilize or go even go down (look at IN and TX for examples of tort reform. IN has had it since the 1970s.) So that remaining $41B could come in savings from the fact medicine (not just drugs, but doctors visits, procedures, etc.) won't cost more and continue to outpace inflation. Using fancy math, the $41B annually could be carved from the perceived savings if costs really go down.
So the math almost adds up. Any other clues where this cash will come from? Other than "raising taxes."
On healthcare and government.
One of the complaints about any proposed healthcare legislation is that it invites the scary "expansion of government" flag. True conservatives; ones who have stood more to the libertarian side and rejected the government spending on the Iraq war have a different philosophical explanation for government and society than do many mainstream Republicans who claim to be conservatives, as well as those who define themselves as moderate or liberal. This leads to a lot of consternation about how to evolve our society beyond the questions of healthcare and in turn, government at large.
Editors note, a lot of my ideas that I'm expressing here have been brewing in my head for several years. As my friends and I discuss healthcare reform and I have some time to set aside I'm only now able to put it all together.
I wrote elsewhere that for those who have a conservative mindset, the healthcare debate "is philosophically painful to watch, especially because of the beauty of the utilitarian nature of conservatism (pay for the tiniest amount, only what you need, keep gov't small, etc.)" The concept of government even acting in the tiniest of Keynesian matters with respect to basic marketplace regulation causes heartburn in even the most mild of Glenn Beck fans.
Bear with me as I jump around. In the prior administration, as the roots of neo-conservatism took hold, Alberto Gonzales was roasted because he declared the Geneva Convention as quaint. A 75-year-old landmark document that defines the rules of war and limits of torture was declared nearly obsolete. His view, and the Bush administration view, is that in the past 75 years war as a notion of nations struggling for land or a resource has evolved to be fights against militant groups and terrorists who do not have a nation and who are not battling for borders, but instead battling to shape ideologies. And they weren't wrong. They weren't right, either. Personally I think we as a nation need to take the higher road and play by the rules, and let those who want to cause harm or terror fester how they choose, but others did not think that way.
The message from this exercise is that the model use to define war and terror and punishment is complex and evolving. Documents that we live by today were created many years ago, and will occasionally need to be re-examined as society evolves, as well as aspects of our immediate government.
The concepts around a democratic government are evolving, too. Let's think about this for a moment. In the 20th century many extremely successful democracies were created with the help of the USA. Generally this nation building occurred after the Second World War. Many of the governments that were built were not based on the US constitution or a federal/republic model, but instead were designed after various parliamentary systems widely found in Europe. Even in the latest US approaches to nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq parliamentary systems have been put in place.
As the USA has evolved so has the methods in which we divide our land. Typically in the US the smallest units of government are towns or townships or cities or incorporations. The next layer up is a county, the next layer up is a state, and the next layer up is the federal government. Compare the typical size of a county in an older state, like a New Jersey or Maryland or Maine or Florida. Compare that with the size of a county in Texas, Kansas or even California. The further west we move, the later that portion of the country was settled, the larger the land-mass is that is. The more recently the portion of the country was settled, the more technology we had to "conquer" the situation. Initially there may have been stone bridges and people walking or riding horseback. Later we had railroads and bridges were more quickly constructed of steel. Just with this example, we can see that government, especially in some parts of the east, is established around the limitations of the 17th century, and further west puts us in the 19th century.
Our constitution was solidified in 1789, 220 years ago. It has evolved quite a bit over time, including provisions for ending slavery, ending alcohol consumption, resuming alcohol consumption, and even allowing women to vote. Many people cling to the constitution, and other items like the Federalist Papers as if they're a gospel, not to be strayed from. Our constitution and government was created of two problems. One was rejecting the rule of a monarchy. The other was an effort to solidify relations among different, disparate and geographically diverse colonies. There was no internet, no phone, no hopping in the car and driving six or eight hours to spread a message. Instead the founding fathers developed a lowest-common-denominator to string together thousands of miles of coastline.
These same notions brought us concepts like the "circuit court" which was really a circuit that judges and state prosecutors rode on a horse to administer justice to different areas. These units of measurement and units of government were developed for horseback and not the innovations of the past 200 years.
From this sprung what we have today. But in the process we developed conventions and methods of government and units of government that don't need to apply anymore. Think of this in terms as "government per square inch."
Over the past 5 years in Indiana, one idea to help curb property taxes, reduce government waste, and provide "one throat to choke" was the concept of limiting and reducing township government. Typically townships are sub-parcels of counties. There are usually six or nine townships in a single county. Sometimes more, sometimes less. They were created to handle things that people didn't want to handle at the county level. Typically fire departments, distributing aid to the local poor, and assessing properties for taxation. Sometimes they also managed building permits and local zoning when there was not a city to manage such things. There is also some graft associated with this. Local officials can be appointed instead of elected, or if they are elected they then hire family members to fill out office positions.
But for the most part, in rural areas this makes sense. However, a large city like Indianapolis does not need nine townships with nine different fire departments and nine decentralized offices for small claims courts, each with their own constables.
In various heroic attempts both Democrats and Republicans have tried to curb this excess government. And they've failed miserably for the most part. We're down to six or seven different fire departments in Indianapolis.
Take a look at this from a bigger picture that applies in many places. How many police jurisdictions do you live in? Until recently, I could be serviced by the city police, county sheriff, state police and the state excise police. (Indianapolis recently consolidated the count sheriff and city police.) How many policing agencies do we need working in the City of Indianapolis? Each have their own set of regulations, their own command structures, their own motor pools, individual weapons requirements and individual garages.
There is obvious waste in this, both in headcount as well as operational expense.
We can look at education the same way. How many school boards do we need? How many administrators? To save money some counties combine their schoolboards, (not necessarily individual schools) to save money and raise standards and opportunity for local children. 20 years ago discussions of national standardized testing for students was heresy. Now, with NCLB we have such a system. In the past regional and local differences for the purposes of different school boards were a shield to prevent racial integration and the teaching of Darwinism in the classroom. As our society starts to embrace science and move past racial lines, why do we need these excess local divisions?
We can consolidate X to achieve Y. In another example, we have 50 different bureaus of motor vehicles in our country. 50 different regulatory agencies that do the same thing, each with their own command structures and infrastructure. Imagine the savings if these were consolidated, even just down from 50 to 25?
So we grow to overcome the "quaintness" of the conventions foisted upon us. It is how we evolve as a people, a society, and a nation. Our 220 year old notion of government could be considered just as quaint as the Geneva Convention in the right context.
The current Libertarian (and historically Republican/conservative) movement argues for a weak (or alternately minimalist) federal structure and strong state structures. I argue the opposite is far more logical. We don't require the notion of states anymore, as today's technology is sufficient to govern larger chunks of society than what existed 200 years ago.
More on Health Care
A while back I posted about the poor business models of health insurance companies. The current health care debate has made my ideas far more relevant and poignant.
Those on the right and those that insist health care in our country is "A-OK" are believing in a myth. It isn't.
If we accept that premise, we can look to see that both sides of the political aisle do have some valid plans, but unless they are all implemented in concert they are a band-aid for individual issues and nothing more.
1) Tort reform. Unfortunately, the lawyers in the US are a powerful political lobby for both political parties. Therefore, this won't happen. Standardizing on the definition of malpractice at a national level, instead of at a local or state level would assist in creating a uniform way for doctors to insurance against malpractice suits. Creating a realistic cap on malpractice damages would help, too. For obvious reasons the trial lawyers don't want this kind of reform. First, it would help expose that we have too many lawyers in the country. How? With each state having its own standards for malpractice suits, no single lawyer or law firm can easily specialize in malpractice suits or defending against them. With 50 different laws on the books, there are 100 different niches for lawyers, the plaintiff or defendant in each of the 50 states. This is kind of a silly analog, and I just thought of it, but I do think it is creative. Secondly, by capping the limits on a malpractice suit, the lawyer may not feel that there is enough potential profit in a suit, even one with merit. This is a small piece of the pie overall, though. This will help control health care costs by cutting the risk for health care providers (hospitals, doctors, nurses, their unions, etc.) Given the costs of malpractice insurance premiums that doctors and hospitals have to pay, those are the people lobbying big-time for this common-sense measure.
2) Altering insurance regulations. This is a big one that has been mentioned on both the left and the right. Basic insurance math dictates that the best kind of insurance is the largest insurance pool. In an ideal situation, the risk that the insurance defends against is spread out over many, many people. Therefore, it is likely that the individual premium cost will go down the more individuals are a part of the pool. The easiest way to do this is to trump the state-based insurance regulation with some simple federal rules. This way the same policy can be offered in all 50 states, instead of just one.
The losers here are the independent, local insurance agents. Just like what happened with car insurance, where someone can now visit a website or make a call to a 1-800 number, people can do that with health insurance, too. The winners here are the insurance companies. They just lowered their costs. They can keep their premiums and rates the same and charge the same, but they've increased their profit margin. If I was less cynical, I'd suggest that the insurance companies would reduce their rates accordingly, making more health care affordable. Alternately, this legislation combined with a prohibition on blocking those with pre-existing conditions as well as excess rescission could also then "balance the plate" for insurance companies. Over-simplified, this is a proposal that hurts small business and benefits the big insurance companies, but it can also help control costs for those big employer-based plans that are purchased from those big insurance companies.
3) The public option. For all intents and purposes, a "single-payer" system, such as that which was dreamed up by Hilary Clinton in the early 1990s is a dead notion in the US. There is NO single-payer or universal healthcare proposal on the table in congress. There are fear-mongers on the Right who claim "the government is going to take it all over", but it simply isn't true. Although, if one looks at how Medicare is run, as well as health care in France, the Netherlands and Taiwan, the idea of a government-run system isn't so bad. However, bad examples of single-payer systems show up in nearby Canada and the UK. Since those places speak English, their opinion is worth much more to the US media and breeds much scare talk about the supposed-effects of a single-payer system. So no-one is currently pushing a single-payer system in the US anymore, except for folks like Dennis Kucinich and maybe Howard Dean.
The public option gives people the ability to buy what should be reasonable insurance coverage for discount or low rates; this is to give insurance to those who wouldn't normally be able to afford or receive insurance with private plans, either due to pre-existing conditions or finances. The private marketplace, likely driven by profit margin, does not provide this service. The point of the public option is not to "compete" with private insurance, but to extend insurance to those who don't have it and can't get it.
This scares the free-market idealists. First, with Medicare's proven track record of providing care for less than that of private insurance, many people may jump ship from private insurance to the public option since it is likely for the same care at less cost. This breeds the whole "complete with private insurance" debate. Secondly, those who are afraid of "big government" see this as an intrusion of governmental power. The issue is that this public plan will likely not apply to those that are afraid of it.
Remember, of 300 million people in the USA, about 50 million are on Medicare, and 45 million are on medicaid. So almost 1/3rd of the people in the country are ALREADY on some kind of public health care system. The whole point of the "public option" is to provide health care for approximately 50 million people who don't have insurance, or don't have quality insurance. We'd be increasing those "on the dole" by a mere 30%.
4) Vouchers. The Right really likes vouchers. They want the government to hand out cash in ways to stimulate the existing economies that pay their lobbyists and churches that pay them. Remember, vouchers come up a lot during debates about "school choice" and talk about vouchers for private education too. With vouchers, essentially those of a specific income level would be able to receive vouchers to pay for private health care. There are a few problems with this. First, many private insurance companies exclude people for pre-existing conditions. So, even with a voucher in-hand, you're not guaranteed coverage. Secondly, the amount of money it would take to purchase private insurance for all the Americans who need it would be far more than the cost of a "Public Option." Think about it. Given that the US Government is already providing medical payer services for 1/3rd the population with a better cost structure, why should the US Government continue to prop-up a more costly system?
My old friend Stephanie recently posted about her battle to receive pre-natal health care. [ Note, I have no clue why her blogger-based blog has a warning. ] Her husband was laid off, but even if he was still employed his insurance would not accept her as a spouse for some time. Because she's self-employed she cannot afford insurance on her own. Because she's self-employed she makes too much money for the current public assistance that is available through Medicaid. Because she's both overweight and pregnant many insurance companies won't even talk to her. She's winding up more worried about how to pay for the birth of her child than how to raise it, which should be inconceivable in a first-world country.
In another bout of cost-cutting with health insurance my wife's aunt has been through some turmoil. She was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. Per her doctors the proper course of treatment was a mastectomy. After the procedure was completed her insurance company said it would not pay for an overnight stay, that she should go home after the 4-6 hour procedure was completed.
Let's rephrase this in plain English. This woman just had a body organ removed and was still on an IV drip, in massive amounts of pain, had a drainage tube installed where her breast should be, and was told "it's not cost effective to have you in the hospital, you should recoup at home after this major surgery." After a few angry phone calls to the insurance company from her doctor she was allowed to stay ONE extra night at the hospital, but was then sent home.
Instead of focusing on healing my wife's aunt was now having to focus on battling an insurance company so she could receive the peace and quiet required to heal! The ultimate iron is that she WORKS for this same insurance company. It doesn't matter who your employer is, it is the "costs" that matter. Plus, it isn't like she can complain about the service her own company provides without fear of retribution.
I'm resigned to a sad truth. Wingnuts like Kucinich have it right. The profit-motive has completely screwed up health care companies. For insurance companies it is no-longer is it about taking care of people or spreading the risk among more people, it's about the bottom line and profit. And to make the Wall Street brokers' expectations people's health will suffer.
More letters exchanged…
Jon,
You should be receiving a response for ZLB. However, I spoke to center manager and per Hq, effective immediately, the center will no longer use gauze and will go back to band aids. ZLB does and has been doing neighborhood sweeps in the a.m. and p.m for several years. This will also be confirmed by ZLB.
Zoning and Health and Hospital has confirmed ZLB is in total compliance with all ordinances and MCHD regs.
Per State, and Federal medical facility practices and medical boards, ZLB continues to complies with all regs, policies and procedures. No violations currently on file. All state, fed inspections current and no violations.
Zoning and H&H inspectors takes their jobs seriously and at any time ZLB or any business facility or residential dwelling in non-compliant, appropriate action will be taken accordingly.
Jon, please feel free to contact Councillor Ben Hunter to discuss and present your case for ZLB to relocate. As you know, ZLB has a 20yr lease with Tharp Investments, the facility is zoned accordingly, has been at this site for well over 35yrs and until there is just cause the city's position on ZLB remains as is; doesn't warrant interference with landlord-tenant business.
So basically the City doesn't want to do anything and is resting on the City and State's laurels that everything is OK. It doesn't even acknowledge the sanitation and health concerns that I have over the discarded bandages.
Ruth Ann,
The issue isn't band-aids vs. gauze, it's a systematic skirting of regulations and a long-term issue with a business and its clientele not belonging in a residential neighborhood. The photos I took should be ample evidence that there is a problem.
Two years ago there were complaints about bloody gauze. ZLB changed to band-aids. At some point I'm willing to wager there was a complaint about the waste band-aids and there was a change to gauze to alleviate that concern. Such superficial measures fail to assuage anyone and are nothing but a slight of hand.
Regularly the City targets nuisance businesses such as ZLB. I fail to see the distinction between ZLB, the Indy East, Lynn's Lingerie, and a host of other nuisance businesses the City has targeted. What makes this case different?
So I wrote the City back…
Ruth Ann,
Thank you for forwarding on my concerns.
I'm greatly troubled by your response. Is the City NOT concerned with the unsanitary waste produced by the plasma center? Is the City not concerned that this waste blows onto the grounds of an elementary school?
This issue has been an ongoing concern in my community for 25+ years and has yet to be resolved. Rightly or wrongly, I, as an individual citizen am counting on you and the City to help ensure my neighborhood is safe. To me, this means the proper monitoring and enforcement of zoning and health rules. I want my kids and the children of my friends and neighbors to be able to walk to school without seeing bloody gauze along their route. I think that is a sane and simple request to be made by any citizen of a world-class city.
Finally, and most disturbingly, am I not being a good neighbor because I refuse to accept these unhealthy, and frankly disgusting conditions? Does complaining about the fact that a business that increases our neighborhood's crime rate and produces disgusting health waste make be a bad neighbor? Am I supposed to accept these conditions because they have donated money to different community groups?
It is obvious that ZLB is incompetent in policing itself or its clients, as these concerns have been the same ones voiced for 25 years. Cyclically, the neighborhood and various individuals complain, the trash potentially abates for six months, and then it flows again. That is why I am asking the City for help.
Ultimately, I think it is in everyone's best interest if ZLB were to move out of Irvington, as that is what many residents have wanted for many years. What options does our community have in getting them to leave? How can the city help us with this?
Thank you!
-Jon
The city has a response!
So I got a very quick response from the city. I've added some emphasis. See below:
Jon,
Please note that I have forward you message to ZLB Hq reps for review and action.Jon, Dale and Brian, please feel free to take any/all complaints, photos and issues to Brandon Voege, Center Manager. There is no doubt Brandon would be more than willing to meet with you to discuss issues/concerns and if warranted take appropriate action.
Please consider being a good neighbor by working with a business partner; one that has invested $500K, at the request of area residents, in the exterior of the facility to enhance the corner, and shield parking from public view. Also, when approached, has contributed to many efforts of Irvington Organizations, IPS #57, Guardians Home and Our Lady of Lourdes either with monetary and/or in-kind donations.
So from what I'm told, I'm not supposed to complain about wanting the business gone, something the neighborhood has been complaining about for 25 years. It seems to be inferred from this communication that I'm supposed to look the other way.
An open letter to the city
The Plasma center has been a bone of contention in our neighborhood for quite some time. To me, it came to a head the other day when friends mentioned to us the disgusting, bloody gauze was "back."
All,
It's no secret that ZLB Plasma is a blight on our neighborhood and needs to move out. I know during the 2007 election season the issue was given a lot of attention by all the candidates. Since then a lot of the hubbub has died down.
During a recent visit with fellow neighbors, they stated that while on a family walk they had seen a tremendous amount of bloody gauze not only on the property but being blown throughout the neighborhood. Taking advantage of the lovely weather my wife and I drove over to the Walgreen's parking lot and looked around. I brought my camera.
I was astonished to see that the claims I heard were NOT embellished. I was easily able to snap 10 photos. Bloody gauze was throughout the parking lot as well as blown into the bushes at Walgreen's. What is more troubling that if it is blowing into the Walgreen's that means it is also blowing across the street onto the elementary school's grounds. School will be starting within a matter of weeks. Although my children are too young to attend School 57 I have family and am friends with many neighbors who do send their children there, and they deserve far better than the health hazard posed by the plasma center.
What is the City doing to encourage the plasma center to leave Irvington or at least curb this unacceptable and unsanitary behavior?
Thank you!
-Jon
(Attached are the photos I sent to the city. I cropped them solely so they could be e-mail sized. The full ones are available at my picasa album.
Why I will never set foot in JFK Again
In the past month I've had two flights through JFK. Both connections had been canceled for various reasons. Although some agents claimed weather, others said the same flight was canceled due to airplane maintenance or crew availability. I never got a straight answer. I did get a day to "play" in Manhattan out of the deal, but that still meant a day of missed work and the associated headaches therein.
I think it goes back down to physics, at the end of the day. New York has three major, yet under-sized airports. JFK at least has two, parallel runways that can be used simultaneously. EWR does, too, except ground traffic to the second runway must cross over the first, which can hamper simultaneous operations. LGA has two runways that intersect.
Compare that with designs of other airports, like Indianapolis, that has three runways, two parallel with the terminals inside the parallel runways. This means that ground operations from each individual runway to not interfere with the other one, making operations more efficient. Looking at bigger airports, like ORD, DFW, DTW and ATL, they have three or four or more parallel runways in a staggered configuration and can handle many more flights than a single NY-area airport.
The FAA and Port Authority know that the NY Airspace cannot continue to operate in its current manner. There have been multiple task-forces and lots of blame-game politics around it. Big airlines blame the small, general aviation pilots for the problems. The best part of that fallacy is most general aviation flights do not use those airports or the airspace that commercial aircraft use!
It's pure physics; nothing more and nothing less. You cannot fit "10 gallons" of airplanes in a 1 gallon jug. Six air carriers cannot responsibly dispatch six flights at the same time from a single airport, let alone three! I implore anyone to simply browse to the JFK flight schedule and look at the number of departures that should happen at one point in time. It's physically impossible.
There are a few ways to solve this. The first would be to revert to a more regulated environment where airlines bid on takeoff and landing slots, used to ensure that there is a static, continuous flow of aircraft. This method is in use elsewhere (like London Heathrow) which only has two runways, but it keeps operations there running well.
Additionally, the FAA needs to look at regulating which airlines can use which airports. For instance, many airlines have flights that service all three airports, or even just two of the three. They also have flights serving secondary airports in the area, like White Plains and Islip. Limiting those airlines to one airport may help with the flow of traffic.
Disappointingly, no-one has stepped in with a plan worth following or any steps towards a concrete solution for the NY-area problems. Most PANYNJ propaganda relies upon the FAA's "next-gen" air traffic control system, which integrates GPS location with the radar system that is currently in use. Although this will provide greater accuracy in determining where airplanes are, I fail to see this technical solution as the panacea that is supposedly claimed. Airplanes of all shapes and sizes will need costly upgrades solely so they can fly closer together. That may help in the air, but once on the ground there are still only so-many runways for airplanes to land and take off on, and so many bits of taxiway that can be used between those runways and gates.
So I'm angry. Someone, somewhere should make a decision and set a direction. Without that I've missed two connecting flights; one causing me a missed day at work. The other one was the flight home after a nice European vacation, punctuating what was otherwise a great trip with waiting in cesspool otherwise known as JFK for several hours.
I have some substantial posts coming. Honest!
Right now I'm doing a quick index of friend's stores at etsy.com. I did one before at an older blog, but wanted to do it here. If you're looking for quirky, cool, custom stuff, these are good places to go.
My cousin runs the following stores:
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5130103
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=28719
Alice, our friend in the UK runs:
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5198007
Leigh runs:
http://www.etsy.com/shop.php?user_id=5283125
All about the TSA, and then some…
As a relatively frequent traveler I have learned how to get through airport security efficiently, despite the best efforts of both clueless fellow passengers and the bureaucracy of the TSA.
I learned a few things. Avoid secondary screenings...
I'm also irate at the whole Clear situation, as I was a Clear member and relied upon it so I could arrive at the airport about an hour before my flight and be able to walk straight from the car onto the airplane.
So those are my lame tips, but hopefully they'll help you.
