I’ve been thinking a lot about healthcare reform in the US recently, due to both the ‘08 election and Michael Moore’s Sicko film.  So many people have so many ideas about what should be done with healthcare, and some are wacky and some are crazy.  Personally, I don’t know exactly what should be done but I have a few thoughts.

The biggest problem with the healthcare system in the United States today is cost.  Healthcare costs in the US today are rising for many reasons, including longer life expectancy, medical malpractice suits, and developments of medicines to treat problems that we never treated before.  Costs are rising rapidly, and data suggests healthcare costs now equal 16% of GDP (this number is expected to increase dramatically over the next decade).

So how can we reduce costs?  Obviously, we can’t ask people to live shorter lives.  That’s way too ethically unsound.  I have two suggestions.

My torts class at GMU Law does not allow laptops in the classroom.  The reason is because my professor and others claim laptops are not conducive to active thinking.  I agree.

Laptops tend to make individuals want to transcribe a lecture.  When I write my notes, I struggle to capture as much information as I can on paper, but sometimes I just can’t get it all so I have to think about what is important.  When I’m able to type on my computer, I don’t need to think about what’s important, necessarily, I can always capture it all and think about “what is important” later on.  In addition, it’s very, very easy to end up surfing the internet instead of listening if there is a boring topic going on in class.

I don’t know if I’m going to take notes by hand in all of my classes this semester, but I’m kind of glad that I’m going to be forced to try it in at least one class.

If you had to raise money to finance transportation improvements, would you rather:

1. Slightly raise taxes so that everyone pays a share of the improvements?
2. Levy a huge tax on approximately random individuals?

Virginia’s relatively new speeding and other driver infraction fines are much like option #2.   “The purpose of the civil remedial fees imposed in this section is to generate revenue,” states Virginia Code 46.2-206.1.   Basically, Virginia needed money to pay for transportation expenses, and because the word tax is such taboo in the US today, “creative fundraising” was necessary.

This raises a few serious concerns.  First, because this law was deliberately created as a fundraising mechanism, the implication is that “we’re hoping for people to break the law so we can raise enough money.”  It’s almost as if Virginia is condoning setting up speed traps where the speed limit goes from 55 to 25 for no reason and setting cop cars all around the trap to raise money.

I’m naming this past Sunday, the 12th, through this Thursday, the 16th, the “Week of Pain.” I have decided to give myself a challenging week of athletic endeavors just for the heck of it.

On Sunday I raced a 10k. The 10k (6.2 miles) distance itself is not incredibly challenging, as I run regularly throughout the year, but a race always makes me sore. Especially when it’s my first race in about five months, and I’ve just really started training well again after an IT band injury.

Tomorrow (Tuesday), I’m going on a 100 mile bike ride with my college roommate, Steve. I haven’t been on a bike since early June. Hello sore back!

On Thursday, I’m going on a 17-19 mile long run.

All of these days have required or will require waking up well before 6am.

I’m still looking forward to it, though. I know it will hurt on Thursday night, but I just love setting weird goals like this an accomplishing them. I suppose that’s why I’m starting law school this Friday as well.

Anyways, just wanted to write this on here for some reason. Hope everyone else is having an exciting week.

Because of the interesting comments on my last article (Why Does the Environment Matter?), I have decided to elaborate on my thoughts on whether true altruistic acts exist.  The first step in this investigation is to define altruism.

According to Princeton University’s Wordnet, the definition of altruism is:

The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

If this definition accurately portrays altruism, it follows that when one commits an altruistic act, he only thinks about how the act will benefits others, and not himself.  No self-interest by the altruist is involved.

But what exactly is a benefit that can accrue to one’s self or others?  The concept of utility is important in this case.  Utility is a measure of satisfaction/fulfillment/enjoyment/happiness/etcetera that one gains from a good, action, or consequence.  In a simple example: one gains utility when he finds $10 on the ground.  Another example: one gains utility when the weather forecast for tomorrow is pleasant.  So if one were to commit an altruistic act, according to the definition above, the act must be made without any consideration of one’s own utility.  I believe any act that is made without considering one’s own utility is impossible.