Blue Dogs and Health Care

Recently, there has been much consternation about how the Blue Dogs are putting up roadblocks towards Barack Obama's desire to pass health care legislation.

Part of what the Blue Dogs demand is increased cost savings with another demand being that rural health care providers are not short changed in a new system like they are in Medicare.

What really upsets me is when the base of the Democratic party objects to including Blue Dogs' concerns in the health care legislation.

Eileen Levandoski at vbdems.org provides such an example. In a piece she titles "This is a catastrophe we must address NOW!" she objects to the cost increases necessary to meet Blue Dogs' demands. Cost is an issue, and she objects to the cost increasing aspects of what the Blue Dogs want. Please note the YouTube video she links to. It provides an example of rural citizens who are in high need of health care services.

Ahem. Does anyone notice a problem here? Unless the Blue Dogs' concerns are included in the proposed health care proposal, the health care package might not pass. If the health care package does not pass with Blue Dogs' concerns being addressed, the rural citizens health care needs that she points to are not going to be addressed anyway.

By the way, I can only speak with limited authority. My self claimed authority only comes from listening as I travel in rural areas as I travel around this nation. From what I know, rural areas are increasingly finding it more difficult to obtain any health care because there are no health care providers to deliver the services.

I find it amazing that Eileen would use as an example of such a segment of our society that needs health care to support her position that Blue Dogs must be opposed. The Blue Dogs are actually the ones standing up for the people she points to as an example. If she opposes the Blue Dogs, she actually wants to leave these people without health care.

OK, OK, they might still be able to get at health care. As long as they are willing to travel a couple hours to get it and do not have a problem with contributing to greenhouse gas emissions while they travel.

Cell phone use, the experts agree

The experts agree. After a study of both truck drivers and smaller vehicle drivers, Virginia Tech seems to agree with most of the conclusions I came up with based only upon experience.

This study was comprised after observation of over 6 million miles of observed behavior of drivers. Let me first state that 6 million miles is better then 4 times my own personal experience. Let me also state that anyone agreeing to observation of their driving habits were already on their best behavior unlike my rather less limited personal observations might be based upon real life experience.

But I am going to applaud the general results of the result of this study that was achieved by mere egg heads that do not have my experience. While I can quibble about some of the conclusions, I am amazed at just how accurate the results were.

I am going to add my support with what I call one of the most obviously correct conclusions of the study. Let me quote:

"Talking/listening to a cell phone allowed drivers to maintain eyes on the road and were not associated with an increased safety risk to nearly the same degree," the institute said. "These results show conclusively that a real key to significantly improving safety is keeping your eyes on the road."

Amen, hallelujah. While my efforts to keep my eyes on what is going on if front of me might be condemned by many as too apt to ignore that which that which is going on behind me, I am never going to condemn situational awareness. However I am going to insist that those who might condemn my own driving is less then perfect (eyes front) must agree that eyes kept anywhere on the road is better then eyes kept on the cell phone while they texted or dialed.

I will continue to insist that these experts observations about how a truck driver's performance on lonely stretches of highway, particularly late at night, might have been improved by engaging in cell phone conversations was not obvious. I can not accept that their observations does not match my experience.

The problems with cell phone usage is when drivers engage in using them during the most demanding needs for their attention. I would describe this as being during rush hour traffic in urban areas. From my experience (only 1.5 million miles) this is the greatest problem.

The eggheads conclusions might not be perfect, but the conclusion is not too far off the bulls eye.

Cell phone safety

Recently there has been a lot of buzz about a NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) study on the effects on roadway safety of cell phone use.

I attempted to obtain a link to an article I read that reported a conflicting finding. The article reported that a study of how cell phone usage by truck drivers affected the safe operation of their vehicles came to a surprising conclusion. Cell phone conversations added to the safe operation of the vehicles driven by the truck drivers. I emboldened the word conversations because other aspects of cell phone operation led to less safe driving. Try as I might, I could not find the article.

Now first let me give you the set up. About a dozen truck drivers agreed to have video cameras placed in their trucks that both recorded their actions within the truck and provided views for what was going on outside their trucks (how did they react to traffic).

First off, I am fairly certain that these truck drivers were always on their best behavior. There is nothing that is going to motivate squeaky clean behavior and performance better then realizing someone is constantly observing what you do. As a result, the observed behavior might not have been genuinely typical.

But the study indicated that cell phone conversations, as well as conversations on a CB (citizen's band) radio actually improved the performance of the studied truck drivers.

While I can not provide a link that reports on this study, I can believe the results of the study. I am a truck driver, and my experience seems to match the results.

But as I said, I am willing to bet the truck drivers were on their best behavior. I would imagine they did not use their cell phone in heavy urban traffic but only used it while traveling on less demanding rural stretches of roadway.

The study came to the conclusion that the performance of truck drivers that engaged in cell phone conversations or use of a CB radio's performance improved because it was less likely for them to exhibit drowsy related performance while engaged in a conversation.

My experience is that while on that lonely stretch of highway is when I face the highest risk of drowsiness. While my experience with a cell phone is limited, I have considerable experience with a CB radio. One way to fight the boredom that increases the risk of inattentiveness due to fatigue, is to get a conversation going with someone, anyone, on the CB.

Now this study also contained another conclusion which leads me to believe the results they obtained are valid. Despite the positive benefits to attentiveness they observed from conversations on a cell phone, they observed that driving performance was extremely decreased when these truck drivers attempted to dial or text on their phones. This observation seems to pass the common sense test for me. While engaged in dialing or texting these activities compete for where their eyes must be.

I am going to add a statement of opinion here that is not supported by any study they I know of being conducted. I would put forth that use of a CB radio, even in the most demanding urban, congested traffic conditions continues to increase the safety factor. The truck driver never has to take his eyes off the road and he at least sometimes gets advanced warning of challenging road conditions ahead of him.

I am going to add that observing the performance of truck drivers is not really a fair comparison, and that the sampling of truck drivers observed might not have been nothing but the best truck drivers available. The truck driver with a poor attitude would never have agreed to have his actions monitored that closely. The drivers who agreed to be monitored probably had enough confidence and experience that they felt they had nothing to fear from observation.

Perhaps studies based on the cream of the crop are not completely valid. I will note that even the performance of the best of the best declined while texting or even dialing on their cell phones.

My personal observations of even four wheelers while talking on the cell phone seems to at least somewhat match the study's observations for truck drivers. My own personal observations for four wheelers are that when they attempt to talk on their cell phones in heavy traffic is when they are most apt to become a safety hazard. Unfortunately, this seems to be when they are most apt to talk on their cell phones. They just got off work, they are on their way home, and they are checking to see if they need to stop for a loaf of bread en route.

Poll Discrepancies

I noted something interesting in an Associated Press piece that appeared on the MSNBC website.

The piece reports widely different, perhaps I should say even conflicting, results achieved by pollsters on the question of whether or not American citizens continue to support our nation's war efforts in Afghanistan.

The first poll, by the Pew Research Center, was conducted May 18 to June 16, with a margin of error in most countries of 3 to 4 percentage points. (Please note the "most countries" tag is due to this poll actually involving reports of public opinion within several nations.) The results? 57 percent of American respondents favored keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan while 38 percent said they should be withdrawn.

The second poll, by AP-Gfk, An AP-GfK poll, was conducted July 16-20, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The results? 44 percent favor the war and 53 percent oppose it.

So in a period of just two months, these polls report a shift away from firm majority support to a slim plurality of opposition. Even if one takes the margins of error into account, this reported change is not explained.

There was the time period difference of when the sampling was taken. If one looks at when the polls were started, this difference is as large as two months. Has anything been happening during that time that would cause a wild swing of public opinion? There has been the relentless reporting of casualties in Afghanistan, with the death toll rapidly rising. As the Associated Press piece reports:

The new U.S. emphasis on Afghanistan has raised the level of fighting — and in turn, the number of casualties. July is already the deadliest month of the war for both U.S. and NATO forces with 63 international troops killed, including 35 Americans and 19 Britons.

However during this time political leadership within America has been speaking out in support of our war efforts in Afghanistan with little political opposition coming from either of the two major parties.

Now I understand that within two months, some people are going to change their mind. In all wars, over time, support tends to slip as the public starts to become war weary. But we have already been at this war for some time, and I do not think the passage of an additional two months alone explains thing.

I understand that polls can constructed so as to be push polls. The polling questions can be constructed so that they shape your opinion even as you are asked to give your opinion. However these types polls normally are being conducted by organizations who have something to gain by a certain result. I am not aware of the two organizations which conducted the above polls having ulterior motives on the above issues or for having the reputation for engaging in push polls.

I am aware that poll researchers report greater difficulty in polling due to changes within society. As more and more citizens shift to cell phones, it is getting harder and harder for pollsters to achieve representative samples of society. I know that it is extremely rare for my own family members to be consulted for our opinions on polls. Perhaps the explanation in our case is that we use an answering machine to screen our calls even though our family remains firmly dependent on a land line.

Whatever the explanation for the disparate results, I think these results point to at least one thing. The method of coming up with the claimed margin of error on polls needs to be adjusted. While I am not an expert on statistics, I believe I understand the justification for the claimed margin of error. As long as your sampling size is large enough, it should become increasingly statistically unlikely the sampling is wrong as the number sampled increases.

Perhaps the formula for determining margins of error was arrived at by analyzing poll results taken back in the good ole days. Back before cell phones and when it was still highly unlikely for citizens to even have an answering machine to screen calls. Back in those days, pollsters were probably more likely to be rewarded with a representative sample of society for their efforts. Nowadays, because along with advances in technology making it more difficult to contact many segments of society, citizens have become jaded with the advent of large scale telemarketing which even the "Do not call list" hasn't solved. I would imagine that back in ancient times, people were more willing to engage with a pollster and perhaps even flattered that their opinion was being asked for. Nowadays, citizens are more apt to be skeptical. When someone asks for their opinion, the defenses go up with the question "OK, what are you trying to sell me?" being in the back of their head.

I am at least more wary of believing the results of polls when I hear them. The results from the above two polls helps to explain why.