Are They Just Plain Stupid?

Hi Everyone,

There are times when you read something that just stops you in your tracks and makes you think twice. That happened to me a few weeks ago. Last November 21st, Hostess Brands Inc, which made the venerable, Twinkies, Ho, Ho's, Yodels, Devil Dogs, etc., etc. went out of business. They had filed for bankruptcy on 1/10/12, (again) and in 11/2012 employees nationwide went on strike. The company wide strike was essentially the nail in the coffin and Hostess closed its doors on 11/21/12 which meant the end of jobs for 18,500 employees. That's a lot of lost jobs for an American Institution which was founded in 1930.

Unfortunately, no company wanted to buy the Hostess Brand of products as a whole. But, not long ago two private equity firms decided to buy different parts of the once proud company. One of the private equity firms that wants to buy the Twinkies, Ho Ho's, Yodels and Devil Dogs etc. division, has decided that history should not be taken into account, when you hear about their plans. Remember about 20 years or so ago when Coke decided to stop production of their original coke and instead made "New Coke". That move went up like a lead balloon and after a huge consumer revolt, Coke ended new coke and went back to original coke. But Coke lost money and market share because of that stupid idea. History should be a great lesson to companies that want to change what they are best known for.

Well, well, well, this private equity firm wants to overhaul the Hostess Brands of products. How? In their infinite wisdom, they want to make their products more healthful. They say that the products should taste comparable, but there will be a difference. I guess using healthful ingredients will change the taste. But is it what they should be doing? I mean, everyone knows that Hostess snacks are not good for you, but we ate them anyway because of the way they tasted. If they change the products so much, it may also change the life expectancy of the products.

Back in 2002, in South Carolina, a house that had been vacant for 21 years was finally sold. The new owners had planned to tear down the house and build their dream house. After the closing, the new owners went for a final walk through, before the house was razed. When they walked down into the small dirt cellar, they found, much to their amazement, unopened boxes and boxes of Hostess Twinkies and Yodels etc. They opened the boxes and were absolutely shocked to find that the snacks looked to be still good. They took a few of the snacks to a lab that was able to determine that the snacks were in fact, still good?! How is that possible? I want to know if someone actually had to taste 20 something year old snacks?

If the ingredients are changed, will they still be able to last 20 something years? I guess it really doesn't matter since this is all an April fools joke and none of the above is true, except that there are really two private equity firms that really do want to buy parts of Hostess. Did I get you?

Anyway, Happy Easter, Passover and April fools!!!!

Til next week.

Peter

The Irish Do It

Hi Everyone,

Today is St. Patrick's Day and we can thank the Irish for this day and all that it brings. What is included in today's celebration is drinking alcohol, lots of alcohol, mainly beer; which is sometimes even colored green. Why is drinking, especially beer, synonymous with Ireland? I am not really sure of the answer, but what I do know is what my family and I experienced when we traveled to Ireland, some years back.

We arrived at Shannon airport, which is on the western side of the country, early in the morning. We were to meet our friend's (who came with us) friend, who happened to own a tour bus company, at a local pub not far from Shannon. We arrived at the pub at 9:00 AM and boy were we surprised by what we saw in the pub. There must have been about 20 people sitting at the bar drinking beer. I actually checked the clock on the wall to make sure of the time. It was only 9 AM. Even in college, my friends and I never started drinking anything at that time.

The best food in Ireland is pub food. It is the most authentic and the best tasting when it comes from a pub. Also at pubs are very large glass mugs that are used when you order tap or draft beer. If memory serves me correctly, the mugs came in 20oz and 24oz sizes. It is so very easy to down 3 or 4 of the large mugs, in a short period of time. Why? Almost every pub we visited, they had live, foot stomping Irish music that seemed to make you drink faster and more. Drinking 3 or 4 of those mugs, is like drinking 5 to 8 cans or bottles of beer.

Driving around Ireland is a very dangerous proposition. Besides the fact that they drive on the left side, a lot of the old roads (which is most of them), are barely 1 1/2 lanes wide. Sometime the roads are even more narrow. The roads have no center or shoulder painted lines. Most of the time when you encountered a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, you had to pull over and slowly try to pass each other. Additionally, there were no shoulders on the roads since the roads went between very old stone walls delineating farm land. What struck us most though, besides the beautiful countryside and scenery, were the odd road signs we would see every so often. The signs were large and yellow with a big black dot and a number next to it. The signs stated how many people were killed at that location, in a car crash. We found out that a large percentage of car accidents in Ireland were alcohol related. That didn't surprise us since they start drinking so early in the morning. Even if they didn't start drinking until the evening, they do love their beer and they do drink a lot of it.

That is why I believe excessive drinking is so closely associated with St. Patrick's day here in the USA. Which leads me to today's common sense advice. If  you do celebrate today or any day, please, please don't drink and drive, it is just common sense.

Til next week.

Peter

They Must Be Crazy!

Hi Everyone,

I have said this before and unfortunately, I now have to say it again. Lacking common sense can be a terrible thing, especially when lives are involved. That's why I was so disappointed, no, make that disgusted, when I read this past week, that Transportation Security Administration Administrator, John Pistole, announced that the TSA will now allow small pocketknives to be carried on planes. Even though the blades can not be any longer than 2.36 inches and less than half an inch wide, what is the TSA thinking? Switch blades are not included, thank goodness. Only small folding pocketknives that don't lock into place will be allowed on.

Remember that my blog deals with facts, and I am not sure that a small pocket knife can in fact take down a plane. Since 9/11, planes have steel reinforced cockpit doors and I am pretty sure that a small pocketknife can not open a steel reinforced door. Hopefully?! So why are they dangerous? The obvious answer is the threat they can pose to flight attendants and other passengers. Flight attendants are the front line when something happens in the cabin. It is an unfair advantage to give to the bad guys or girls. Why give someone an unfair advantage when it serves no purpose? Does the TSA really believe nothing bad will happen if pocketknives are allowed in carry on bags or on your person? Does the TSA believe that pocketknives can't be a dangerous weapon? To me, this would be an accident just waiting to happen. Why doesn't the TSA understand that no knives should ever be allowed on planes, except in checked bags? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Does it to you? Come to think about it, I don't think the TSA would or could recognize common sense, even if it hit them squarely in the face!!!

FYI, the new rule also allows the following to be carried on; hockey sticks, billiard cues, golf clubs and small celebratory baseball bats. Has the TSA lost its mind? Does the TSA really, truly believe that planes will be as safe with all these potential weapons on board? How can their answer be yes? How does this happen without anyone else saying whoa, stop, this is not a good idea? Unfortunately, if these new rules are implemented, I believe that it will only be a matter of time before someone is injured or killed with one of those, but especially a pocketknife.

Not only are the Flight Attendants and their union totally against this new rule, but the Air Marshalls are also totally against this new rule. I haven't read anything yet about whether the Pilots union are against it, but I can't see them being for it!

Enough said.


Peter

A Bitter Pill

Hi Everyone,

I just finished reading one of the most informative articles that I have ever read regarding our health care system. The article is a first ever for Time Magazine. Time devoted 37 pages to one article, which is basically the entire issue. The issue dated, 3/4/13 and titled, Bitter Pill, is a must read for everyone. Especially if you really want to understand why our health care system is so expensive and will continue to be, until Congress fixes it, which you shouldn't count on. There is no way I can touch on every topic that the article covers, but I will give you some of the highlights:

- One Acetaminophen pill cost 1.5 cents and your hospital marks it up 10,000%.

1) One cancer patient was charged $13,702 for one (Rituximab 660mg) shot of a new cancer drug.

2) One patient with chest pains went to a hospital and after 3 hours of tests and a brief encounter with a Dr. was told that she had indigestion. That was the good news, the bad news her bill came to $21,000.

3) One patient fell on her face and with her nose bleeding heavily, she went to a hospital. She was there about 6 hours of which most of the time was spent waiting. She had 3 CT scans, head, chest and face, and a troponin blood test. Also on the bill were the usual, bandages and tubing for the IV. Her total bill was $9,418.

4) One patient had a stimulator surgically implanted in his back to relieve his pain. He had the procedure done as an out-patient. You would think that out-patient procedures would not be as expensive. His total bill, $87,000.

These were just 4 examples of runaway and excessive bills to patients. I tell you this, if you need a hospital for anything, they should have a cardiologist available for when you receive and look at your bill.

Part of the problem that our health care system faces is something called the chargemaster. In a nut shell, the chargemaster is the master list that has prices for any and all services, procedures and any items used in any given hospital in our country. There is no stone left unturned. Everything has a price and boy are their prices out of this world. What most people are unaware of is this: Medicare and all insurance companies negotiate their prices for everything from the chargemaster list. People who do not have have insurance are billed the full amount as stated in that particular chargemaster list. What they don't know is that the chargemaster list is the beginning of negotiations, not the end all. Believe it or not, Medicare pays far below the chargemaster lists and is so far the best way that the Federal government found to control costs. Medicare's payments must be producing profits since almost, but not all, hospitals accept Medicare payments. Insurance companies pay more than Medicare does.

Unfortunately, our laws prevent the government from restraining prices on drugs. When Congress passed the 2003 Part D, prescription drug coverage, of Medicare, they prohibited Medicare from negotiating drug costs. In essence, Medicare's hands are tied and can't do anything about the excessive prices drug companies charge. Even with Obamacare, Congress locked Medicare out of negotiating drug costs. Medicare is also prohibited from negotiating prices on durable medical equipment, which means manufacturers can and do charge outrageous prices.

But, what really got me mad as hell is when not-for-profit hospitals have year end profits of up to hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. But wait you say, non profits aren't supposed to have profits. Especially profits of that magnitude. What do they do with the profits? They buy more equipment and hire a few more personnel. That in itself may not seem bad, but remember they have to buy more equipment each and every year and then they have to have more and more tests done each and every year to pay for the new equipment. This is then repeated year after year with no end in sight. There are non-profit health care companies that have revenues that are actually larger then Apple's.

Again, may I suggest that someone with an ounce of common sense try to stop this insane status quo. Our health care system is and always has been under attack by greedy health care companies along side with drug and medical equipment manufacturers. These skyrocketing costs have the ability to  bankrupt our country sometime in the future.

Til next week.

Peter

So This Is What It Comes To?

Hi Everyone,

I read a Gannett article last week about New York state's new, NY Safe Ammunition Enforcement Act. NY SAFE Act includes a ban on any semi-automatic rifles or shotguns with a "military style" feature, such as a pistol grip. Because of this new law, small assault weapons manufacturers such as: Olympic Arms, LaRue Tactical, York Arms, Templar Custom and EFI, LLC as well as sporting goods retailer Cheaper Than Dirt have decided that if civilians can't buy assault weapons, they won't sell to the State of New York or any governmental entity within the State of New York until the law is repealed. So this is what it comes to? Olympic said that if civilians can't buy a semi-automatic weapon, then the company won't sell them to law enforcement. Tom Spithaler, Olympics Sales Director, said the sales policy is meant to "even the playing field." What??????? Then Tom goes on to say, "We feel as though if the state legislature deems those weapons to be problematic and they're a risk to public safety, then law enforcement shouldn't have them either". The company wants to even the playing field? If they can't sell to anyone they won't sell to law enforcement? What a great way to cut off their own noses, I mean revenues. Depending on how you look at it, these are all bit players in the larger scheme of manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms, who are not banning sales to law enforcement. Because of Smith and Wesson and Remington Arms not banning the sales, there will be no impact on New York's law enforcement's ability to buy the weapons.

By banning assault weapons, the NRA has said that the second amendment is being taken away and that this is the first step to the outlawing of all guns. What a bunch of dung!!!! Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on which side of the issue you are on, guns will always be a part of this country. But to say that the second amendment is being taken away, I think not. People will still have their guns, but, think about this, is it really necessary to own assault weapons, that were designed for one single purpose, to kill as many people, as quickly as possible?

But why should a small, minority group of people, members of the NRA and their supporters, have such a strong say in gun control? They are obviously entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. You may not remember, but, back in 1999, the NRA was in favor of universal background checks, including gun shows. They even said that there should be no loopholes in the universal background checks. But, thousands and thousands of guns are sold, each year, right outside of the gun shows and there are no background checks done on those individual sales. That's a great place for a mentally challenged person to buy an assault type weapon. Now the NRA has backtracked and now says that they don't want those types of individual sales included in the universal background checks. So, is left alone, the universal background checks would continue to have one big, huge way around the background check system. But the NRA is now OK with that. Is their no common sense left in this country anymore. The NRA is just plain wrong!

As I have said previously, I do believe in the second amendment. But does that mean that any and all weapons should or could be owned by non mentally challenged people? I think not! Why? Again, as I have stated previously, weapons of mass destruction, such as assault weapons should not be owned by civilians and should only be in the possession of law enforcement or the military. I truly believe that common sense says the ban and universal background checks with no loopholes for individual sales should both be passed.

The tide has turned against the NRA and assault weapons. We have the power to try something new with no loopholes, to try to prevent another Newtown, CT massacre. There are no laws that can absolutely prevent another Newtown, but we have to try and not let the status quo be our guide.

Til next week.

Peter

Who Do They Really Help?

Hi Everyone,

One of many of the big battles currently going on in DC, is how to reduce entitlement programs like Medicaid. Both parties have their own ideas on how to reduce federal spending on programs such as Medicaid. Unfortunately, both sides don't like the other sides ideas and so the battles rage on. But wait, isn't there something that can be done right away to reduce the spending amounts? I think I have found one such avenue.

On 2/15/13, my Gannett newspaper ran an article regarding how New York state's public funds were being wasted. First let me inform you that here in New York state, our per-resident Medicaid spending is nearly double that of Pennsylvania and more than double that of California. In August 2011, The New York Times wrote about two brothers, Philip and Joel Levy, who earned nearly $1 million each overseeing the Young Adult Institute Network. YAIN cares for the developmentally disabled. Philip Levy retired and Joel Levy resigned after the newspaper looked into their spending practices about two months before the story was published. Obviously there was something wrong going on for the two of them to quit!

Well, well, well...... it seems that being an executive for a not-for-profit, here in New York
state, primarily financed by Medicaid money is still a very lucrative business to be in. The 2/15/13 article did not cover all New York state nonprofits dealing with Medicaid, but it did highlight a few. The facts are these, that at least 15 executives earned in excess of $500,000 per year. What?! The report, which is what the 2/15 article is based on is called, "Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Misspent on New York's Medicaid Program," also found another 100 executives who earned "excessive salaries" - more than $200,000 each, at New York nonprofits operating primarily to provide Medicaid health services to the poor. Five of the agencies are located in Westchester and Rockland counties. This is an outrage and every New York state resident should be mad as hell!!! Just imagine what the report would state if all nonprofits receiving this kind of money were included.

So what can a state do to try to combat these excessive salaries? New York state Gov. Andrew Cuomo did the right thing and just recently issued an executive order "capping executive salaries at $199,000 for most contractors doing business with more than a dozen state agencies beginning April 1, 2013". Congrats to our governor. Hopefully our state Legislature will pass the governor's order into law. It is a sorry state of affairs when taxpayers dollars are being so misspent. But the really sad part, is that the executives who receive these bloated salaries think it is OK.

So if New York state can cap nonprofit executive salaries at $199,000, why not the entire United States? Part of Medicaid reform should include this cap. Common sense tells me that all avenues should be looked at when Congress debates entitlement reform. These excessive salaries are just not warranted and should be stopped ASAP!!!

Greed is not a pretty accessory!

Til next week.

Peter

FIRE!

Hi Everyone,

We have all been in hotels and buildings that are both publicly and privately owned. One of the things that all buildings have in common are emergency exit signs. They have been mandated for decades and decades. In case of a fire, the signs, which are always lit, have a battery back up in case of an electrical outage. But do they really help? The answer is yes and no.

Let's take a look at some important facts. I believe that the signs are red and white so they are more easily read in smoke filled areas. Where there is smoke, there is fire. But, when smoke permeates a hallway, where does the smoke go? Smoke always rises, so, depending on the length of the hallway, the smoke will start filling up the ceiling area and as more smoke continues to fill the area the smoke will move down easily concealing the signs. If the signs are concealed by the smoke, what good are they? Maybe not so much.

Have you taken a plane flight lately? For at least 15 - 20 years, planes have had red LED light strips along each side of the aisles. The lights have a battery back up in case of a power failure. In case of smoke, or a power failure, you can still see the red lights. They are smartly placed on the floor. Why? As we all know when the smoke rises, it doesn't conceal the lights, for a while at least, so passengers have a better opportunity to find an emergency exit.

So, in the case of a building, when the smoke conceals the emergency exit signs, what do you do? Crawl along the floor until you find the staircase. So what is the solution? As in the case of planes,  common sense tells me that either the signs should be about 2 or 3 feet above the floor or LED strips should be installed in the floors. Since the cost of installing LED lights in the floors is probably costly, which would prohibit their installation, the less expensive and still better option than the up high on the wall signs, would be to install or move all emergency exit signs to the 2 to 3 foot height off the floor. It will then take the smoke a longer time to conceal the signs and consequently, the signs would be visible for a longer period of time. That has to be a good thing.

Ahhhhh the wonders of using common sense. It will be interesting to see how long it will take for the emergency exit signs to be mandated to a lower height level then the way they are installed presently.

Go Baltimore!

Til next week.

Peter