The opulant rooms are just as quiet as most hotels. The windows and walls are extra thick. We were not really bothered by any sound from the aircraft.
Reflective Wanderings - Reflections on various topics that arise out of my personal, life and professional experiences. There are also are some family related news, travels and pictures.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Hotel Overlooking Hartsfield Airport
Since those first trips to old Malton Airport one of the things that I have enjoyed watching since I was young was aircraft taking off and landing. Saturday we booked ourselves into the Renaissance Concourse by the Atlanta Airport. The one feature I like about this hotel is that it literally is up against the airport and overlooks two runways. The rooms on the Hartsfield side of the hotel have balaconies from which you can watch the activity at the airport. Below are a few pictures.
The opulant rooms are just as quiet as most hotels. The windows and walls are extra thick. We were not really bothered by any sound from the aircraft.
The opulant rooms are just as quiet as most hotels. The windows and walls are extra thick. We were not really bothered by any sound from the aircraft.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Off On Vacation
Evie and I are off on another week's vacation....well it is a full week for her and partial week for me as I have business meetings in Atlanta for three days. This trip is not with the RV, which is just as well as it has been in the shop. We have decided to replace the refrigerator with a more efficient model that will also run on propane as well as electricity.
As I type this we are in Spartanburg SC. Due to beach traffic it took us a little over three hours to get to Richmond, a drive that normally takes 1.5 hours. Tomorrow we move on to Atlanta where we will deliver some gloves and GatorAid 2 to Josh following the big show in the Georgia Dome.
As we are starting out, I thought I would post pictures from the prior vacation. As you will know from Evie's blog we took a dinner cruise on Lake George. The first picture is of the ship we took for the cruise. The second is of the dinning room...we were one of the first couples to board. As you can see the dinning room is in the rear of the ship and includes an upper level. Lac du Saint Sacrament is the name that the French gave to the Lake before the British took over the area.
As I type this we are in Spartanburg SC. Due to beach traffic it took us a little over three hours to get to Richmond, a drive that normally takes 1.5 hours. Tomorrow we move on to Atlanta where we will deliver some gloves and GatorAid 2 to Josh following the big show in the Georgia Dome.
As we are starting out, I thought I would post pictures from the prior vacation. As you will know from Evie's blog we took a dinner cruise on Lake George. The first picture is of the ship we took for the cruise. The second is of the dinning room...we were one of the first couples to board. As you can see the dinning room is in the rear of the ship and includes an upper level. Lac du Saint Sacrament is the name that the French gave to the Lake before the British took over the area.
The following picture is of the Minne Ha Ha, another small cruise ship that does one hour cruises on the south end of Lake George. This ship is a paddle boat.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Empress of Britain
In the recent family newsletter it was noted the Henry Joseph Sears and Annie Rebecca Keen arrived in Canada on the Empress of Britain in 1908. This Canadian Pacific Railway two funnel ship built in Govan Scotland had her maiden voyage on 5 May 1906. Yes, she is the sister ship of ill-fated Empress of Ireland.
She had twin screws, which was common for ships of her size, and was 458 ft in length. With a top speed of 18 knots, the ship carried 310 first class passengers, 470 second class passengers and 730 steerage passengers. On her second voyage she set the transatlantic crossing record. Two weeks after the Titanic sank, the Empress of Britain also struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic but unlike the Titanic the Empress suffered only slight damage.
At the outbreak of WWI the Empress served as an armed merchantman patrolling the South Atlantic until she was converted to a troop transport in May 1915. For the rest of the war she carried troops primarily between Canada/USA and England.
In 1924 the aging ship was renamed the Montroyal to make way in the fleet for a larger and speeder Empress of Britain (which was torpedoed and sunk in 1940….and the largest ship sunk in WWII by U-boat). She continued her days as the Montroyal until she was sold in 1930 for scrap. In all told she made 190 trips across the Atlantic. One of its finely carved wood lounges continues to exist today as the lounge was incorporated into a Norwegian hotel that today is the Norwegian School for Hotel Management.
She had twin screws, which was common for ships of her size, and was 458 ft in length. With a top speed of 18 knots, the ship carried 310 first class passengers, 470 second class passengers and 730 steerage passengers. On her second voyage she set the transatlantic crossing record. Two weeks after the Titanic sank, the Empress of Britain also struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic but unlike the Titanic the Empress suffered only slight damage.At the outbreak of WWI the Empress served as an armed merchantman patrolling the South Atlantic until she was converted to a troop transport in May 1915. For the rest of the war she carried troops primarily between Canada/USA and England.
In 1924 the aging ship was renamed the Montroyal to make way in the fleet for a larger and speeder Empress of Britain (which was torpedoed and sunk in 1940….and the largest ship sunk in WWII by U-boat). She continued her days as the Montroyal until she was sold in 1930 for scrap. In all told she made 190 trips across the Atlantic. One of its finely carved wood lounges continues to exist today as the lounge was incorporated into a Norwegian hotel that today is the Norwegian School for Hotel Management.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Two Arguments Against Healthcare Reform
One set of arguments being made against healthcare reform and a government system targets/grounded in distrust of government. This viewpoint is reflected in the question, “Do you want to trust your medical decisions to the hands of government bureaucrats instead of between you and your doctor?” Of course the answer is “Absolutely not. Medical decisions should be made between me and my doctor.”
This viewpoint is also expressed something like this, “that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.” This line of thinking plays off concerns that government will deny coverage as a means to save money or engage in euthanasia. This possibility horrifies the general public and is an argument already being circulated as a reason for keeping the proposed healthcare reform from passing.
On the surface these seem powerful arguments, but in reality these arguments are fallacies. Currently healthcare decisions are initially grounded in the annual decisions made by my employer. Level of healthcare can increase or decrease on what plan my employer elects to purchase. From year to year, deductibles can fluctuate, what is covered and not covered can fluctuate, and which doctors and hospitals I can use or not use is all determined by my employer. While it is noted that I can see any doctor I wish, when you have a 50% deductable for doctors off the plan versus a 15 or 20% deductable (deductable has changed over the years as the plan evolves) you have a strong incentive to remain with the doctors your plan authorizes.
Further, for many treatments outside all check-ups and basic tests you have to have prior authorization to receive treatment (excluding life and death medical emergencies). It is not uncommon for an insurance bureaucrat denying treatment or demanding a host of documentation before granting approval. In other words medical decisions are in the hands of insurance bureaucrats who have little or no medical training not between me and my doctor. Even more, the bureaucrat is making decision that are driven by policies designed in keeping with the plan and to ensure that the insurance company makes a strong profit while paying its top executives high six figure and seven figure salaries.
In Canada we never experienced pre-authorization for healthcare treatment. Decisions were made between us and our doctor. No consultation was ever made with a government bureaucrat and we had a far greater range of provider choices than the majority of Canadians.
Each year, subtle changes have taken place in my medical plan, changes which over years become increasingly significant by their accumulative impact. Fortunately I have an employer who is makes fewer changes than many others. There are some firms that have discontinued much of their medical coverage. Needless to say it is safe to say that my healthcare plan is not as vigorous as it was ten years ago.
I am not concerned about the euthanasia argument. To whom are insurance company bureaucrats and supervisors accountable? They are accountable to the chief executives who in turn are accountable and responsive to shareholders who are interested in making as large a profit as possible. To this end most companies have plans that have caps on life-time and/or annual claims, that anything above a defined figure is not covered.
Further compounding these caps is that companies can radically change their plan which in affect puts limits on treatment levels or type of illnesses covered. It is well possible for an employee or retiree still on the company’s plan to learn that the cap is suddenly dropped in a cost saving measure. Could this happen with the government? Definitely it could, but are the chances higher or lower than with what is being transacted between an employer and the insurance company? The employer and company are far more driven by profit than by responding to the complaints and protests of employees and retirees. Hence, I think any euthanasia type or denial process is much higher with private insurance than with government insurance since government bureaucrats ultimately answer to elected officials who are very sensitive to the whims of the electorate. So who is more sensitive to the complaints and needs of the general public, the elected official or the corporate executives? To me the answer is clear.
The two arguments against government healthcare are more applicable to the current private system.
This viewpoint is also expressed something like this, “that at some point the government has to decide whether or not you are allowed to receive any more medical benefits if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.” This line of thinking plays off concerns that government will deny coverage as a means to save money or engage in euthanasia. This possibility horrifies the general public and is an argument already being circulated as a reason for keeping the proposed healthcare reform from passing.
On the surface these seem powerful arguments, but in reality these arguments are fallacies. Currently healthcare decisions are initially grounded in the annual decisions made by my employer. Level of healthcare can increase or decrease on what plan my employer elects to purchase. From year to year, deductibles can fluctuate, what is covered and not covered can fluctuate, and which doctors and hospitals I can use or not use is all determined by my employer. While it is noted that I can see any doctor I wish, when you have a 50% deductable for doctors off the plan versus a 15 or 20% deductable (deductable has changed over the years as the plan evolves) you have a strong incentive to remain with the doctors your plan authorizes.
Further, for many treatments outside all check-ups and basic tests you have to have prior authorization to receive treatment (excluding life and death medical emergencies). It is not uncommon for an insurance bureaucrat denying treatment or demanding a host of documentation before granting approval. In other words medical decisions are in the hands of insurance bureaucrats who have little or no medical training not between me and my doctor. Even more, the bureaucrat is making decision that are driven by policies designed in keeping with the plan and to ensure that the insurance company makes a strong profit while paying its top executives high six figure and seven figure salaries.
In Canada we never experienced pre-authorization for healthcare treatment. Decisions were made between us and our doctor. No consultation was ever made with a government bureaucrat and we had a far greater range of provider choices than the majority of Canadians.
Each year, subtle changes have taken place in my medical plan, changes which over years become increasingly significant by their accumulative impact. Fortunately I have an employer who is makes fewer changes than many others. There are some firms that have discontinued much of their medical coverage. Needless to say it is safe to say that my healthcare plan is not as vigorous as it was ten years ago.
I am not concerned about the euthanasia argument. To whom are insurance company bureaucrats and supervisors accountable? They are accountable to the chief executives who in turn are accountable and responsive to shareholders who are interested in making as large a profit as possible. To this end most companies have plans that have caps on life-time and/or annual claims, that anything above a defined figure is not covered.
Further compounding these caps is that companies can radically change their plan which in affect puts limits on treatment levels or type of illnesses covered. It is well possible for an employee or retiree still on the company’s plan to learn that the cap is suddenly dropped in a cost saving measure. Could this happen with the government? Definitely it could, but are the chances higher or lower than with what is being transacted between an employer and the insurance company? The employer and company are far more driven by profit than by responding to the complaints and protests of employees and retirees. Hence, I think any euthanasia type or denial process is much higher with private insurance than with government insurance since government bureaucrats ultimately answer to elected officials who are very sensitive to the whims of the electorate. So who is more sensitive to the complaints and needs of the general public, the elected official or the corporate executives? To me the answer is clear.
The two arguments against government healthcare are more applicable to the current private system.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Fort William Henry
During our trip to Lake George at the end of June/beginning of July we visited Fort William Henry. This was a British Fort at the south end of Lake George and until Fort Ticonderoga was taken from the French, this was the northern most point in the 13 Colonies. It is also the Fort that was taken by the French as told in the movie The Last of the Mochicans.
As you will note from the pictures of Ticonderoga, the British fort is wood versus the French fort of stone. It was a quickly built fort and not designed to withstand heavy cannon bombardment. That said, the British plan for the area involved four forts, two of which were only a short distance away, Fort Ann (15 miles ESE) and Fort Edward (15 miles SES). The third, Fort Saratoga was about 30 miles south. As the British learned with the fall of Fort William Henry their plans of forts helping to reinforce and strengthen each other was a false assumption as undermanned Forts coupled with each commander looking only after their own interested doomed their plan.
Below is the exterior as taken from the lake side.
Below are pictures of the interior as well as of reinactor.
As you will note from the pictures of Ticonderoga, the British fort is wood versus the French fort of stone. It was a quickly built fort and not designed to withstand heavy cannon bombardment. That said, the British plan for the area involved four forts, two of which were only a short distance away, Fort Ann (15 miles ESE) and Fort Edward (15 miles SES). The third, Fort Saratoga was about 30 miles south. As the British learned with the fall of Fort William Henry their plans of forts helping to reinforce and strengthen each other was a false assumption as undermanned Forts coupled with each commander looking only after their own interested doomed their plan.
Below is the exterior as taken from the lake side.
Below are pictures of the interior as well as of reinactor.
One of the orginal cannons that was discovered at the bottom of Lake George. The French burned the fort and tossed into the lake the cannons they did not take back to Ticonderoga. Blow the cannon picture is the picture of the jail in the bowels of the fort.
Below, dress of the day for the average soldier as well as the common volunteer soldier from the colonies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)