Comic of the Week

aC. Sidebar

Make sure your son or daughter isn't bring home to his or her's room:

a) His or Her 40-yld gym or language arts teacher
b) Psycho 18-yld with 50 guns at home, who plays Grand Theft Auto and like trench coats
c) Barbie or Miss Teen of Little Town of Paw-Paw type that's superfacial and has a face of a ghost
d) His or Her's First, Second, or equivalent cousin or other family members
e) Pee-Wee Herman or R. Kelly

Math Formula of the Week

Bayes' theorem

Simply put, Bayes’ theorem gives the probability of a random event A occurring given that we know a related event B occurred. This probability is noted P(AB), and is read "probability of A given B". This measure is sometimes called the "posterior", since it is computed after all other information on A and B is known.

According to Bayes’ theorem, the probability of A occurring given B will be dependent on three things:The probability of A occurring on its own, regardless of B. This is noted P(A) and read "probability of A". This measure is sometimes called the "prior", meaning it precedes any other information – as opposed to the posterior, defined above, which is computed after all other information is known.

The probability of B occurring on its own, regardless of A. This is noted P(B) and read "probability of B". This measure is sometimes called the normalising constant, since it will always be the same, regardless of which event A one is studying.

The probability of B occurring given that A occurred. This is noted P(BA) and is read "probability of B given A". This measure is sometimes called the likelihood, since it is the likelihood of A occurring given that B occurred. It is important not to confuse the likelihood of A given B and the probability of A given B. Even though both notions may seem similar and are related, they are quite different.

Example

To illustrate, suppose there are two bowls full of cookies. Bowl #1 has 10 chocolate chip cookies and 30 plain cookies, while bowl #2 has 20 of each. Our friend Fred picks a bowl at random, and then picks a cookie at random. We may assume there is no reason to believe Fred treats one bowl differently from another, likewise for the cookies. The cookie turns out to be a plain one. How probable is it that Fred picked it out of bowl #1?

Intuitively, it seems clear that the answer should be more than a half, since there are more plain cookies in bowl #1. The precise answer is given by Bayes' theorem. But first, we can clarify the situation by rephrasing the question to "what’s the probability that Fred picked bowl #1, given that he has a plain cookie?” Thus, to relate to our previous explanation, the event A is that Fred picked bowl #1, and the event B is that Fred picked a plain cookie. To compute Pr(AB), we first need to know:

Pr(A), or the probability that Fred picked bowl #1 regardless of any other information. Since Fred is treating both bowls equally, it is 0.5.

P(B), or the probability of getting a plain cookie regardless of any information on the bowls. In other words, this is the probability of getting a plain cookie from each of the bowls. It is computed as the sum of the probability of getting a plain cookie from a bowl multiplied by the probability of selecting this bowl. We know from the problem statement that the probability of getting a plain cookie from bowl #1 is 0.75, and the probability of getting one from bowl #2 is 0.5, and since Fred is treating both bowls equally the probability of selecting any one of them is 0.5. Thus, the probability of getting a plain cookie overall is 0.75×0.5 + 0.5×0.5 = 0.625.

Pr(BA), or the probability of getting a plain cookie given that Fred has selected bowl #1. From the problem statement, we know this is 0.75, since 30 out of 40 cookies in bowl #1 are plain. Given all this information, we can compute the probability of Fred having selected bowl #1 given that he got a plain cookie, as such.

As we expected, it is more than half. ((.75 * .5) / .625)

Tuesday's Cartoon

Trim the mortgage-interest deduction

By Froma Harrop

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The deduction for mortgage interest is the "third rail" of tax reform. President Reagan tried to get rid of it in 1986, but real estate interests stopped him. Now, President Bush's tax advisory commission suggests limiting its use. Good idea, I say, and good luck.

The mortgage-interest deduction is bad economic policy. It encourages consumption, rather than saving. People take out big mortgages to free up spending money. (They convince themselves not to worry about all the borrowing because the interest on the loan can be tax-deductible.) An unhealthy economic incentive, the deduction is also expensive. It cost the Treasury $63 billion last year in needed revenues. The entire budget of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development was $35 billion.

The deduction is bad social policy. It discriminates against renters, and even homeowners of moderate means. "The people who have the biggest homes, who make the most money are the greatest beneficiaries of this tax subsidy," says Nicolas Retsinas, director of the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "If you rent, you don't get the deduction. Even if you own a home and have a modest income, you're likely to take a standard deduction, which means you don't get it."

The mortgage-interest deduction is a boulder in the stream of tax reform. A lot of people say they want a "flat tax" - a single rate for all incomes, with no deductions, exemptions or loopholes allowed. A flat tax could cure the annual migraine of filling out IRS forms. But there can be no honest flat tax that makes an exception for a break that benefits the well-to-do.

In recommending tax reform, Bush's advisory panel has to offset any cuts with new revenues. It rightly wants to kill the alternative minimum tax, and suggests limiting the mortgage-interest deduction as a way to replace some of the lost revenue. (The alternative minimum tax was designed 35 years ago to ensure that the rich pay their share. Not adjusted for inflation, the tax is rampaging through the middle class and has to go.)

The commission has been talking about ways to limit the mortgage-interest deduction without stepping on too many toes. Right now, Americans can deduct all the interest paid on mortgages written for up to $1 million. The panel is considering whether that cap might be reduced to the size of the biggest mortgage currently insured by the Federal Housing Administration. Nowadays, that means a mortgage of about $313,000 in expensive communities, or a national average of $244,000.

The average American mortgage weighs in at about $155,000, so this lower limit would not change the calculus for most of us peasants. However, the cap would pinch some nerves in trophy house territory. The real estate industry would not like that at all. The bigger the mortgage people can afford, the more they can pay for a house, and the more real estate brokers and developers rake in.

A more noble concern over altering the mortgage-interest deduction centers on America's wildly divergent costs of living. The median price of a home is about $220,000 in the United States, but $550,000 in San Francisco. A $400,000 mortgage, while amazing to most Americans, would not be a rarity on Nob Hill. Any proposal to limit the mortgage- interest deduction has to be very sensitive to these issues.

But should we even bother thinking about the details at this point? The odds are not wonderful that Congress will summon the courage to trim this deduction. If the past is any guide, the meekest attempt will fire up the real estate industry's propaganda mills. Soon, Americans not even remotely affected by the proposed changes will believe in their bones that they are losing some beloved tax deduction.

That's a cynical view, but unavoidable. Our government seems incapable of asking the smallest sacrifice of the biggest incomes. Here is a tax break that favors the upper brackets while hurting economic growth, and we can't get a consensus in Washington that it is a bad thing.

Reagan was right on this one. And so is Bush's tax advisory commission. Is there a brave political soul out there looking for a good policy?

The Need for Speeds...

Pharmacist Shortage Worsens Nationwide
Associated Press

Unlike most college students nearing graduation, Clarissa Hall isn't worried about finding a job — she's already considering several offers, including some with possible starting salaries of at least $80,000. Hall is benefiting from a nationwide shortage of pharmacists, which has prompted fierce competition between employers for new pharmacy graduates.

"Pretty much everyone in my class has people calling them left and right about jobs," said Hall, a University of Missouri-Kansas City student from Poplar Bluff. "I've had several people calling me and I don't even graduate until May."

The shortage of pharmacists, though, is not good for others in the medical field, or their patients, say those who have been watching the shortage worsen over the last decade.
It was fueled by several factors, especially changes in insurance policies and federal regulations of pharmaceuticals, which made drugs available to more people.

Add to that an aging population and more drugs being manufactured and advertised to the public, and the number of prescriptions has increased from 2 billion to 3.2 billion in the last decade. That problem is expected to worsen after the new Medicare prescription drug program begins Jan. 1, pharmacy officials said.

Independent and chain pharmacies, hospitals and nursing homes are scrambling to find people to fill orders.

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores reported about 5,950 full- and part-time openings in July in its 37,000 member stores. The American Hospital Association reported a 7.4 percent vacancy rate for pharmacists as of December, 2004, with 38 percent of its members saying it was harder to recruit pharmacists last year than in 2003.

The National Community Pharmacists Association, which represents independent pharmacies, does not keep track of job openings.

A consortium of pharmacy groups called the Pharmacy Manpower Project issued a report in 2002 predicting 157,000 unfilled pharmacy openings by 2020.

The need to fill all those new prescriptions has been partially addressed by an increase in technology and the use of pharmacy technicians, said Dr. David Knapp, dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Maryland.

But that hasn't addressed increasing pressure on pharmacists to become more involved in helping patients manage their drugs, especially elderly patients who may take several medicines, said Knapp, who coordinated the conference that released the Manpower report.
"Every hour of every day, dozens if not hundreds of prescriptions are coming across the counter," he said. "They are trying to do that while at the same time counseling patients, calling physicians, helping diabetic patients manage eight or 10 medicines, teaching parents how to help their child use his new asthma inhaler. It's a real stressed out situation for pharmacists."

Around the country, universities are opening new pharmacy schools or expanding existing programs, but it likely will take years for supply to meet demand. Some schools have reported 10 applicants for every pharmacy opening, although that figure includes people applying to more than one school, Maine said.

"It is a great job market for those who get in," Maine said. "But we also have a lot of disappointed people who are being turned away."

Many universities have opened satellite programs, and about 20 new pharmacy schools have opened in the last five years, Knapp said. That should increase the number of graduating pharmacists to more than 10,000 in 2007, compared to about 8,000 graduates in 2003-04, Maine said.

"There is such an astonishing interest," said Lucinda L. Maine, executive vice president of the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy in Alexandria, Va. "It's the highest level I've seen in my 30 years in pharmacy admissions."

But even new schools and expansions will not help in the short-term, which raises concerns about whether patients will get the information they need about their medications, said Robert Piepho, dean of the Missouri-Kansas City pharmacy school.

"If patients don't have access (to pharmacists), they run the risk of adverse effects from drug interactions."



aC. Sidebar

To my friend Trish, I'm looking forward to you taking me out and paying for lunch one of these days. Seriously, though, I'm proud of her and other pharmacists-in-training. Baby boomers need their drugs and you can't really outsource it either. Thank you for your hard work and we know that anytime you can come out and let the world know of our Viagra, Prozac, and Vicadin habits.

Only In America..

Ex-cheerleaders get offer to pose, report says Adult magazine Penthouse reportedly wants Thomas, Keathley to bare all
NBCSports.com news services

TAMPA, Fla. - The two former Carolina Panthers cheerleaders arrested after allegedly having sex with each other in a bathroom stall at a nightclub have been approached by Penthouse to pose nude for the adult magazine, MSNBC-TV reported Tuesday.

Meanwhile, a fugitive arrest warrant was issued for one of cheerleaders who allegedly gave a false name during her arrest at a bar where witnesses said she had sex with another cheerleader in a restroom stall.

Renee Thomas was charged with giving a false name and causing harm to another, a third-degree felony punishable by probation or a jail term of up to five years, Tampa police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Tuesday.

Thomas, 20, was released before police learned she had given them a driver’s license belonging to another Panthers cheerleader, who was not in Tampa.

“She was bonded out on the false name she gave us,” McElroy said, adding that detectives are trying to determine how Thomas got the license.

McElroy said witness accounts that Thomas and fellow cheerleader Angela Keathley, 26, were having sex with each other in a bathroom stall “led to the commotion, but they have nothing to do with the charges.”

“The charge is that she (Thomas) punched someone in the face and then she chose to give police a fake ID,” she said.

Keathley was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Repeated attempts to reach the women were unsuccessful Tuesday.

The cheerleaders were not in town to perform at the game, and the team said both were fired from the TopCats squad for violating a signed code that bans conduct embarrassing to the Panthers.

Nurse Melissa Holden told WCAU she walked into the bathroom and found Thomas and Keathley in an occupied stall and in a compromising position.

Holden said it was another woman in line to use the bathroom who allegedly angered Thomas.
"I didn't say a word to (Thomas)," Holden said.

"The woman behind me in line somewhere, I didn't even turn to look, confronted her and said what the heck took you guys so long," Holden said. "And (Thomas) reared back and hit me."
Holden laughingly said the black eye she received was from Thomas' "boney hand."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.




aC. Sidebar

This is an obvious proof of our educational system not doing its job. Look on the brightside, NFL cheerleaders only make like $75 bucks a game, but careering in stripping or posing for Playboy or Penthouse should be around $75,000. I should become an enterpenuer in the likes of Hugh and Larry and give back to the community.

Something in Washington (State)

Guest columnist
I-330's damage limits won't lower insurance rates
By Gary Locke

At first glance, the arguments for I-330 seem pretty logical: If you limit, or cap, the amount of pain-and-suffering damages a mistreated patient can receive, malpractice-insurance rates for doctors will decline. Evidence from around the nation, however, proves this logic is simply not true. When you couple this flaw with all of the problems found in the fine print of I-330, it becomes clear this initiative should be rejected.

As governor, I was well aware of the drive for reform in our medical system. We took steps to help our doctors stay in business — and more steps are needed. But I consistently avoided the approach of limiting monetary damages for pain and suffering because such limits simply do not work.

Let's look at the facts. Overall, insurance for doctors in states with caps is almost 10 percent higher than in states without caps. In 2003, every state experienced medical-malpractice insurance-rate increases — whether or not damages were capped. Three states with caps, Hawaii, Texas and Florida, saw rate increases of more than 20 percent. New Mexico has caps and rates there went up more than 30 percent. Virginia has caps — rates went up more than 40 percent. In Washington, without caps, rates only increased 8.35 percent. Clearly, damage limits are not the answer to lowering medical-malpractice insurance rates for doctors.

The evidence is even clearer when we look closely at a state that long ago implemented damage caps. During the first 13 years with limits in place, California medical-malpractice premiums increased 26 percent annually — faster than premiums rose nationally during the same period. It wasn't until 1988 when voters approved Proposition 103, which enacted the strongest rate regulations in the nation, that doctors' malpractice premiums decreased. I-330 includes no such regulation of the malpractice-insurance industry and does not help our many good doctors.

So why would someone support such a policy? Well, the primary supporters of I-330 are insurance companies. The insurance industry has spent $2.3 million in an effort to pass I-330 — $900,000 of which came directly from Physicians Insurance, the largest medical-malpractice insurance company in the state. And no wonder. Insurance companies receive higher premiums in states with caps and pay out less in damages to injured patients. Apply simple logic: Higher premiums plus lower payouts equal higher profits for insurance companies. That's why they are so supportive of I-330.

Medical-malpractice insurance companies in Washington hardly need such help. A recent report by the state Office of the Insurance Commissioner showed that the total amount paid in medical-malpractice claims dropped 14.7 percent in the past two years, while insurance companies in Washington brought in record profits. If I-330 passes, they still don't have to lower doctors' insurance rates. Ironically, insurance rates aren't even mentioned in I-330.

As if this weren't bad enough, I-330 contains many other benefits for insurance companies, at the expense of the people. For example, I-330 allows the insurance industry to pay the money it owes you over a period of 20 or 30 years or longer. If you die before the companies pay what they owe you, they get to keep your money instead of paying it to your family.

I-330 also abolishes a patient's right to seek compensation for damages that result when managed-care companies withhold or deny appropriate care — the heart of Washington's Patient Bill of Rights.

In 2000, the state Legislature passed, and I signed, this law to address concerns about the quality of health care in our state. I am very surprised to see many of the same medical organizations that supported the Patient Bill of Rights now support I-330 and seek to limit patient rights, including the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Hospital Association and the Washington Academy of Family Physicians.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an attorney. Before I entered politics, however, I served as a criminal prosecutor, not as a trial lawyer. My work now is in the area of international business. This initiative does not affect my legal practice, but I am concerned because this issue is of great importance to all of us who receive medical care.

We need to pass policies that work to benefit the state as a whole, not just narrow interests. I-330 will not help make malpractice insurance more affordable. It will only further enrich the already highly profitable medical-malpractice insurance industry. Vote No on I-330.

Gary Locke served as Washington's governor from 1997 to 2005. He is currently a lawyer in private practice at Davis Wright Tremaine law firm in Seattle