Rowing?

Bad timing? I enquired about rowing at University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) when I first started classes (two and a half years ago). They had rebuilt the clubhouse, opened the new restaurant, and installed poker machines. But when they were in the process of rebuilding the boathouse, they laid off all the staff and had yet to hire new ones. So the only rowing allowed were the top-level athletes. No plebes allowed. Even though I had rowed on San Francisco Bay, I needed to be "taught" how to row here (because the coriolis effect might confuse me?) That was just the first of my many disappointments with UTS, which led to me not only dropping out, but leaving Australia to accept opportunity back in my homeland. Now, they've finally hired staff to oversee rowing (because volunteers just wouldn't do?) Learn to row at UTS

Incentives to cure?

The Boston Globe article Hepatitis C drug costs leave many without care tells of how state-administered Medicare programs in the US are struggling to fit the cost of hepatitis C treatment into their budget. If you look a little deeper, the issue is also a good contrast between how various countries deal with health care costs, and how that's changing. In the US, prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies might have considered hepatitis C a pre-existing condition and offered no coverage at all. Treatment would be either be by cash payment, or for indigents in government programs, covered as the article describes - depending on the budget and how it was allocated. As the article cites, that often translates into no treatment at all. Now that the Affordable Care Act is in place, insurance companies cannot refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions. However, a quick search reveals that insurance companies may only pay for specific drugs, require co-pays, deductibles, etcetera - bottom line, the patient may still be stuck paying a huge cost if they want treatment.

In other developed countries, hepatitis C is considered a serious public health hazard, and the goal is to treat as many people as possible to reduce spread of the disease. These countries negotiated a contract with the manufacturer to make the drug available to everyone in their national health plans. While in the US, the drug is in some cases being denied to those still using drugs, according to HepatitisAustralia There are no restrictions applied to people who inject drugs as they are a priority population for hepatitis C treatment. Also people in prison are a priority population for hepatitis C treatment. Contrast that to the US, where those who are at high risk are less likely to receive treatment (thus continuing the spread of the disease).

While the profiteering of the US system encourages innovation (in some cases to the point of promoting quackery), it is not so well engineered for preventing the spread of contagious disease (in this case, hepatitis C). Innovation still occurs in other countries - researchers in the UK are claiming the new medicines are based on their work. In India, the drug was licensed to about twelve generic manufacturers for distribution within the country. Meanwhile, rather than the drug being distributed to prevent the spread of disease in the US, it is going to those who can afford it, and being rationed to the most desperate cases in public health programs. Obamacare is still a work in progress.

Got a hall pass?

I could have renewed my passport at the US consulate in Sydney faster than it would be processed in the US, but I didn't think of it until last minute. So I felt oddly trapped in the US when I had to mail in my passport for renewal. It's back now, and I'm free to leave the US, and free to stay in Australia as a permanent resident. The new ones have a thicker cover, but it still seems like cardboard, and don't know how it will wear if I stuff it in my pants pocket like the old one.