Disqus - Latest Comments for skewz

Re: 'Harry Potter' Actress' Brother Sentenced in Her 'Honor Beating' - FoxNews.com

skewz — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:30:24 -0000

Ironically, her Bangladeshi family was liberated by India in the 1970s from tyrannical Pakistani Punjabi rule. Now, this woman's brother show his gratitude by beating her for dating an Indian. None of the above is surprising.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:31:45 -0000

sorry, mean to say if the individual mandate is not constitutional then the entire tax code is in question. the supreme court is extremely partisan at this point, so it may get struck down. but i am confident that then an alternative tax incentive could simply be created. though this one seems straightforward enough.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:30:14 -0000

again, if you can strike down the individual "mandate" then you the VA court should have struck down our entire tax code.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:28:32 -0000

actually, very much not. though the component of the legislation is referred to as the "individual mandate," it's not exactly that. you simply can't claim your individual tax exemption if you don't have health insurance. In other words, if you don't have insurance, the government won't grant you the deduction. That's very different from being "forced" to buy health insurance. Sure, the incentives make it better for you to do that directly, but you have an option. Now, there were some amendments proposed that may have altered this, but in it's proposed form; this is how the mandate would work.

the legistlation would also give employers the option to simply allow their employees to select insurance from a general market and then subsidize the insurance at a rate that they are comfortable with. It puts the employee/patient much closer to the economics of medicine.

finally, you begin to address the massive and problematic free rider problem.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:57:04 -0000

http://www.crowleypolitical...

- Allen West backed her up enthusiastically. Will find a few more examples for ya.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:51:10 -0000

was there violence associated with the implementation of social security or medicare? yes, it may be a big deal, but the way to resolve it is to gain power...peacefully.

regarding ballots/bullets: http://floridaindependent.c...

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2716327979

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:51:57 -0000

I think there is a lot of false equivalency going on. A few points:

1. liberals were wrong to suggest that the killer was politically motivated at all

2. passionate political discourse has always been...well, passionate and colorful

3. however, evoking language like the right has with suggestions of "second amendment remedies" is a turning point. folks in leadership (not the fringe) suggesting violence as a remedy is a bit rich...even for the right. don't get me wrong, the left has done it too, but right now; the right seems to be making the case more strongly than we've seen in a while.

4. suggesting "bullets when ballots fail" seems to show less of a commitment to the constitution than the right so colorfully likes to profess. of course, never mind that they'd like to make all sorts of amendments to the constitution as well.

5. usually, violence is advocated by those outside of the system (even outside the sitting opposition). but, bizarrely; the right seems to do it from within the power structure with folks like Allen West and rep. King making allusions to "second amendment remedies."

6. yes, such language has been used in the past. there have been tumultuous times in our history. but, this is not one of them. do we really need a civil war over health care? really!? do we need riots in every urban center? do we want to create the next equivalent of the black panthers? in terms of interests at stake, we've mixed politics as sport, reality tv, entertainment, and TRUE reality all together here. i don't perceive anything at stake that is significant enough to advocate "second amendment remedies" that you can't wait for the next election to fix.

7. history has taught us that words do matter. just look at rawanda or the instigation of any riot in the third world.

8. it's a bit odd that those who want "relief" from the federal government are the ones most dependent on it. red states are essentially subsidies entities. their continued status on the dole is a fairer debate.

9. gun control shouldn't be considered off the table for discussion by fiat. Calfornia's stricter laws have shown that such laws can have an impact...even in as lawless an environment as CA.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2678342724

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:19:40 -0000

;-)

sure, i had to get reacquainted with your writings

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2713709288

skewz — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:49:11 -0000

it's part of his man's man image remake effort.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2678342724

skewz — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:18:15 -0000

I believe Reagan signed into law the ban against fully automatic weapons for the civilian market. He also signed a ban on "cop killing" bullets into law. The right wants us to live in a world that is "up-armed" in a way that Pakistan was in the late 1980s. I'm not sure I want to live where there is such massive distrust and anxiety that everyone must be armed to the hilt to be able to walk around at relative ease. The right is using this tragedy to suggest that there should be even greater gun ownership and that the very problem that guns enable is best solved by more of the same. Empirically, the number of mass shootings has gone up substantially since the ban on automatic weapons expired.

Having personally seen gun laws save a life, I could not disagree more with the notion that these laws are not effective. I know of one life that was directly saved by such laws. The chronic attempt by the right to dismiss and chill debate suggests absolutes that have not been pressure tested and actually don't stand up to the data. No one has said gun ownership should be banned. However, the fact that discussion is so quickly dismissed is unfortunate.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/2520804918

skewz — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 21:58:48 -0000

I am *assuming* that Tucker Carlson was using the Vick controversy to slam Obama given Obama foolishly waded into the debate by suggesting it was good that the Eagle's gave Vick a second chance. A more optimistic perspective might be that this was an emotional response since Carlson is a bona fide animal rights supporter.

Re: Key Test Vote in Senate for 9/11 Health Bill

skewz — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 17:52:52 -0000

let's call a spade a spade. this was blocked by the GOP for months. first it was just part of the filibuster everything strategy and then they held it (and the first responders) hostage for the tax cuts. the GOPpers didn't even show up for the committee hearings on this topic through the year. classy!

Most conservatives just want to see firefighters who are union members suffer. That's the true heart and intent of the right.

Re: Senate Faces Historic Vote on Military Gay Ban

skewz — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:03:55 -0000

Must be mostly a generational thing. Old people - especially baby boomers - seem like a generation that is completely unable to adapt.

Re: MEA summons US diplomat over frisking of Shankar - Hindustan Times

skewz — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:25:34 -0000

The pathetic indian caste system is alive and well. Hey Indians, EVERYONE here is treated equally. Senators get pat downs and a diplomat will too. The real issue here is indeed cultural. Thin skinned, easily offended Indians can't get out of their hyper hierarchical societal mindsets. The ambassador is JUST ANOTHER PERSON and SHOULD BE screened. GOOD FOR TSA!!!!! They didn't let this little elitist, entitled bureaucrat get her little spoiled brat way. These Indian politicians think they are royalty versus the people's servants. The need to come to the US to get chopped down a notch.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/561224249

skewz — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:06:19 -0000

Amen.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/526183027

skewz — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:58:39 -0000

Why is anyone shocked at how these folks are being marginalized. Weren't the war protesters marginalized. And for the ominous list of Obama transgressions this group of essentially Bush supporters seem to have an impressive capacity for self-pardoning behavior. Most of these folks are more on the dole than they realize and were in favor of a range of behaviors that led them to their chief complaints today. Obama list of "transgressions" seems a bizarre source of focus given the historical context.

Re: More on Gay Marriage

skewz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:21:24 -0000

Adrian asserts a social harm. What social harm would that be? What social harm has gay marriage created in countries in Europe where it is legal? I don't believe there is much evidence to point to. Similar arguments were made against interracial marriage (and I am sure a fair number of those against gay marriage are likely against interracial marriage as well to this day).

At its core this argument is deeply disturbing. It suggests that by virtue of certain individuals taking part in an institution that the institution is devalued. The suggested causal agent of this devaluation is the specific individual - a gay individual. Are gays a devaluing agent? And being a devaluing agent, does that imply that those individuals are less valuable members of society?

The weakness of the counterfeiting analogy is illustrative of the weakness of the entire argument against gay marriage. The perceived devaluation of marriage by those against gay marriage is a function of their discomfort with the notion of gay marriage versus the cheapening of the institution by way of it becoming "more common" or it's meaning becoming cheapened because more people could participate in it.

Constraining supply to make something more valuable may make sense for a business under certain conditions, but it seems to a difficult concept to digest when it comes to rights. Restricting voting rights prior to suffrage did, I suppose, increase the value of the right to vote because it was a rarer privilege, but I would imagine only a few people would argue that it would be good to maintain such a restriction. Similarly, few would argue that slavery should be maintained to enhance the value of the free. No, no one would make these arguments. Using the counterfeiting argument is extremely revealing. It suggests that the problem is not fundamentally with a change in an institution, but with people's perceptions of groups they believe should not be valued as highly as themselves. The perception that inclusion of these groups would cheapen an institution assumes that these groups are "polluting" agents. That line of thinking points more to the fundamental fears of individuals.

Re: The Mandate

skewz — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:48:04 -0000

Based on the principle of personal accountability, the implications for not having personal health insurance are probably not dire enough. Emergency rooms should likely have the right to refuse treatment to those that do not have coverage. As a society, that last option is not one we are willing to stomach. There is a clear free rider problem in the US with many millions of people forgoing health insurance though de facto getting substantial benefits.

With that in mind, a mandate similar to what exists in Germany forces everyone to pay for the benefits they are getting without paying for them today. I would argue that a better option would be to require *catastrophic* insurance or forgo access to emergency or other subsidized care. Forfeiture of prior medical bills may also be a reason for revoking access to care in the future.

In the end, the political calculation here is that in exchange for making fairly substantial cuts to Medicare (and yes, they are clearly in there) political cover in the form of universal coverage was needed. For universal coverage to work, you do need universal participation. I'm not sure how else it would work economically, but I am open to hearing other options. But again, the calculus was to give something cheaper away for something more expensive (Medicare cuts). That, I believe, was the trade off. The reduction in Medicare coverage and services is the main driver for this bill, and it is clear the GOP has taken an opportunity to take advantage of that.

As for the constitutionality of it all. The far right has an opportunity to reverse anything that might be passed given the court leans to the right these days.

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:57:37 -0000

Given this incident, what perspective to have you have on the Professor Gates arrest in Cambridge. Is being arrested in your own home for being an a**hole OK? Maybe it is. I honestly don't know what the threshold would be or what the criteria should be. For some reason it just doesn't seem right though.

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 17:21:13 -0000

The figure in terms of impact on individual family private insurance costs does vary significantly from state to state. The average is realistically lower than $1000 simply because many of the states with significant populations pass these indigent care costs off onto Medicaid or Medicare. So, I would not frame that as dishonesty because there is a Cleveland Clinic report that suggests the number is indeed closer to $1000. The Kaiser report was heavily impacted by their single payer markets where the demographic characteristics I described hold sway. But the argument still holds, and I may be missing your point in that it feels pretty linear to me. There is indeed a private insurance premium you pay to absorb the cost of indigent care. There is no dispute there. There is a dispute on amount, however. But, the taxpayer burden is still notable. And, the assertion that there is a free rider problem of approximately $1000 per private insurance paying individual (assuming that these individuals are also by virtue of having insurance very likely also net federal tax contributors) is still valid and true. The mechanism by which this notable free rider problem is paid varies, but in the end; the taxpayer still pays either through mis allocated taxes or higher insurance premiums. In addition, I am unclear and would welcome clarification on the adverse selection issue. This, again, seems to be solved by way of individual mandate.

My summary of the Obama plan is:
1. attempts to REDUCE Medicare benefits through panel-based protocols of evidence-based medicine - in other words, for X diagnosis; we are only going to pay for Y tests and procedures and for the rest you are on your own. This is done to correct that overly redistributive imbalance in what people pay in ($75K) versus what they get out ($180K) in a lifetime. Of course, that led to the death panel accusations which is equally dishonest. You can always get supplemental insurance and do whatever you want with the private practitioner of your choice.

2. attempts to correct for a free rider problem which does indeed exist. It also placates the left with universal coverage which is truly more about universal payment. Sufficiently high copays can deal with the "flood the market with indigent ingrates taking up all the appointments" problem. A fair argument to have here is whether there should be a mandate on CATASTROPHIC or comprehensive coverage. That indeed is a fair debate to address free rider issues.

3. The exchange/market place creates a mechanism by way true competition is reinserted in an arena where market forces have largely evaporated as a function of the employer-based insurance system. The public option has always been a negotiation chip. If there was truly a desire to inflict singly payer government coverage than expanding Medicaid has always been the more logical and obvious choice. The public option also created a mechanism for the federal government to "regulate" through market intervention in an arena that has historically largely been regulated by the states.

I certainly wish this level of scrutiny and debate had gone on during the $700B Medicare Part D legislative process.

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:19:05 -0000

Yes. I am familiar with the Kaiser study. Obama's argument is flawed from the perspective of restricting the debate to health INSURANCE premium impacts. Yes, this is about $200 (and varies wildly by state) in California. One issue is that Medical takes much of the burden (more than an additional $1000 per Californian) and absorbs it. Thus, the data is misleading. The health INSURANCE costs that are directly absorbed are indeed much lower than Obama states, BUT the health CARE costs (that get absorbed elsewhere and not through private insurance premiums) do end up costing the average person nearly $1200. So, the free rider problem is indeed substantial and costly. But either way...and on a side note, practice panels and evidence based medicine MUST be part of any health care reform package. Medicare should only cover BASIC and catastrophic care. Seniors can get private insurance if they want more.

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:25:51 -0000

The silliness of Reason magazine's highly dogmatic argument still troubles me...not to mention because of their crass take-over of perfectly positive noun in the English language. Again, being able to go to an ER at any time and be treated with no questions asked does have inherent value that no one is paying for. That is a free rider problem. Simply having the capability to perform that social function has inherent costs and it's high time someone start paying for them. An honest debate is to determine whether we should require everyone who has insurance to where bracelets that say they've paid into the system. If you don't have such a form of ID, you die on the ER floor.

An interesting view on health reform from an esteemed economist in the space is: http://healthaffairs.org/bl...

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:19:01 -0000

Reason magazine continues to shock me for the lack of its namesake characteristic.

There is very real confusion between health CARE and health care INSURANCE.

The two are distinct.

Yes, younger healthier people are less costly to insure. But, insurance is inherently a redistribution mechanism. In property insurance, money is redistributed to people whose homes burn down from those whose homes did not. You can vary charges SOME degree between customers based on risk. BUT, price inelasticity of demand dictates that you are not going to fully be able to charge all the unique risk associated with that marginal customer to that customer individually and expand your business because you will exceed the market clearing price. Thus, insurance (wonderfully private car insurance included) do perform some degree of socialized (there, I said it) redistribution of risk. In addition, the current system works out quite a bit of adverse selection from the insurance companies (and besides, there are many mechanism to deal with adverse selection - 6 month waiting periods, etc. that exist today). Private health care insurance are already substantially buffered from the most unhealthy in society through Medicaid and Medicare for the very reason that these people are unprofitable to insure. We've left for the insurance companies those that are generally very likely to be profitable to insure. In addition, we as a society have decided that these "uninsurable" people should not be exposed to the market forces which would lead to a. death or b. suffering. We can revisit that if people like. Finally, a universal mandate inherently gets rid of adverse selection by pooling broader risk and removing the SELECTION part of adverse selection. That's the point.

Just because you are healthy does not mean you should not have insurance. The fact that you can go to an emergency room after being hit by a bus means you are conferred some value in the form of INSURANCE and that value is being given a way for free. Again, just having the option of going to any ER and being treated is an option that has value whether you ever get sick or not. A more legitimate debate would be whether people can just get catastrophic insurance or not. The thesis of this argument is departing from REASON and blurring into pure anti-Obama dogma.

If there is any dishonesty here, it's from the right with ever shifting positions. At least the Democrats were intellectually honest and consistent in their opposition to Bush's overhaul of social security (though they were wrong to oppose much needed reform). Remember, the GOP was FOR the individual mandate before they were AGAINST it.

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:24:36 -0000

Doesn't look like it's really the Democrats setting the precedent: http://www.politico.com/new...

Re: The Trunk

skewz — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:15:15 -0000

Let's hope the precedent being set is not a reversion to fist-a-cuff negotiations we used to have in the early 1800s. Decorum is meant to manage what is essentially a fight without having us devolve into barbaric behavior. Joe Wilson and his GOP cohorts (along with Democrats in 2005) are starting to push where that line stands. Many people have asserted a president's position is invalid or untrue during the 200+ history of the country...and they've done in better ways.